The National Review's Defense of Todd Blanche Is So Bad It's Confusing

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:09 Thomas: And welcome to Opening Arguments. This is Vapid Response. I think this is what, 35, I want to say. I'm Thomas.

0:00:15 Lydia: That's the one.

0:00:16 Thomas: That over there is real life attorney, Matt Cameron. How are you doing, Matt?

0:00:19 Matt: Guys hey you know that feeling when you just wake up and you know you're forgetting an important anniversary or date or something um

0:00:25 Thomas: I wish I knew I was forgetting something.

0:00:27 Lydia: I was going to say, yeah, Thomas.

0:00:27 Matt: Well I wish it were the important ones you know like my girlfriend's birthday but

0:00:32 Thomas: That blissful feeling of forgetting something and having no idea you forgot it. I

0:00:37 Matt: No, of course for me, it has to be Watergate. All day I was trying to remember what it was, that June 17th was, and it is actually now today.

0:00:43 Thomas: Didn't get Nixon anything.

0:00:46 Matt: It's okay. He had it all. It is the 54th anniversary of Watergate of the day that we are airing this. And actually the day they were recording it is the 54th Anniversary of the break -in, but technically Watergate was the actual discovery of the break -in. So here we are.

0:00:48 Thomas: Wait, Wait, what? How can it be both? Sorry. Now I'm confused.

0:01:05 Matt: It was all just one long event. They got caught pretty quickly and held, so that's how it is.

0:01:10 Lydia: Interesting.

0:01:10 Thomas: So is it the break -in or is it the he resigned one? Which is it?

0:01:14 Matt: Oh, he resigned in August of the next year, but the actual break - in, the catalyst, the plumbers and doing their dirty work. So we're going to talk a little bit about, just to take a little break from things, I found the worst possible take on Watergate from 1973. So we are going to enjoy this. Yeah, it's a fun one.

0:01:19 Thomas: Gotcha. The break -ins. Yeah. Wow.

0:01:29 Lydia: Hello.

0:01:29 Thomas: Good times. Yeah. And Lydia Smith, producer, how are you doing?

0:01:34 Lydia: I'm here too. I am doing pretty well. Oh. Oh no. I was going say sandwich stuff, but we're not talking gavel gavel. We're we're talking away. You guys don't care about my sandwiches.

0:01:41 Thomas: She's got so much sandwich stuff saved. Saved.

0:01:43 Matt: I always care about your sandwiches, Lydia, if

0:01:45 Thomas: Yeah. It's not,

0:01:46 Matt: You have a particularly good sandwich.

0:01:47 Lydia: Grilled cheese with avocado that I made myself and it was very delicious with some some flake salt at the end when it was all done. Yeah, yeah, it's good.

0:01:47 Thomas: It's not like, okay.

0:01:49 Matt: All right. That's legit.

0:01:56 Lydia: It's really tasty.

0:01:58 Thomas: All right. Okay. Yeah, sure. We'll say save that for the sandwich trial. No, it's, it's fine. Um, yeah, what are we going to be talking about in addition to, uh, Nixon and the worst take ever? And what else do we have?

0:02:04 Matt: And then we have a pretty bad take on coming back to our present times on Todd Blanche from the National Review. I knew this was going to happen, and I was hoping as of last week we'd get one, but we finally got the defense of Todd Blanche piece. It's more just an attack on the New York Times because that's a lot easier.

0:02:26 Thomas: What could the defense of Todd Blanch be? Hey, we're in favor of Todd Banch because fucking this is what it is now. Like there's no, there's not a defense of him in like an actual way. It'd be like, Like he's fine because now this is the time we're in where you do whatever. That's it.

0:02:42 Matt: But The defense is we want this. This is good and we want more of it. So yeah.

0:02:46 Thomas: That's incredible. Like they just, I really think that information works backwards. There's the demand for a take and then that gets filled. You know, there's no organic like process of the best ideas coming to light. The people on the internet demand certain ideas or money demand certain ideas and then those are found and then they're propagated by moneyed interests. So, uh, or just by the algorithm one, either way, not by merit, the whole stupid fucking, you know, free speech argument of like the best ideas will filter to the top. No, the fuck they won't.

0:03:21 Thomas: Not at all. The most billionaire backed bullshit or anxiety inducing, anger inducing panic inducing ideas. Those are the ones that will filter to the top we need to update our entire view of this and change the whole internet. Internet anyway that's what I say every show uh so but yeah it really is true all right well um we should go to our first quick break but of course we've got to thank our hall of famers our all -time greats the patrons that make this show happen we haven't done a shout out in a few weeks I'm I'm excited to do it the patrons at patreon.com/law these are the brilliant folks that pledge at that five dollar level and above and we say whatever they want us to say we'll say anything we'll say anything for money all And we'll start with the bottom third, but nobody's really up. This is the 1A, 1B, 1C. And if there were, you know, like 60 letters of the alphabet, it's that. Knobbling

0:03:51 Lydia: I know. It's true.

0:04:15 Matt: Still

0:04:15 Thomas: The jury helps me get off. That's one of the best.

0:04:19 Matt: Good.

0:04:20 Thomas: Rebecca, Eliza, my house is a mess, but I read a lot of books. Griff, the tired 1L. Matthew Cutler, autistic Twitch streamer, twitch.tv/MTC_streams gary the seagull how's gary doing matt is gary doing okay how are the seagles they still they still taking your lunch money are they still do we need to speak to the principal are you a principal seagul uh veterinary for america 2028 one man one vote unremarkable only 98 percent neanderthal protect trans kids my friend austin says hi he runs arch linux by the way wow don't know exactly what that means but that's awesome ham cookout alumni amina

0:04:34 Lydia: Gary. Wow. Wow, Matt.

0:04:35 Matt: Haven't heard from him recently. Got your beat.

0:04:56 Lydia: Oh, cool. Hi, Austin. In yeah

0:05:06 Thomas: Ah it's the best donna treadaway mother of heritage oh speaking of I don't Know if we should name names but ham cook out of course is a reference to I say of course only a few people know our uh our hangout we did where we played code names and it was a fantastic, uh, like the code names thing.

0:05:22 Thomas: But on that topic, uh, our hangout, uh. Also featured somebody who got married, right? It's like one of the guests that would come and say hi.

0:05:28 Lydia: And she she brought her uh when they were dating and and she said you need to you need to meet these people well no and then he came on because to introduce him to all of us to see if if we approved.

0:05:34 Thomas: She was like, hold on. I got to go get ready for a date. Yeah, yeah. And we vetted him. Yeah and now they're, they're getting married. See that's, that's that's fun. So just wanted to mention that. Congrats. Um, okay. Where did I leave off? How did I lose myself where was I here ham cookout oh yeah Mike Lapinsky now I see bees I won that's awesome I like that one cyanitis used to be a combination pizza and taco bell great preponderance of the evidence that's a classic last train to skanksville has watched the gamers at least a dozen times

0:05:44 Lydia: And it's so cute. Yeah.

0:05:44 Matt: Well, congrats.

0:05:54 Lydia: It was after Donna Treadway.

0:06:02 Matt: Okay. All right. Respect. Oh

0:06:16 Thomas: Wow Wow. There you go. And may it pleasure the court and may it pleasure. The court is good. And apprentice of adventure. Good times. Love those hall of famers. It's always fun reading the names, uh, and the shout outs, the classics, the ones that change all the time. So thanks so much. There'll be more of those at the breaks. Uh, we're going to take our first break and then get to it. Matt, why are we looking at an an old square TV. Man, remember when it used to be square? Why is it? Okay. Why was it square? Why is het rectangle now? What determines why we would like that? You know, we make the

0:06:18 Matt: I'm concerned about your brain. Yeah.

0:06:50 Thomas: Rules. It's interesting.

0:06:50 Lydia: It's a really good question.

0:06:51 Thomas: I guess widescreen corresponds more to like what our vision is kind of, but not really. Weird. Anyway, it's

0:06:51 Matt: This is standard view. So we're going vintage today with today's Amused Douche. This was, of course, one of our douchiest presidents, one Richard Milhouse Nixon. He is going to be giving a speech full of lies, not the first or last time that Richard Nixon gave a speechful of lies. But notably, this speech was April 30th from the White House, 1973, which is only 11 days after the piece we're about to read. So it's a pretty good way to set the tone. And I don't know how much you guys...

0:07:22 Lydia: Do you know who that bust is behind him?

0:07:24 Thomas: Lincoln, I think, right?

0:07:25 Lydia: Oh, that's Lincoln.

0:07:25 Matt: It does look like Lincoln. Yeah.

0:07:26 Thomas: Yeah, it took me a sec. I was kind of doing the same thing. And I was just thinking how funny it would it be would be if trump had like, a mask of somebody behind, like, this is such an old -timey set dressing, you know, the color is awful, and the,

0:07:37 Lydia: I feel like Trump would have a bust of himself, though, behind him.

0:07:40 Thomas: That's true, he really would, and is that a picture of his family, it looks like a stock photo in the background.

0:07:46 Matt: It's got to be his kids. Yeah,

0:07:48 Thomas: I don't know why. Cause that little thing that looks like, like a logo kind of, yeah.

0:07:47 Lydia: It does like a logo yeah

0:07:52 Thomas: He bought a frame and it had the stock photo in it from the store.

0:07:51 Matt: But just a reminder since this was 54 years ago, Watergate is one of my special interests, so I assume people know about it, but at this point, now Nixon has been reelected in a landslide. Only Massachusetts went blue, every other state in the country went red in 1972. So this was completely unnecessary. But of course, his team of dirty tricksters, the plumbers, had been getting up to some things, including breaking a Democratic headquarters in the Watergate Hotel. And he's going to tell you his events, his version of events about what he knew when, which is, of course going to be proven nine months later to be totally false because of the smoking gun tape that, you know, he was taping himself the whole time as we know. So I just wanted to set the stage by having Nick doesn't lie to us for a moment before we move on.

