Dominant Media’s Massive Blind Spots, the Key Midterm Ground Game, and James Rosen on Trump, Obama, and Scalia

way interactive platform where you can enjoy live video performances by my colleagues and myself. And I'm your host here for this hour. Really great show today. James Rosen. He's a chief

Washington correspondent for Newsmax and an author of a lot of books. His new one is a second book

in his three plan three volume set biography of Justice Scalia. And you don't have to be a fan of

“Scalia or of the law or really history even. All of you should be to enjoy this book. It's gotten”

rave reviews. It's an inside look at the life and mind and the impact of the Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia. And this this volume covers the first half of Scalia's nearly 30 years on the high court. James is just a great writer and it's a great book and we're going to talk to him about Scalia who also save a little time to let you hear some of his extraordinarily good impressions of some leading American iconic figures. And then some Beatles trivia James loves the Beatles. I love

the Beatles. I am not his match in Beatles trivia. So if you love the Beatles, you're going to hear some tough questions for James and for the other contestants. You'll see. And you'll love it. I think you'll love it. James is such an interesting guy and he brings the life Scalia in the book and he will for us here. Before he joins us though, up next is my reported monologue on reporting about the midterm elections and about things we cover here in general. Some people call it politics. I call

it campaigns and I'll explain why that's next up. Small businesses are the backbone of the American

economy. Always have been beginning funding from traditional banks can be an uphill battle of the

36 million small businesses in the US over 70% report needing additional capital every year. While revenue is in an all-time high for the big banks, their tightening standards and approving fewer loans than ever leaving owners of small businesses stuck with mountains of paperwork. But if you want bank rates without the bank delays, check out Cardiff.co/mark for up to $500,000 in same day funding. Cardiff is the largest privately held small business lender in the United States having funded

over get this $12 billion since 2004. Their application it takes less than five minutes has no impact on your personal credit and approvals happen in minutes with same day funding.

“Banks, they try to lock out small businesses. Cardiff has the key. Big banks may not want to”

prove your business loans, but Cardiff does. If you've been in business for at least a year and you're pulling in 20 grand a month and revenue, apply now from $500,000 in same day business funding. Go right now, go to Cardiff.co/mark to check it out. Again, that's Cardiff.co/mark real growth fast funding Cardiff, Barrow Better. Okay, next up, my reported monologue on the media and what people call politics sometimes. We're in an age now where media is supposed to be more sophisticated. More

behind the scenes, more letting the audience into what's really going on. That's supposed to happen across the board and in some cases it does. But in two areas that I am a student of and one of my practitioner of sports coverage and coverage of what I cover, which again, people call politics. I just think there's a general, not everybody, but a general lack of sophistication and the gap that I find so troubling as a journalist, but also as a citizen who wants people to be well-informed

and get good content. The gap is between what the practitioners are actually doing, what they know, whether it's athletes or coaches on one hand or people in who run campaigns and candidates and the other. The gap is events between them and the way they get covered, the way they get covered. It's just, it's not sophisticated. It's not telling the real story. And I find on two way, or when I talk to people who are fans of next up, that they want

sophisticated and that a lot of them are sophisticated. And for some reason, which I have never

understood and frankly still don't understand, the coverage is dumbed down. The coverage is too

“often off track from where the real story is. Why is it important to get the real story because”

it's more interesting? It's more real and more genuine. And in politics and government and campaigns, you want to hold people accountable and you can only hold them accountable and tell the history to tell the story in real time. So, call the first death of history. If you're covering what's

At halftime or at the end of a game on the sidelines are on the field, you'll see a sports reporter ask a question of a coach or an athlete. And often I'll say halftime, they'll say, "Hey coach,

“what do you need to do to do better in the second half?" Or after the game, they'll talk”

to someone from the winning team and they'll say, "What made the difference in the second half?" These are our name questions because they're not specific, but they allow the coach or the player

to give a name answers. It makes me absolutely crazy. I could show you a million examples. I

watch it every Saturday and every Sunday in football and basketball in particular. Here's one example. Here's a coach asked about a momentum shift in a game and how it turned things around on the sidelines. Here it is. I don't even know the coach of the reporter. But this is just one example. So the sideline reporter says, "What a momentum shift. How huge was that avian Thomas touched

“down heading into the locker room?" Stupid question. How huge was it? Was it huge?”

Oh, yeah. The coach says, "Oh, it's big. I mean, every play is important in a game like this." So yeah. So there's nothing there about anything. I mean, there's nothing there that shows the expertise in the question or in the answer. What you'd really want to know is, how did you draw that play? How did you look at the earlier plays? How did you read the defense? How did you call the play? What was the play that was called? How did the play that was called

differ from what you actually did? These are all the way a team would talk about it. But for some reason, in the interchange between the reporter and participant, it's all dumb down. Here's what happens in coverage of what I cover. And again, people say, "Oh, I cover politics." Politics is a thing that does get covered. But to me, politics is speeches and issues and rhetoric that is not really what people in campaigns do. Politics affects campaigns. But if you talk to a candidate

who's engaged in what he or she's doing, if you talk to someone who's a political strategist, a consultant, a campaign manager, they're in the business of campaigns more than they're in the business of politics. And what is campaigns? Campaigns get out the vote, organizing, using technology,

“hiring professionals and building a team. That's how to campaign. And in my business,”

almost nobody covers campaigns or really, and almost anybody in campaigns will tell you this, they don't know much about campaigns. To the extent I've had success in my career, one reason is I study campaigns as much or more than I study politics. But they get away with so much in doing things in campaigns that are really not kosher necessarily. And often they don't get enough credit because the people writing about them in media are really just covering politics. Now there's

also elections. That's a third thing. That's about the casting and counting of ballots.