0:08:38 Thomas: Back when lies were like more thought out, you know, it's, I really appreciate, you know, today's lies are just so lazy. Like lie to me, you know, and show me that you care.

0:08:42 Matt: And flagrant.

0:08:48 Thomas: Yeah. Like show me that you are. And you care about what I think and you care about what the truth is that famous distinction from the on bullshit little treatise. That's It's like the difference between a bullshitter and a liar, you know, is the liar actually knows the truth and is trying to, like, conceal it, whereas the bullshiter, which is Trump, just says fucking whatever, like it doesn't even correspond to truth in any way.

0:08:48 Lydia: Like you mean it yeah yeah yeah

0:08:49 Matt: Whatever works. That's right. And he

0:09:09 Thomas: Oh, it started with an exterior shot. I like it.

0:09:06 Lydia: Right oh well I like that

0:09:11 Thomas: Oh, wait. Oh, no. Okay. That's that. Wait. Okay. Yeah. Miller Center. That would have been really funny, which

0:09:13 Lydia: It's not like a sitcom like

0:09:20 Clip: I want to talk to you tonight from my heart on a subject of deep concern to every American. In recent months, members of my administration and officials of the Committee for the Re -Election of the President, including some of my closest friends and most trusted aides, have been charged with involvement in what has come to be known as the Watergate Affair. These include charges of illegal activity during and preceding the 1972 presidential election, and charges that responsible officials participated in efforts to cover up that illegal activity. The inevitable result of these charges has been to raise serious questions about the integrity of the White House itself.

0:09:24 Thomas: I don't have. Wow. They were more wiggly back then.

0:10:10 Clip: Tonight I wish to address those questions. Last June 17, while I was in Florida trying to get a few days rest after my visit to Moscow, I first learned from news

0:10:17 Thomas: Teleprompters really made faking something from the heart easier, huh? He's like I would like to speak from the the heart the heart I would like to speaking from the heart uh to you it's like teleprompters really made that easier to fake

0:10:36 Clip: Reports of

0:10:36 Matt: Was such a better president than most presidents of the 20th century.

0:10:38 Clip: The Watergate break -in. I was

0:10:40 Thomas: That's the thing is like he really was the word like it's shocking how bad he was in reality but like still better than now

0:10:48 Matt: I'm going to tell you, I have an episode ready to go on the blessed day when we're going to shut everything down and start drinking. And we're gonna tell you within hours of the death of Donald Trump about why Trump was actually categorically the worst president. And Nixon's going to come out looking pretty good in that comparison, I got to tell you. But the rubric I'm using, he did some bad things, but he was really good at being president in a lot of ways. And including this one, he's actually a pretty good speaker.

0:11:04 Thomas: I mean he did some bad things but yeah it's

0:11:14 Matt: Maybe at the time he was convincing people, I don't know. But yeah, right.

0:11:18 Thomas: Hard to judge now because it just seems meaningless now like things things have evolved so much, you know, that this is just like, all right, whatever. But I'm sure back then it was, it came across better, but yeah, no, I don't know about, I Don't know about him coming across well, but, but relative to Trump, I suppose.

0:11:31 Matt: He's very serious, very

0:11:31 Clip: Appalled at this senseless, illegal action, and I was shocked to learn that employees of the re -election committee were apparently among those guilty. I immediately ordered an investigation by appropriate government authorities. On September 15, as you will recall, indictments were brought against seven defendants in the case.

0:11:33 Matt: Serious. So quick note on that point, what's the opposite of ordering an investigation because that's what he did.

0:11:56 Clip: As the investigations

0:12:00 Thomas: Being ordered to have an investigation, ordering, not an investigation. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

0:12:06 Matt: Ordering an obstruction. He ordered an obstruction, that was what he ordered. He tried to get the CIA to stop the FBI from investigating the break -in. He was trying to save his national security because the FBI was about to figure out that the check in a burglar's account went straight to his re -election finance chairman. And that's one of the many things we learned from the smoking gun case that came later. And I sincerely believe that Nixon did not know they were going to break in Democratic Party headquarters. I think these were just a bunch of fools. But he immediately got going on the cover up within days. That took him down.

0:12:36 Thomas: That's the the thing this is the origin of the cover -up is worse than the crime right I mean this is because like he didn't I was doing some research on that for something I was talking about the other month and I was like oh yeah I couldn't remember like how much he knew about it you know and it really does seem like he did it's not like he was part of the planning of this like he didn't know about it but then the it's sort of like well a criminal is as a criminal does I guess like the minute there was something he was like all right let me use everything in my power to to cover this up to the point where it's like yeah you kind of lose all credibility there

0:12:38 Matt: That's right. That is right. Yeah. Yeah, no.

0:13:05 Matt: Now, I will say he did know about the Ellsberg. Daniel Ellsburg, the person who leaked the Pentagon Papers, they broke into his psychiatrist's office because they wanted to try to discredit him. And that was worse, actually, than breaking in Democratic party headquarters to try try to get some kind of vintage in an election. He definitely knew about that, at least at the time. All right, let's listen to a few more lies just so we can set the stage here.

0:13:24 Clip: Went forward, I repeatedly asked those conducting the investigation whether there was any reason to believe that members of my administration were in any way involved. I received repeated assurances that there were not. Because of these continuing reassurances because I believe the reports I was getting because I had faith in the persons from whom I was getting them I discounted the stories in the press that appeared to implicate members of my administration or other officials of the campaign committee until March of this year I remain convinced that the denials were true and that the charges of involvement by members of the White House staff were false.

0:13:32 Thomas: To do a real good job wow

0:14:20 Clip: The comments I made during this period, the comments made by my press secretary in my behalf, were based on the information provided to us at the time we made those comments.

0:14:35 Matt: Provided to us.

0:14:36 Clip: However, new information then came to me which persuaded me that there was a real possibility that some of these charges were true and suggesting further that there had been an effort to conceal the facts both from the public from you and from me as a result on March 21st I personally assumed the responsibility for coordinating intensive new inquiries into the matter and I personally ordered those conducting the investigations to to get all the facts and to report them directly to me.

0:15:09 Matt: Sorry. This is the part that really cracked me up when I heard him actually say this out loud. It just made me laugh again because March 21, 1973 is a particularly important time in Watergate history. That was the day that basically they decided they're going to have to to pay everybody off, and there's nothing they could do about it. John Dean, his attorney in White House counsel, comes to him and says, this is the famous cancer on the presidency tape, and that the burglars are looking for about a million dollars. And Nixon right up, Nixon is like, I can get a million in cash. We can get this done. So I guess if you want to call that personally ordering those conducting the investigations to get all the facts, then and intensive new inquiries, it's

0:15:53 Thomas: I thought the facts cost a million dollars I thought they were going to deliver me the facts I thought that's what they were going through yeah

0:16:00 Matt: Pretty good next, pretty solid. Yeah.

0:16:02 Thomas: I just yeah he sort

0:16:04 Matt: So need to hear any more of that, but I just wanted to, again, anybody who knows Watergate, but even if you don't know Watergate everything he just said is a lie. He knew what was going on from the first days of Watergate. He was just trying to pay everybody off and he was actually orchestrating this, he was not being lied to. So it just is.

0:16:21 Lydia: He was definitely like portraying himself as a very passive person, right? Like things were just happening to him and, you know, and eventually someone brought information to him and that changed his mind here and there.

0:16:25 Matt: Yes, these things that happened to me. That's right.

0:16:33 Lydia: You're the president of the United States, my guy.

0:16:32 Thomas: So, So you're doing the Vincent LaGuardia Gambini. Everything that guy is saying is bullshit. But yeah, it is funny because you still could not imagine this today. It would be funny to do a Donald Trump does Watergate but it also wouldn't be particularly good because it would just be the same shit. He's done 80 Watergates. It would just Be like, oh, that's not true. They did a Watergate.

0:16:59 Lydia: Fake news.

0:17:00 Thomas: Done. Yeah. You're a liar. That's not True. You did it. You Did the Watergate? Okay, sure. So boring.

0:17:00 Matt: Considered to be the biggest scandal up to Watergate. And in a way, it was was actually worse than Watergate, but

0:17:17 Thomas: I did hashtag remember the Teapot Dome scandal. I changed my background to like a teapot. You know, I did. Nobody else is doing it, but yeah, I don't

0:17:24 Lydia: Hashtag never forget. Yeah, no.

0:17:26 Matt: Yeah, that's true. All right. Well, we can move on to William Sapphire, who was one of Nixon's primary speechwriters. You know, William Sapphir, are you guys familiar with this name?

0:17:35 Thomas: Think so.

0:17:35 Matt: I actually grew up reading him a lot because he wrote a lot about the English language and I'm a huge English language nerd. He had a whole column about words and English that I loved. And I had some of his books growing up because I was like a budding conservative as a kid. And so he was a Nixon speechwriter, a pretty reasonable guy all around, But this was his second column for the New York Times. He left Nixon to become a New York Times columnist.

0:17:35 Thomas: It's a great name.

0:17:57 Matt: And it is a whopper. This is really an incredible piece of art. This is an artifact, I will say.

0:18:04 Matt: This column from... This is April 18th. So we're talking, yep, just weeks before the speech you just saw. Comeback Time by William Safire. Let's see see where this is going.

0:18:09 Thomas: This one. Yeah. This is an old, uh, clipping. So the formatting is rough, but I think it's big enough. If I zoom in more, it's like you get one line at a time.

0:18:21 Matt: I can see. Sure. So this is from Times Machine, of course. This is the New York Times archives, and we're checking out this column. Let's give it a read.

0:18:24 Lydia: You're gonna be scrolling like crazy. The president did it his way.

0:18:33 Thomas: He did it his way. That wouldn't have it until next week or whatever

0:18:35 Lydia: He did not stand in front of the cameras bruised and embittered, apologizing about Watergate, saying he was misled by his subordinates, or otherwise pushing an alibi.

0:18:47 Thomas: Holy

0:18:48 Matt: This is why I wanted to watch this first, right?

0:18:49 Thomas: Crap this is right wow that's embarrassing I

0:18:53 Lydia: He neither submitted to cross -examination nor requested television time for a long explanation. Instead, he wrote out his announcement, read it in a cold, stern voice, and left no doubt that he had stepped up to the situation and engaged it frontally. Frontally? The reaction is one of relief. Supporters of the president are happy to see him take charge and take action. Critics of the President feel profoundly satisfied about their vigorous pursuit of the Watergate affair, but not many of them want to see the presidency itself splattered with mud. A few will gloat, quote, I told you so, and by their misreading of the public mind will help rally opinion behind the president. I was like stuck on that one. Mr. Nixon has credentials as an investigator, long unused but still valid. Like Thomas E. Dewey, that is how he first came on the scene. When this generation's version of the pumpkin papers was laid before him, the president switched from loyalist

0:19:08 Thomas: Doubt it pumpkin papers

0:19:46 Lydia: To pursuer. Yeah, what are the pumpkin paper?

0:19:47 Thomas: The hell is that I

0:19:47 Matt: So that was the Alger Hiss affair in which Hiss...

0:19:51 Lydia: Who's Alger Hiss?

0:19:52 Matt: Oh, man.

0:19:53 Lydia: I don't know anything.

0:19:53 Thomas: Know that name but yeah what

0:19:54 Matt: Actually, Actually, we might have to do some Alger Hiss for Gabble Gabble because those transcripts exist. And Alger Hoss, it's an incredible story, actually. It's one of the most interesting stories in the law of that era. But he was a suspected.

0:20:06 Thomas: Era I can't I know the name but I can I actually can't place any of this

0:20:09 Matt: So Nixon, while he was in Congress, was kind of the lead prosecutor or I guess whatever you'd call it, but investigator who ran these hearings and was very involved in trying to cross -examine Hiss. But Hiss was suspected of being a communist, like an actual communist who's passing things along. And I'm trying to remember the name of his contact, but he allegedly had left some papers for somebody in a pumpkin.

0:20:31 Matt: It seems like, yeah, if you want to get gross stuff all over your papers, that's a great way to... That's pretty gross.

0:20:31 Thomas: The pumpkin papers okay so

0:20:37 Lydia: I try to carve pumpkins every year and I regret it every year because ants always swarm.

0:20:37 Thomas: It's very literal that's not yeah yeah but it's the last place you'd

0:20:42 Lydia: Form.

0:20:42 Thomas: Look it's the last piece you'd like for some secret communist papers so I think he's a genius then he lights the candle for the Jack shit ah damn it on fire what

0:20:48 Lydia: Oh, that's funny. His

0:20:43 Matt: That's right. Yeah? Yeah, but I actually think, of course, I think a lot of this is already on video, but it would be fun to do some of this as gavel gavel. Because the Whitaker Chambers versus Alger Hiss thing of like, is he or isn't he a spy? Is Chambers telling the truth? He was a former communist who came out and said that he knew for sure that this guy was a communist spy. But there is an irony here, of coarse, that he went hard after this, after this corruption of the government, what he thought was corruption of government. And now Sapphire is saying the president switched from loyalist to pursuer. Let's keep going.

0:21:20 Lydia: Statement, quote, I condemn any attempts to cover up, was forceful and positive, the appropriate tone for the first concession statement he has had to make since 1962. Mr. Nixon showed he has learned a lot in a decade. Contrary to Churchill's admonition.

0:21:35 Thomas: Did he run for in 1962 he runs for something well

0:21:39 Matt: California, he was definitely, yeah, it was like his first dirty tricks campaign. He rinsed against the women.

0:21:45 Thomas: Yeah cuz he so he was vice -president they ran president lost the JFK and then we must have runs what do you run for governor or something in 1962

0:21:52 Matt: He was in California state politics briefly. Yeah, I

0:21:55 Lydia: Contrary to Churchill's admonission, he is neither magnanimous in victory nor defiant in defeat, but he has often shown himself to be a tower of strength in a crisis. Watergate is not a significant defeat ,but it was developing into one, and the president moved in the nick of time. Plenty of juicy headlines and personal tragedies lie ahead. Once a case begins to break, it breaks wide open. And when the president joins the press, the courts, and the Senate in getting to the bottom of something, we can expect to hit new bottoms every day. A few points to keep in mind as the cloud named Watergate finally begins to burst.

0:22:09 Thomas: Wow he did save that whole thing okay yeah

0:22:30 Lydia: Why?

0:22:30 Matt: Tone here where he's like, it's great this Watergate thing is going to be all behind us any day now, but also here's some problems, we got some real issues.

0:22:32 Thomas: Weird

0:22:38 Lydia: Okay. So this, number one, we was wrong. W -U -Z. Why did he do that?

0:22:41 Matt: I don't know. Probably some comic book thing from the time.

0:22:47 Lydia: Our political enemies and media critics from Larry Barry O 'Brien and Frank Mankiewicz to the Washington Post's Ben Bradley. Wait, Ben Bradley, who became the is that the guy from Spotlight? The no.

0:22:59 Thomas: Oh

0:23:01 Matt: Yes, I believe it is. He was a very long career in journalism, yeah.

0:23:06 Lydia: And Philip Galen were right to keep the heat on the water gate.

0:23:11 Thomas: Yeah it was 1962 california gubernatorial election by the way interesting I

0:23:17 Lydia: We who worked at the White House who were certain that nobody at a responsible level could be so stupid now appear likely to be proven mistaken. Dakin. Hats off to you fellows for hanging in there, which is more than any of you ever said to any of us when the president's bombing of Hanoi brought the North Vietnamese back to the negotiating table. Why can I never admit a mistake graciously, he puts in parentheses.

0:23:35 Matt: Great question, Bill. But I do appreciate that he's starting out by saying, hey, you guys were right, Watergate maybe was a big deal. And just because we worked there, we thought we knew everything. But comparing it to the media not accepting that it was good to bomb the shit out of North North Vietnam. I think that's a little strange, but yeah.

0:23:56 Lydia: All right, Matt, how do I, how in the world do I say this word?

0:23:59 Matt: Dostos legend, I think.

0:24:01 Thomas: Didn't

0:24:03 Lydia: No Dutch, Dutch legend can be made out of the Watergate. I apologize to everybody listening.

0:24:06 Matt: So that is the famous stabbed in the back myth. And as soon as I saw this, I was like, you've been spending too much time with G. Gordon Liddy. That's what's happening here. G. Gordan Lidday was an actual Nazi, an actual Hitler enthusiast. He liked to listen to Hitler records, just like hang out and have people listen to Hillary speeches because he thought he was cool.

0:24:22 Thomas: Know hitler made some records made some albums yeah

0:24:24 Matt: He cut some wax, yeah. But yeah, so I just think why use the German? Maybe at the time people were more familiar with Nazi history and would recognize that word, but the stab in the back myth is what we call it now that the Germans, including Hitler, used to sort of perpetuate this idea that they didn't have to lose World War I and it was the Jews and communists that did them in.

0:24:33 Lydia: Gotcha there was no quote stab in the back that changed the course of history in any of this mr nixon would have swamped mr mcgovern with no help from zealots and indeed the watergate incident provided democrats with their only useful 1972 campaign issue number three not every hard

0:24:55 Thomas: That's true I like this old timey stuff like I don't I don'T I got nothing on that not

0:25:08 Lydia: I would read that and I'd be like, I don't know what that means. Not every hardball is a beanball.

0:25:12 Thomas: Every hardball is a beanball I

0:25:15 Matt: Beanballs, I wanted to hit you in the head, right? Why do I know that?

0:25:16 Thomas: Guess yeah I was trying that's what I was thinking but not every hard okay so yeah yeah I think that's where it's going for yeah

0:25:19 Matt: I feel like I know old -timey sports stuff.

0:25:17 Lydia: Is that what that is? Interesting. Let's wait and see if a connection is proven between the Watergate crime and other political activity that may be shady but is not criminal. Let's also watch out for ex post facto morality, condemning tactics in the most recent campaign that were tacitly condoned in other campaigns. We would be better off without such, quote, hardball, but we should not pretend it never existed.

0:25:43 Matt: He knows there's a lot more bad stuff that's going to be coming out about Richard Nixon. And I think he must. He was in the Nixon White House for years. He as a speechwriter.

0:25:44 Thomas: He does know it how would he oh okay

0:25:53 Lydia: Privy to some of the conversations.

0:25:55 Matt: Also, there's really funny irony in all this too, because it turned out that William Safaree was one of these 17 people that Nixon was having wiretapped the whole time. So this guy is defending him and being like, oh

0:26:02 Thomas: He was the most paranoid person ever which is really interesting oh

0:26:11 Lydia: And number four, beware of linkage. The word in this unfolding story that should concern civil libertarians is, quote linked so -and -so linked to Watergate linked by what linked according to who's sworn firsthand testimony. God, that reads like such right wing talking points like these days. Wow.

0:26:25 Thomas: That feels so familiar yeah yeah yeah

0:26:28 Matt: Where's the police report?

0:26:30 Lydia: Yeah.

0:26:30 Matt: I haven't seen a police report. But yeah, also it turned out a lot of things were linked to Watergate because there are a lot of really shady people involved in Watergate that were doing lots of those shady things.

0:26:40 Lydia: Interesting. In the long run, the experience of swinging wide the Watergate should prove to be uplifting. In future campaigns, some idiot may be found stuffing a suitcase full of laundered credit cards, but such behavior would be treated as aberrant and of worse, impractical. It's worse

0:26:57 Matt: Some idiot might openly solicit Russia for help, and we all know that won't work out for him.

0:27:03 Lydia: As we flip over this flat rock we call politics americans of different parties and ideologies now do so together thanks to the president's action this week

0:27:13 Thomas: Yeah he's really he's a uniter I

0:27:15 Lydia: We need not don a mantle of national guilt if we see something scurrying around political standards are getting higher Okay. Which is something to be proud of.

0:27:23 Thomas: Mean it's kind of true yeah

0:27:25 Lydia: Yeah. Which is something not ashamed of. And as we make dirty politics too costly a game to play, cleaning the stables

0:27:25 Thomas: Back then oh

0:27:33 Matt: No, that's one of the labors of Hercules, cleaning out the stables.

0:27:34 Thomas: That's the yeah yeah

0:27:39 Lydia: Becomes a snap. This is not a tragic moment for Mr. Nixon, nor a sad day for democracy. On the contrary, for people who want all presidents to succeed, this is a moment to take heart. For all players in the game of politics, as well as for Richard Richard Nixon, this is comeback time. And when it comes to comebacks, the world's leading expert has just made his appearance on the right side of the Watergate investigation.

0:28:01 Thomas: Yeah what a good final line man

0:28:01 Matt: Everything's coming up nixon yeah yeah no and this is again like in that speech that we watched the beginning he's going to announce that John Dean white house counsel is being fired the attorney general is being hired both of his major uh aides holdeman and ehrlichman are being fired because they were all involved and he knew it and in the speech that the sapphire is talking about it was a very short thing I couldn't actually find video of it but nixon basically just stood up and was like yeah watergate was bad we're gonna do something about it and that's what he said

0:28:30 Thomas: That is my least favorite kind of writing though sorry this is my this is my tangent like all of those people look down on people who quote the Simpsons or references or whatever like that this is the same thing but it's only like measured as smarter because it's more obscure like it's not like the herculean story of how he had to clean out the the stables it's not some high art like it's just you have to be more learned to have come across it and remember the name of it or something it's all these ways of signaling how smart you are that these columnists you know even to this day they still do that

0:29:04 Lydia: I was going to say it's a very right wing thing, too. I think we've talked about some of that.

0:29:07 Thomas: It's both it's this is it's also it's mainstream like this is like trying to appear and signal how smart you are and it's funny because at the end of the day it's still just making a reference like people are like oh oh, references, what a, it's still just a reference, but you're referencing a thing that like is you need to have been more educated to hear about, but it isn't better. It's still just referencing. Oh yeah. He had a clean, this, this superhero he had one time he had this Superman guy. He was really strong. He had to clean the stables and he found a way to do it because they're, they're so hard to clean. It was like redirected the river or something. If I vaguely remember what it was like, is that better? That's just Marvel. You're just talking about Marvel shit. You're Just quoting a superhero movie. Anyway.

0:29:43 Lydia: If it wasn't in.

0:29:42 Matt: Even worse, you're directly referencing a thing that caused the worst genocide in human history, the stab of the bath maths in the original German. Good job.

0:29:53 Thomas: That too yeah yeah yeah

0:29:57 Matt: Great. Very proud of you, William Sapphire.

0:29:57 Thomas: You're either more learned or more nazi one of yeah that's

0:30:00 Lydia: I think all things come down to white supremacy, though. Like, basically, that's that's what we learned there. I

0:30:03 Thomas: True that's truth

0:30:03 Matt: Fair. But if you don't like that, Thomas, I'm going to go ahead and say you're not going to appreciate William Sapphires other writing. You might not even like it.

0:30:10 Lydia: Was going to ask Matt,

0:30:11 Matt: He's a lot like that.

0:30:11 Lydia: Did did he write anything after Nixon was found out and all of this stuff? Like, did he right a piece being like my bad or anything or did he just kind of pretend like nothing ever happened? And okay that's

0:30:21 Matt: I think that he did become more and more anti -Nixon and anti -Watergate. I couldn't find anything that was like a straight up mea culpa, but yeah,

0:30:27 Thomas: Well one thing that blew my mind is how much um yeah I believe it was this but I remember when we were watching some sort of documentary uh it was like bush senior and reagan like completely defended him reagan completely defended himself and he was like no price and is elected president in 1980 it's like that that I didn't know that and it really like it was around trump won when I came across that and I it sort of just put into like the pattern a little more like oh okay the right does do this where it's Like they just they're way more extreme than we know or care because it's impossible to keep it all in perspective like we're always trying to normalize them and then you look and actually through history it's It's like, oh no, they're really extreme all the time openly and we don't even credit them for it. Like we don'T even like, like give them the, the, um, benefit of, of thinking they're telling the truth about themselves. You know, it's crazy.

0:30:43 Lydia: Crazy yeah

0:31:30 Matt: Well, I don't know if you're familiar with this, but there's been a conspiracy theory for years since Watergate that the CIA did him in, that he was framed. I don't know how they got him on tape saying those things, but one of the prosecutors, Jeff Shepard, actually wrote, I actually read it because I'm a masochist, but The Nixon Conspiracy, he wrote out exactly how it was framed. It's an interesting read, but I didn't really buy it. And that is kind of coming up with the MAGA people again. They're kind of getting into this idea that maybe Nixon wasn't so bad and that the CIA framed him and he's a deep state victim like Trump. Yeah, it's the only way it can work.

0:31:59 Lydia: Weird.

0:32:04 Matt: So there you go. There's a happy Watergate -iversary.

0:32:03 Thomas: Man. Go ahead. All right. Well, we've got got to take our second break here and uh thank our second batch of patrons which is uh so fun to do I'm excited to read some more names here we go thank you to Probably a real person nick fish Vincent LaGuardia Gambini Attorney at Law that's the only reason I can remember that name is this patron now A Negative Phenomenon Bears, Beets, Battlestar Galactica (You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (To Ex Parte) Jaysank vehicular man's laughter inadvertently inducing interest in imminent improvised in -person invitations.

0:32:39 Thomas: David Souther, my vote for most arrogant Supreme Court justice is Roberts, who is so far up his own ass, he thinks his shit is all neutral. That's, man, I don't know, though. Maybe. There's an argument. I see the argument. But like, I feel like arrogance is, like, can you be privately arrogant? Or, I mean, I guess you can be, but is it worse to be more publicly arrogant? I guess, which is worse? You know what I mean? If you pretend to be more humble, but you think everything you do is the greatest. Yeah, I don't know. It's an interesting philosophical distinction.

0:33:11 Lydia: Well, maybe that patron will continue their argument beyond this thesis every single week. They'll just like give you.

0:33:16 Thomas: It's a good argument. I don'T know if I ultimately agree, but it's definitely a worthwhile argument. Two Taint Todd in the federal cuck chair.

0:33:25 Thomas: Today's episode is brought to you by the letter. Cavalry, Thomas Freeman, Cajunkilla, Fraud Fishy Hates Everything. Everything chris simpson Worst timeline ever! Anonymous akilah and mark schultz thank you so much to our second batch of hall of famers we'll take a break and then we'll carry on guys uh national review defending todd blanche but it says blanche in the new york times what's that about yeah

0:33:51 Matt: The new york times a few days after we did came out pretty hard on todd blanchard after listening to our episode on friday I assume

0:33:57 Thomas: They just copy us yeah

0:33:58 Matt: Yeah you know it's fine it's fun the entire editorial board we should probably just pull that up so we know what they're responding to real quick we don't have to read it it includes a lot of very obvious points but the entire New York editor New York Times editorial board took it upon itself to say, Todd Blanche is unfit for office. And there's a fantastic picture of him also.

0:33:58 Lydia: New york times and john oliver yep I know I was gonna say I love the photo that they chose for this I think that's so good

0:34:18 Matt: Really not flattering. Yeah, yeah.

0:34:18 Thomas: The shadow yeah it's very interesting he

0:34:21 Matt: But yeah, they hit the high points on why nobody with his record should be confirmed and how he's already proven that he shouldn't be running DOJ.

0:34:29 Thomas: Shouldn't be walking free like these people need to be in prison somebody run on imprison them all lock them all up please god somebody somebody run on that yeah

0:34:31 Matt: Speaking of Nixon, that worked out pretty well with John Mitchell. There were actually consequences for the Attorney General for participating in the the Watergate cover up. And he's done so many things, as you've said by now, that are worse than the Watergate cover up, including came out actually after we talked about it. But did you see that New York Times report about the fact that he, no surprise, but Todd Blanche was driving the idea of getting Ghislaine Maxwell out there on the record. And his original idea was that he could do like a televised interview with her, or somebody could.

0:35:04 Matt: And I guess eventually he took on the job himself.

0:35:05 Lydia: Paused

0:35:06 Thomas: Yeah, so that was the headline. I actually hadn't had a chance to read it, but it was about like the memo. Is that one, the secret memo is kind of embarrassed Trump about how they were planning for hiding the Epstein stuff?

0:35:15 Matt: The reports from inside the Situation Room as they were trying to figure out how to spin everything. It's exactly what we'd expect, but it's good to see it.

0:35:23 Thomas: Glad they're using the situation room for that

0:35:25 Matt: Yes, very important. Yeah, so this is the New York Times piece that the National Review is responding to. And it's not just the National review, we'll talk about the author in a moment, but I don't think you're going to be surprised by anything they're saying here. This is exactly all the reasons that we We mentioned in a couple more about why Todd Blanchard should not be AG. So I think if anybody wants to know, they can go back and listen to Friday's show from June 12th. But, you know, that's certainly our position. So let's see what, yeah, sure.

0:35:53 Lydia: A high high level points I guess since We're not reading the whole thing, just what they've bolded in this article. He has celebrated the January 6th rioters who violently attacked police officers in the Capitol. Mr. Blanche has misled Congress while testifying under oath. Mr. Blanche Has Violated Justice Department Ethics Standards. Mr. Blanche has debased the Justice Department and Helped Undermine Its Post -Watergate Commitment to Independence. And that's it. But those are their main pieces.

0:36:21 Matt: Yeah. Good point about it. He's pulling it back to Watergate times. That is really what he's doing. We're regressing. All right. Michael Fergoso. So one thing you should know about Michael Fergoso, which is going to be relevant to this piece, is that he works at the law firm founded by Bill Barr called Tordon Law for some reason, but by Bill Bar. So he's really tight with Bill Barr.

0:36:39 Lydia: Interesting.

0:36:39 Matt: That's going to become relevant as you read this. But yeah, he's, yeah.

0:36:39 Lydia: Interesting.

0:36:36 Thomas: By Bill Barr oh that's interesting so so he's so Bill Barr why Bill Barr is not pro is Bill Barr pro Blanche yeah

0:36:50 Matt: No. Well, I don't know. I don' know what he believes, but you're going to see there's definitely some Barr stuff in here. So, right.

0:36:54 Thomas: All right sounds good what

0:36:56 Lydia: The New York Times has predictably come out against the Blanche nomination. It's also predictably unpersuasive. OK, National Review.

0:37:06 Thomas: Is it what is predictably do oh predictably that he doesn't like the pile of human shit that I served him for dinner predictably god so predictable but

0:37:16 Matt: Oh, I should also mention before we go on that he was Mitch McConnell's head lawyer for a long time. So keep that in mind.

0:37:22 Lydia: Interesting.

0:37:22 Thomas: That's what's interesting is you keep so both of these things are like more last guard republican stuff and

0:37:29 Matt: That's why this is extra concerning, because these are the people that are supposed to be, even Mitch McConnell, after the impeachment comes out and says, well, we all know we did it.

0:37:37 Lydia: Yeah. The Times starts with some throat clearing to establish its good faith in the discussion. Quote, President Trump has every right to select an attorney general who shares his policy views, it observes. It goes on to explain that Trump ran on, quote, a platform skeptical of environmental regulation, opposed to racial preferences, and supportive of tough immigration enforcement, among other conservative policies.

0:37:59 Thomas: I love that the times editorial board that means they were like that's all fine like we get that if you run as the nazi president you get to do nazi stuff like okay we'll spot you that one I

0:38:10 Lydia: And therefore, quote, his attorney general will presumably share those views and lead a justice department that advocates them. After all, quote elections have consequences. They don't believe any of this. Don't take my word for it, of course. Instead, consult their highly critical editorial from December 2018 when Trump nominated Bill Barr to be attorney general.

0:38:29 Matt: Here we go.

0:38:30 Lydia: What were Barr's offenses?

0:38:30 Matt: Getting some grievances out.

0:38:32 Lydia: Embracing the unitary executive theory, supporting aggressive charging decisions for drug crimes and leaks, praising aggressive enforcement of the immigration laws, and defending religious liberty. So much for the president having a right to select an attorney general who shares his policy views.

0:38:31 Thomas: See is that really why they objected to him is this like the link to the yeah

0:38:50 Lydia: Let's click on that maybe

0:38:50 Matt: That's a very watered down explanation of what that editorial was, but

0:38:54 Thomas: Whose attorney general will william rb is this the okay that's

0:38:58 Lydia: The senate has a long list of questions as they should

0:39:00 Thomas: A little different okay so this is the editorial board but are they they're for one they're not saying he's disqualified yeah unfit is a much different thing

0:39:06 Lydia: He's unfit to be yeah yeah

0:39:09 Matt: They're asking the same question that we were asking on Friday about whose attorney the AG is going to be. Because obviously, Trump was looking for somebody who was going to be his attorney, always has been.

0:39:21 Thomas: So this seems pretty consistent to me like yeah well

0:39:23 Matt: And it's fair to ask about his role in Iran -Contra and about all the different ways he's been working for Republicans all this time, and some of his more questionable cases. And yeah, you

0:39:33 Lydia: And the gop would be doing the exact same thing if the tables were turned you know

0:39:36 Thomas: Not only that hold on I want to to give another point, which is I get that like the point is elections have consequences. But in Trump won. That wasn't really like Trump won is looked at as people kind of didn't really know what they were getting into. You know, a lot of like voters, I don't think were fully open eyed, you know, about what Trump was going to do and what. So like I think this both I think both of these New York Times pieces are soft, but, you know. Know, at least kind of in the right direction. And it looks just from glancing at it, the Blanche one is more like, this doesn't look good. Is he really going to be, you know, independent? Is this going to whatever? And there's no way you could say that the election of 2016 means that the people wanted, you Know, Bill Barr to be like that, that isn't, but in Trump, too, you know, I think they are forced to concede, like, all right, well, you all saw what happened in Trump won and you still voted for him. So I guess

0:39:55 Matt: Want more

0:40:31 Thomas: To that extent, it's elections have consequences, but this guy is uniquely also corrupt and shitty. And so I feel like they're making a valid point personally.

0:40:31 Matt: And worse. Yep, yep, yep. And the difference is that Bill Barr was a more serious person, to be honest. He had already been the Attorney General like 100 hundred years before uh and you know we had a record and and but we have a much more immediate record to look at with blanche having basically served as the leadership of doj for all this time so uh and the unitary executive theory is something worried about at the time you're good

0:40:57 Lydia: Also like and bar was stepping in after sessions right and like the shit show that that was so I think like like they're it's reasonable to have questions about how is he going to be stepping into this administration partway through? Are we going to continue to see the same issues that we saw with Sessions, et cetera, et ceteras? It's just they're different.

0:41:16 Lydia: Let's see. So much for the president having a right to select an attorney general who shares his policy views. I very much doubt that a pure, quote, elections have consequences pick like Andrew Ferguson or Jay Clayton would get a ringing endorsement from the Times unless and and until they committed to open both our borders and our prisons.

0:41:34 Thomas: Shut up.

0:41:35 Lydia: That's so dramatic.

0:41:37 Thomas: Nobody at the New York times is pro open board. No, no, nobody's pro open borders. God, it's so boring.

0:41:44 Lydia: The Times predictably turns to Mao Mao -ing Senate Republicans, calling the Blanche nomination a, quote, character test. Well, forgive Senate Republicans if they don't want to be lectured on character by an organ that forced out its opinion editor for having dared to publish an op -ed by Tom Cotton, now the chairman on the Senate Republican Conference.

0:42:02 Matt: Kills me that like it was a character problem to to have it to have consequences when tom cotton was allowed to publish a fascist editorial about how we just to send the troops into American cities.

0:42:13 Thomas: Yeah. I mean, in a sense, this author is right in that, like, obviously Republicans don't give a shit what the New York Times thinks. So like, also who cares? Like that kind of goes both ways. You can't be like, how dare they?

0:42:25 Lydia: Right. Right.

0:42:26 Thomas: Because Republicans won't be lectured about it. We know like they're just writing this for whoever will read it.

0:42:30 Matt: But this does get to your point, Thomas. This is somebody who used to be a fairly mainstream Republican, has been a conservative legal operative for a long time, and he is right up at the point of saying that it's a character issue for the New York Times to draw the line and say, actually, that was beyond the pale. We did actually publish an extremely fascist editorial that a lot of people took notice of and then discharged the person who did that. That's concerning that he's pointing that out is a character issue.

0:42:53 Lydia: The fact is that while it's possible that senators like Bill Cassidy and Lisa Murkowski care what the New York Times has to say about their character, I'm skeptical as to the rest. Tom Tillis and John Cornyn have declared independence.

0:43:09 Thomas: That's interesting. Picking those out. Yeah, like like Why, why Murkowski exactly? I get the Cassidy one, but you know, yeah.

0:43:17 Matt: She's kind of swingy.

0:43:19 Lydia: Yeah. Well, because like the other three aren't aren't coming back. Right? So but Lisa Murksowski is right.

0:43:23 Thomas: The other three.

0:43:24 Lydia: Yeah, well, Tom Tillist and John Cornan, aren't they all?

0:43:25 Matt: Going on. Yeah yeah.

0:43:28 Lydia: Or maybe Tom Tillis didn't.

0:43:28 Thomas: Did he, did he mention? Oh, oh,

0:43:30 Lydia: I'm just wondering, like, why he's grouping these people together, but.

0:43:31 Matt: Next time. Yeah

0:43:30 Thomas: Oh. After this. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Yeah, I do. I do feel like it was the ones that they've gotten primaried, but Lisa Murkowsky. I didn't. Okay. Interesting.

0:43:39 Matt: She's always been squishy, so pick on her.

0:43:41 Lydia: Tillis and Cornyn have declared independence from the administration in their own ways, but they still know bad faith when they see it. Mitch McConnell is clearly enjoying his ability to vote his conscience, but that conscience never was and never will be aligned with the liberals at the Times. Rand Paul is sort of in the opposite position of the Times, He doesn't like the administration's policy priorities. See his vote against Barr. That's like been stuck with this guy for a long time, I guess, but has long held a soft spot for the president's baser instincts. See his aggressive defense of Trump during both impeachments. And Susan Collins knows full well that The Times is in the process of converting itself into a Schumer aligned super PAC between now and November.

0:44:06 Thomas: Schumer aligned. Yeah honestly.

0:44:24 Lydia: The New York Times is converting.

0:44:24 Thomas: I'll go. I'll I'll go for that sure they're schumer aligned and they're just as shitty for democrats as schumer is I agree I'm

0:44:33 Lydia: As to their four arguments, they all fall short. The Times claims that Blanche, quote, has celebrated the Jan 6 rioters who violently attacked police officers in the Capitol.

0:44:42 Thomas: Excited to hear this defense what

0:44:43 Lydia: They're smart to lead with this because it's the issue on which Tillis has been most outspoken and where the most political danger actually lies for Blanche. But their example is silly. They quote him saying at a CPAC event, quote, if you look at what happened to the men and women convicted because of Jan 6, by 5 p .m. on Jan 20, every one of them was either pardoned or had their sentence commuted. OK, that's not celebrating January 6, as evidenced by his very next sentence, quote. So when folks say you've done nothing, I say you have a very short memory.

0:45:12 Matt: Endorsing January 6th. He's celebrating it, but he's definitely fine with partnering everybody.

0:45:14 Thomas: Yeah sorry what yeah yeah so that's him saying by his very next sentence so when folks say you've done nothing I say you have a very short memory yeah that's

0:45:26 Matt: You the DOJ have done nothing to help. Yeah, that's what he's saying.

0:45:31 Thomas: That right that's how I'm interpreting it is the guy writing this interpreting it as the Jan Sixers?

0:45:36 Matt: So, yes. Did nothing.

0:45:38 Thomas: I think that might be it, right? Otherwise, this doesn't make sense. So, up, up.

0:45:39 Matt: Well, wait, if you go up to that paragraph, I'm curious about the context now. Yeah, just a little. Where the most political danger actually lies for Bungie. I hate the way we talk about this stuff, political danger.

0:45:53 Thomas: It's so dumb.

0:45:53 Matt: No, it's just, it's completely wrong to support what they did. It's easy.

0:45:54 Thomas: What happened? That's not celebrating January 6th as evidenced by his very next sentence. So when folks say you've done nothing, I say you have a very short memory.

0:46:06 Lydia: Yeah. And so this is back. This is just in March because I was wondering, I was like, oh, was the CPAC event like like a long time ago? But it's current.

0:46:14 Thomas: No, no. Yeah it's, yeah

0:46:15 Lydia: So it's the Trump administration and them commuting the sentences like that.

0:46:21 Thomas: And he's talking to CPAC.

0:46:22 Lydia: That's that's a positive thing for Jan 6 people.

0:46:22 Thomas: So he's saying when When folks say you haven't done enough to help the Nazis, here's what we did. We pardoned them, right?

0:46:30 Lydia: Right.

0:46:30 Thomas: Isn't that how you take it, Matt?

0:46:32 Matt: Yeah?

0:46:33 Thomas: And then this guy, I think this idiot is saying, so it's not celebrating January 6th as evidenced by his very next sentence. I think he's thinking that applies to these people who were pardoned and he's saying they haven't done nothing and you have a short memory, I guess. I don't know. Okay. OK, OK,

0:46:52 Lydia: I didn't like the January 6 pardons and I still don't. Yes, it was preposterous for Merrick Gardland to put more resources into prosecuting that riot than DOJ ever put into fighting the Cosa Nostra, but that didn't justify blanket pardons for cop attackers.

0:47:10 Lydia: It's not at all clear to me, however, that mine is a view shared by most Republicans, let alone those who attended CPAC events in Texas. In context, it's clear that Blanche is simply explaining to an audience of conservative activists that the Trump administration delivered on one of their priorities.

0:47:26 Matt: Why is it a priority?

0:47:26 Thomas: So then he does understand that sentence the way that I understand it.

0:47:29 Matt: And the way the New York Times does. So, right.

0:47:31 Lydia: And that's also in in alliance with the Jan 6 rioters and them not having to have any consequences.

0:47:34 Thomas: So we're all yeah. So we'RE all on the same page about the sentence. And yet he's like, look at these idiots.

0:47:40 Matt: He's pro -insurrection.

0:47:42 Lydia: What?

0:47:42 Thomas: They didn't read the next sentence, which says exactly what their point is.

0:47:45 Matt: And also, and

0:47:46 Lydia: Which I also understand, but I'm going to pretend I don't.

0:47:49 Matt: He's saying it's okay for Todd Blanche to brag at CPAC about delivering on a priority, which is completely letting insurrectionists off the hook with no consequences.

0:47:49 Thomas: It's a yeah,

0:47:58 Matt: Everybody, including Stuart Rhodes.

0:47:58 Thomas: That's the distinction. How do you

0:48:00 Matt: It's incredible.

0:48:00 Thomas: Even think of this?

0:48:01 Matt: Incredible.

0:48:01 Thomas: Like I, like the distinction he's made, well, I'll keep, why don't you finish this paragraph?

0:48:05 Lydia: Yeah.

0:48:05 Thomas: It's funny.

0:48:05 Lydia: In parentheses, spend any time with conservative activists and you know that the prevalent attitude is, quote, yeah, but what have you done for me lately? That's not a celebration. It's an argument, which

0:48:14 Matt: Have you even pardoned a single insurrectionist lately? Come on.

0:48:17 Thomas: So, so Blanche saying, we've done great stuff for you. For example, check out these pardons of January 6th people is not a celebration. It's an argument. I, I, okay. I, what your priority is January 6TH was good. So I don't understand that this is, that is, yeah.

0:48:30 Matt: It's just delivering on priorities, which is also bad. That's also very bad. Yeah.

0:48:35 Lydia: Is also bad. That like like if he were the VP delivering on our priorities, you know, whatever, that's fine. Like that's tied to what you were campaigning on, whatever. But we're talking about the DOJ, like it's supposed to be an independent entity, at least, you know, with regard to serving the American people. Right. And like it just there shouldn't be a platform tied to the DOH.

0:48:56 Thomas: I also love how cowardly. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, there can be broad like policy stuff, but yeah, but these people are such fucking cowards because like they're like, yeah, okay. I also didn't like that they pardoned a bunch of people who beat up cops for an insurrection. I didn't love it. I'm not a huge fan, but things are this way. Again, it's all yes. Well, the the Republicans did like it. So therefore, shut up, New York Times. It's like, but you're agreeing then. So you're agree that that was bad, but your saying the New York times is invalid for pointing that out. They can't also point out that this was very bad. It is such cowardice.

0:49:26 Lydia: Crazy. Yeah. Yeah. Stylistically, the tell here that you should tread cautiously is the care the Times takes to refer to January 6th as a, quote, riot and not, as they did when opposing Trump, quote insurrection. This is advocacy aimed at an audience and not agitprop for a base.

0:49:41 Matt: Did we do that? Yeah. So legally speaking, almost everybody who was charged with crimes around January 6th was charged with riot -related crimes. There were like 14 people that were charged with anything resembling sedition, which you could call insurrection. So that's a fine hair to split, but I think we all understand it was an insurrection, and maybe a lot of people there that had no idea that that was what was going on. They just wanted to be part of the party, but come on, this is stupid.

0:50:17 Thomas: But this is saying the Times did refer to it as an insurrection when opposing Trump, but now not. And then they are saying this is advocacy aimed at an audience and not agit prop for base I don't know what the fuck he's saying like I actually can't understand that

0:50:33 Matt: Don't be fooled by the New York Times. They actually don't like you. Yeah, I know. This is so badly written. I know we

0:50:42 Lydia: Yeah. The Times second objection is that Blanche supposedly misled Congress when he promised that the DOJ would not conduct politically motivated investigations. Allegations. Optically, this seems like it could be a problem because it's conventional wisdom that the Trump DOJ prosecutes its enemies. But when you look into the evidence provided, the case presented is less clear.

0:50:42 Thomas: Good luck getting out of this fucking one okay hmm it is the evidence provided is here's him prosecuting his enemies holding up a sign saying I love prosecuting my enemies can't get enough of my penis enlarger it's my favorite thing in the world you know the austin powers bit like what are you talking about okay here we go Is this satire?

0:51:16 Lydia: Just added Newsom. Just added Newsome to the list.

0:51:19 Thomas: Matt, is this actually satire because if it might be like the killer satire.

0:51:22 Matt: Do wonder every so often. No, I think he means it.

0:51:24 Lydia: Not the onion. Its linked article on, quote, sham prosecutions, for example, starts by explaining how Blanche sidelined Ed Martin, the avatar of the president's retribution campaign. It also quotes Blanche at some length explaining the hypocrisy of people silently accepting Garland's attacks on Biden's political enemies, Trump in particular, while complaining bitterly about Bondi's attacks. I also find it like like calling Trump a Biden political enemy is so insane to me like that. It wasn't like Biden ever. It was never something something where it was like, go get him, go get him boys, you know, like, yeah, absolutely not. The fact is that in the first Trump administration, he decided to adhere to quote norms and not prosecute, say, James Comey for his leaks. A lot of good that did him.

0:51:48 Matt: Ed Martin wasn't sidelined. He was still allowed to be the pardon attorney. It's a big deal. It is one of the most corrupt things.

0:52:05 Matt: Yeah right, right. This this is personal. Yeah.

0:52:20 Lydia: It's therefore, it's therefore unsurprising that the current administration isn't all that worried about taking actions that quote, don't look political, given recent democratic behavior. Pedants deride this thinking as a quote, too coquet, while the pious call it, quote, whataboutism.

0:52:21 Matt: Not yet anyway. Yeah, those are the same thing.

0:52:39 Lydia: But lawyers recognize it as the equitable principle of, quote. Unclean hands, while The Queen's native president knows it as, quote don't be a chump. As with the, quote weaponization fund, the Democrats established a set of rules that apply only to them and that they don't want to change. Blanche and his allies are simply playing by those same rules.

0:52:34 Thomas: Too quick. Sure, man.

0:53:02 Lydia: That's crazy. As I've argued in the context of the quote weaponization fund, those rules should change, but they should change for everyone.

0:53:11 Thomas: What?

0:53:11 Matt: Sure.

0:53:11 Thomas: All right. All this is nothing because if you live in reality, Democrats haven't gone after their enemies in any way. That's all measurably close to anything like what we're talking about.

0:53:12 Matt: Yeah none of this. Yeah

0:53:21 Lydia: That's politically motivated. Yeah.

0:53:23 Thomas: But yeah, it's people who did bad stuff, honestly, didn't even really get punished for it for the most part. And it's a totally different thing. So, I mean, it is just useless. If you live in a different world of information, then yeah, okay, I guess you can live in a different World of Information that's not real, but that's not valuable as an argument.

0:53:44 Matt: It's really telling that he ends that whole thing with that don't be a chump you know which is what the president would say which is very different from unclean hands or you know take a care or anything else like what you're saying is it doesn't matter because I'm not a sucker like I'm not going to accept responsibility everything's your fault right

0:53:57 Thomas: Well, yeah, I interpret that as don't be a chump as in don't follow rules from his perspective that the other side isn't following.

0:54:05 Matt: Right. Including taking responsibility for things or admitting when you're wrong.

0:54:08 Thomas: So it's like before in Trump won, Matt, Trump was being so good. Like he was following all the rules. You know, he's doing all this stuff.

0:54:18 Matt: All those adults in the room.

0:54:19 Thomas: And then in the Biden, the corrupt Biden administration, Trump saw that what all these rules I was following as Trump rule follower famously, now they're not following him. So I'm not going to be a chump and continue to follow them. So that's, that's the don't be a chump.

0:54:35 Matt: Time to weaponize.

0:54:36 Thomas: What?

0:54:36 Lydia: Times then claims that Blanche quote has violated Justice Department ethics standards. Nonsense. Its argument is that Blanch, like all all DOJ officers, attended ethics indoctrination and signed an ethics pledge whereby he said he'd recuse from cases involving his former clients for a year.

0:54:54 Matt: Ethics indoctrination. I love that little dig there of like, what kind of suckers just get their indoctrination?

0:54:56 Lydia: Indoctrination, I know.

0:54:58 Thomas: What I'm excited for this. Where are we going?

0:55:02 Lydia: The Times and, quote, a former ethics official talking to CNN think this means he needs to recuse anything involving Donald Trump. But the DOJ clarified what this actually means to CNN. Quote, to the extent DOJ is investigating something related to the president for which which Todd was previously representing him, then hypothetically, yes, he would recuse. That's the right standard.

0:55:22 Matt: This is incredible. Can you think of anything in which Todd Blanche was previously representing the president, which might come up occasionally at DOJ, including the largest prosecution pretty pretty much ever in history, the entire January 6th, for which Trump was rightfully blamed for January 6. Todd Blanchard started the thing by talking about how it was fine that he pardoned all those people. Okay.

0:55:44 Thomas: This is so stupid.

0:55:44 Lydia: That's the right standard. What the Times is suggesting is unworkable and preposterous. Donald Trump, Blanche's former client, is his boss.

0:55:46 Thomas: That's right. Yeah maybe

0:55:54 Matt: That's the problem.

0:55:54 Thomas: That's why he shouldn't be.

0:55:55 Lydia: That's an issue. That is what they are saying is the problem.

0:55:57 Matt: He didn't have to be. There were other lawyers he could have picked.

0:56:01 Thomas: So dumb how do you not see it oh

0:56:04 Lydia: Furthermore, as acting attorney general, role, it's Blanche who has the final word on ethics decisions. So he could just say, never mind.

0:56:09 Thomas: Guys he didn't violate ethics because he is the ethics

0:56:14 Lydia: Career staff offer him advice, but he makes the decision. A senior political appointee cannot be answerable to career flunkies. What an asshole.

0:56:17 Thomas: Career flunkies god this is okay yeah

0:56:24 Matt: Ethics indoctrination.

0:56:26 Lydia: Wow. The last argument is Watergate, the true last refuge of scoundrels.

0:56:31 Matt: Oh, thanks.

0:56:33 Lydia: Blanche, we are told, has, quote, helped undermine its post-Watergate commitment to independence. As I have explained before, this was always a ridiculous hypocrisy pushed by the left. Even going back to the Watergate era, why was DOJ, quote, independence necessary in the wake of Richard Nixon, but not when John F. Kennedy literally handed the department over to his unqualified little brother or when Lyndon Johnson wiretapped the Goldwater campaign?

0:56:57 Matt: LBJ does get a pass, I got to tell I've got to say, he's done some bad stuff, but yeah, again, it doesn't matter. This is actually worse.

0:57:04 Lydia: Democratic departments of justice don't need direction from the White House because in the vast majority of cases, the liberal career staff know what's expected of them. Republican departments of justice are the ones that get stymied without active political control.

0:57:14 Thomas: That's great oh that is great.

0:57:17 Matt: That's what I think of when I think of the U.S. Department of Justice is all those liberal career staff.

0:57:21 Thomas: Yeah. And I love it too, because it's sort of like saying, well, it's like saying the scientists, they don't need to be told to do non -science stuff because they just know like do the liberal science stuff. But it's when there's Republicans that the scientists need to be called to do anti-scientist stuff. Like it's really kind of that comparison.

0:57:40 Thomas: Like you're saying like normal, like course of justice stuff, that's fucking liberal shit, you know? And you don't have to tell them to do that because they're already such liberals. It's like, or maybe they just normally would try to do what you're supposed to do.

0:57:53 Lydia: And it just happens to be aligned more with that, and that's not even a problem.

0:57:56 Thomas: It's not even a lie. It's just is. Yeah, it's like it's I think it's kind of values neutral, but because they're defining themselves as anti -justice, if you do justice, then you're just one of the liberals, I guess. That's so funny.

0:58:09 Lydia: I think we might want to take our last break before we close up this article.

0:58:12 Thomas: Is this are we on the last thing? Oh, Yeah. OK, we yeah, we can't we can'T shortcut on thanking our final batch of patrons. So, thank you to the top Hall of Famers, E.T., Check out www.galenacomic.com for a cool webcomic. Bob Loblaw's Law.... Podcast. Philly Basement Bar's cleanout continues. Reopening coming soon. Oh, is that an actual update or is that the one that's like mocking it? No, it's an actual upgrade.

0:58:37 Lydia: That's... No, no, that's an update. I think because they were worried about getting raided. About all the good stuff being taken.

0:58:41 Thomas: Hey, I love it. Elect Thomas Smith President, American Honkytonk Bar Association. Baltakatei, Philip Kizer. It's the Bible, not the straight bull. Happy Pride, everyone.

0:58:53 Lydia: Cute.

0:58:54 Thomas: Corrin Land, A String of Unpronounceable Characters. Malaika Chandler, RhondaTheDork.com. Milo Meadsong is fighting petty tyrants. Big Easy Blasphemy, Chris Waltrip. Hors d'oeuvres in the court before we report. Sam Donow, FRED R GROOTHUIS. Classic libtard and Mitchell at the top of the list. Thank you so much top patrons you make the show happen patreon.com/law. If you'd like to join their ranks we'll take our last break and then we'll finish up all right let's see what other great arguments this guy has okay

0:59:09 Lydia: Mitchell. This is simply the Times using Blanche to smuggle in broadly anti -Republican views on executive power. When I worked

0:59:29 Matt: So Blanche is fine. We just need an excuse to talk about it. Okay, go ahead.

0:59:34 Lydia: In the last Trump Justice Department, then -DAG Rod Rosenstein used to bring in distinguished speakers for the political appointees to hear from. One was a former attorney general from 25 years earlier, Bill Barr. He explained to us that it was political appointees who worked for the president. The president was elected by the people, and this gives the DOJ political legitimacy. The DOJ working outside of that line of Democratic accountability would, in fact, be illegitimate. What?

1:00:00 Matt: But did he have anything to say about his personal criminal attorney being appointed as the Attorney General?

1:00:06 Lydia: Yeah.

1:00:06 Matt: Did that come up? Has that ever come up?" So

1:00:08 Lydia: Having just come from the Senate, where I had spent months fighting tooth and nail against, quote, protecting the Mueller investigation the talk was manna from heaven and stuck with me yeah

1:00:17 Matt: I had just fought tooth and nail against protecting the Mueller. I'm very proud of myself, is what he's saying.

1:00:19 Thomas: Against quote protecting the Mueller investigation Jesus Christ and

1:00:24 Matt: Yeah. Exposing the Mueller investigation and keeping it from happening. Yes.

1:00:28 Lydia: Yeah but it was the orthodox view of conservative republicans after watergate supported in places like scalia's morrison v olson dissent and the works and the work of giants like Ed Meese and Dick Cheney at the

1:00:35 Thomas: A dissent giants like Ed Meese and Dick Cheney okay you're citing a dissent and like also the worst vice president in history

1:00:47 Matt: And Reagan's attorney general. Okay. Keeping it current. Very cool.

1:00:49 Thomas: Great great list of uh references there oh

1:00:53 Lydia: Yeah at the end of the day senate republicans should take their cues on executive power from the likes of Barr, Scalia, Meese, and Cheney, and not Jimmy Carter, Merrick Gardland, and the editors of the New York Times.

1:01:03 Matt: Yeah. By the way, just in case I didn't make this point before, he spent a lot of time on the Judiciary Committee working with Mitch McConnell to pick judges. He's one of the people that got Amy Coney Barrett through. This man is not powerless. He's got connections and he's speaking for an entire establishment here. And this is scary.

1:01:13 Lydia: The most surprising thing about the Times editorial is the extent to which it is targeted advocacy.

1:01:25 Matt: Literally, yes. It's literally saying, do not confirm him.

1:01:28 Lydia: Yeah. From its arguments to its language, it is an obvious attempt.

1:01:32 Thomas: Also it's the editorial board what isn't that their job like what they're

1:01:36 Lydia: They have an opinion, and they're going to put it.

1:01:38 Thomas: Advocating for things that doesn't mean they're they they're not like the progressive progressive left. Like, I don't, what else would they do? Whatever.

1:01:42 Matt: Just an editorial entitled, Todd Blanche is being nominated. Here is some information. Yeah, yeah.

1:01:53 Lydia: From it's arguments to it's language it is an obvious attempt to appeal to the republican senators who will decide the fate of blanche's nomination and not

1:02:01 Matt: What did you just do up there? Didn't you spend? And

1:02:03 Thomas: Well, yeah. You're, hey, this is unfair. You're trying to appeal to the people who would make the decision that would be the thing you want. That's not fair. You can't, you can't try to appeal to the decision makers of the thing you're trying to advocate for.

1:02:05 Matt: You also, at the beginning, he spent two paragraphs doing that in this piece already, directly talking about these individuals. Okay, anyway.

1:02:21 Thomas: Why would you not, I don't that's not an additional bad thing Like, you can't be like, not only are they saying Blanche shouldn't be, or yeah, Blanche shouldn't be Attorney General, they're also trying to appeal to the people who are going to make him Attorney General. Double bad.

1:02:36 Lydia: Not the suburban wine moms who seem to dominate its quote resistance base I'm offended by that as a suburban wine mom

1:02:42 Matt: I think they'll also read it.

1:02:45 Thomas: So that, okay, so that maybe makes earlier parts, because I'm just trying to understand for fun this crazy mindset. So from this argument is an obvious attempt to appeal the Republican senators who will decide the fate of Blanche's nomination and not the suburban wine moms who seem to dominate its resistance base. So is that like, as a customer, he's complaining like, hey, newspaper letter to the editorial board, you're not appealing to the wine moms enough.

1:03:12 Matt: This is along the lines of what he was saying before about how they're using right instead of insurrection because they're trying to appeal to a broader base instead of of the committed, yeah, it's a stupid thesis, but

1:03:19 Thomas: That's why it's making a little more sense now. I didn't understand that for at first. Yeah. Like, dude, who cares? Nope.

1:03:26 Lydia: But that's also that's how you make effective argument too right like you take into consideration your audience yeah

1:03:29 Thomas: Not even even if you were. Yeah. Even if you are right, though, quote unquote, wine moms, like if that's the base of the New York Times, they wouldn't mind that either. They'd be like, yeah, you got to appeal to who you're going to, like, what, what is this? How do you even think of stuff like this?

1:03:42 Matt: And I think they're also going to find this piece appealing because it's pretty good, the New York Times piece. So, okay.

1:03:52 Lydia: The trump administration and blanche himself would be wise to take note as they make their case it's those senators blanche will need to persuade and not the viewers of steve bannon's war room or the attendees of cpac hungary yeah yeah and that's your last sentence what a weird way to close that's that's the last sentence that's

1:04:07 Matt: Who cares? That's really the end?

1:04:06 Thomas: And what, all right. That's the end of, yeah. Yeah, that's the, I thought there would be, whoa, wait, this guy looks like he's 12. Are you kidding me?

1:04:16 Matt: They all do. They all Do.

1:04:19 Thomas: Wow. I don't think they all do.

1:04:19 Lydia: Him that's him ethics and public policy center conservative think tank well

1:04:22 Thomas: What the hell is this guy? We clerked in 2014, 2015. So I, oh, okay. He could be pretty young then, right? I guess I misunderstood. I had a mind that this was some old crusty Republican based on, uh, that was, that Was my misconception. Wow. How he's gotta be like 30 or something though. He looks really young.

1:04:38 Lydia: The Federalist Society say that he is a seasoned legal and policy strategist so he actually I don't know yeah I'm

1:04:46 Thomas: So anybody got his age? Anyway, just for fun.

1:04:47 Lydia: Trying to find it mm What

1:04:51 Thomas: Boy, that's a, that's a crazy, I don't, yeah, I don't know how you think of that. That's, that's, I can't, I couldn't imagine re like, like I'm trying to think of the equivalent. Like what if we read the national review advocating for something? And then we were mad, like, Hey, you're actually trying to appear to John Fettermen, not your insane saying MAGA readers, like, would we ever make that criticism of the national review? You know, like I can't, I can'T imagine thinking to do that. You know what I mean?

1:04:52 Matt: I

1:04:53 Lydia: A what a piece he's Yeah.

1:05:19 Matt: Can make fun of them for it, but I don't care what they write sure he is

1:05:22 Lydia: Okay. Mike Fregoso is approximately 36 years old. He's younger than me.

1:05:28 Thomas: But yep. There you go. That's pretty young. Yeah.

1:05:32 Lydia: Weird.

1:05:34 Matt: And his entire career has been basically getting just doing politics just doing legal conservative politics so he's he's talking very much to the insiders here he thinks he is um because it doesn't make a lot of sense to us out on the outside gotta tell you that yeah

1:05:45 Thomas: I don't, yeah. Is he talking to anybody? Does anybody read the national view? Really? Like I, who knows? I don'T know. Well, yeah, Yeah. Besides us, we're the top customers.

1:05:50 Matt: It does yeah you're welcome national review

1:05:50 Lydia: Yeah, good question. We do.

1:05:57 Thomas: Yeah. Good times. Well, Todd Blanche sucks and definitely the New York Times got one right for once. Any other closing thoughts?

1:06:06 Matt: Um no yeah when the president does it it can still be a crime that's my closing thought But

1:06:07 Lydia: Man.

1:06:10 Thomas: When are we going to get hearings and stuff? Are we going are they going to be, you know, televised? What's it's and all that mid

1:06:15 Matt: I was thinking mid -July, maybe, if it comes to that. If they don't gates him, we'll see what happens.

1:06:17 Lydia: There must be. Yeah oh interesting.

1:06:18 Thomas: Oh, OK. Get a while. Oh. I

1:06:23 Matt: He could just get, I don't know, there's enough pressure building. Maybe we keep talking about it. I'm just willing to believe that maybe he has to withdraw. But I know, I know.

1:06:23 Thomas: Don't I don' t think think that'll happen I don't

1:06:32 Matt: It's going to be a mess.

1:06:32 Thomas: Think so I

1:06:32 Lydia: They set a date. I'm pulling it up right now. Right,

1:06:36 Thomas: Think the gates thing is he is so embarrassing whereas everything that's wrong with blanche is just he's doing what trump wants you know what I mean it's not the same kind

1:06:40 Matt: And he was about to be embarrassed. Sure. And a lot of people hated gates in Congress anyway, besides all the stuff they had on him.

1:06:46 Thomas: Of thing yeah yeah he's a disgusting

1:06:49 Lydia: He had no friends.

1:06:50 Thomas: Creep yeah he

1:06:50 Lydia: His Venmo was freaking weird and just like exposed everything.

1:06:53 Matt: So, yeah. All right.

1:06:52 Thomas: Has mar -a -lago face I mean there's so many reasons there

1:06:55 Lydia: So Blanche will appear before the committee on July 15th and then outside witnesses will be testifying on his nomination July 16th. Oh, yeah.

1:06:58 Thomas: You go oh give me give me uh glenn like testify she's like one of his character references I think he's a great attorney general when he let me say no I didn't do it well

1:07:10 Matt: I had a great time talking to him and

1:07:16 Lydia: It just a single Republican could tank his chances of advancing in committee. So I

1:07:20 Matt: Should keep

1:07:20 Thomas: Are they counting on federal federal vote for him so or no did he say I can't remember did

1:07:27 Lydia: Think Jenessa said that he has said he's voting no.

1:07:31 Thomas: Okay I was good I my memory just ticked of like that's the one thing that that fucking asshole isn't gonna do yeah he'll vote for the war but not for right didn't he vote vote for, I think he, yeah, I think he defected on the Iran stuff, but not on this.

1:07:36 Lydia: Yeah but but right. I think that's correct. Yeah Yeah. But yeah, not

1:07:45 Thomas: Okay. All right. Weird guy. I don't know, man. Just get the fuck out of the Senate.

1:07:45 Lydia: On Blanche. But Tillis and Cornyn are on they're on that committee so um they yeah we'll see I know we'll have to watch that not

1:07:53 Matt: Watching all

1:07:51 Thomas: Gonna be interesting. I'm excited. All right, thanks for listening. Thanks for watching. Thanks, Matt. Thanks, Lydia. And we'll see you for Rapid Response Friday.

1:08:04 Clip: This has been Opening Arguments, produced by Thomas and Lydia Smith, with editing help from Peter Baird. The intro is by Thomas Smith. This outro is by Matt Cameron. Support the show at patreon .com slash law. Contact us through Patreon or openarguments at gmail .com. Make sure to follow our blue sky at OpenArgs. But most of all, please share the show. Thanks for listening.