That's also important to know about. And after the 2000 recount, which we're going to talk to James Rosen about, people in my business learned a lot more about elections than they knew. Every state 's got its own election law. Counties have their own ways of doing it. People vote on machines. They vote on paper. Now in the age of Trump, we learn more about elections. Absentee ballot rules and all of that. But elections are important to know about. And people who run campaigns

typically know a lot more about elections, casting and counting of ballots than people who cover them. But it's campaigns themselves. The operation of campaigns that people just tend not to know about, just as sports reporters seem to not know very much or at least don't talk very much about how teams actually adjust during games to do better and try to come back if they're behind. You think about reading about politics or campaigns in newspapers and on websites or hearing

about it on the news. What are most of the stories about? Most of the stories are about personality. Republicans are angry Donald Trump because he's not staying on message or they're

bad fundraising. So and so raised a million dollars. And that's part of campaigns. But they don't

write how the person raised a million dollars. They campaign raised a million dollars because they knew how to use techniques that are part of campaigns. We got to raise money. How are we going to do it? The interesting thing to me when I do my reporting is not that they raised a million dollars

techniques that they used? The interesting thing to me is not so and so got 40% of the vote and so and so got 20% of vote. But how did they get 40% of the vote? I'll say again. I think it's more interesting.

“I think it's more important for history. It's a better explanation of where elections are one”

and lost. And it requires expertise and sophistication. So here's why I bring this up in a reported my log. The last couple weeks I've been doing a lot of reporting on the midterms. How are the Republicans seeing the midterms? How are the Democrats? And when I read my colleagues coverage, not all of them, but a lot of them. When I read their coverage of this question, what they're really focused on is not campaigns. What they're really focused on is politics. What

they're focused on is Trump's off message or how are the Democrats going to deal with immigration? Or what is the effect on the elections of Minneapolis? And there's no doubt that that stuff affects the outcome, no doubt. But inside a campaign, that is part of what they're doing. But it's not the

“biggest part and it's not, and it's not, it's not in their view political professionals campaign professionals.”

It's not determinative. What's more determinative is the mechanics of campaigns. And part of

why this is such a fascinating story to me and it always has been is because it changes every year.

Every election cycle. The campaigns ability to be best in class, it changes. And in the age of the digital age, and now in the age of AI, being best in class at campaigns, which can make the difference between winning and losing is a big challenge. And campaigns are very strange, beasts compared to other institutions. If you start a company, you're an operation. You keep going. And if you open a Broadway play, you hope it goes for 20 years. But it might end in two weeks,

because nobody buys tickets. Campaigns have a particular lifespan through election day. Now if you're in a primary, you may not go past the primary, but you know the primary is your first hurdle, your first toll gate. And they have to raise a lot of money. And then they have to do their best to spend it all. Right? Sometimes campaigns don't spend it all. And they're criticized for that if they lose. But you got to raise enough. So you're constantly having a very short schedule.

The staffs all temporary, you know, you build a team, goes through for the general election through

November. So we need to raise $40 million to win a Senate seat in Maine. He got to simultaneously

raise it while you're hiring people. And then you go out of business on election day. It's a strange business to be in. And the best people in campaigns, the best people at being campaign managers or strategists or ad makers or or field organizers. The best people combined in my experience experience knowing how to do it historically. But with a massive eye towards adaptability to change to use the latest techniques. And again, technology and the explosion of technology in every

part of life. And now AI makes being best in class and campaigns extremely challenging. Right?

“You have to be an adapter of the latest stuff. And AI now was not a big deal in the last election”

compared to what it's going to be like forever more. So that's one area. But same with the change in the landscape for advertising. Right? In the olden days, the way you advertise in a campaign was you buy television ads on broadcast television and you do direct mail. That's pretty much it. You could do Robo calls at 1.2. But most of the money was going to be spent on television ads and some were going to be spent on mail. And now there's a million ways to spend your money

on digital and on, you know, even in video ads. You can buy them on broadcast television. You could buy them on Roku. You could buy them on this program, right? It all sorts of ways. So running a campaign is extremely complicated. And what separates, as I said, the winners from the losers, the great campaign strategists and operatives from from the less good ones is the mastery of the craft of campaigns, of which politics is people normally think of it is just a tiny sliver.

So when I do my reporting, as I've been doing for the last couple of weeks on the midterms, I'm not asking people, oh, how much will Trump help with turnout or what impact will the economy have on the race? I'm asking them about the behind the scenes, the drill down of how are the mechanics actually working. And I've blessed as a professional with sources in both parties.

And my reporting methodology is always to look for the asymmetries who's better at one thing

add, that's going to allow them to have a good better chance to win. So I'll give you some examples.

And this is from two ways, this is from my program, two way tonight that aired earlier in the week. And I was so lucky to have on two of the best political professionals I know at one Democrat, Jamie Harrison, he was the chairman of the South Carolina Party, Democratic Party, then the chairman of the DNC. He understands politics, but he understands campaigns. And Jeff Roe, a Republican strategist, he's worked for a bunch of candidates around the country,

“worked on Ted Cruz's presidential campaign, which is where I think I got to know him best”

and runs a big consulting firm. They understand politics to be sure, but again, they understand campaigns. And I spent time with him on the air. And the reason I want to show you

some of this is these are the conversations I have when I'm doing my reporting lately on the midterms,

but through my whole career, don't ask about whether Trump's whatever, ask about the mechanics of campaigns. Here's a conversation about technology. Technology, as I said, in the digital age, it's probably extremely important. And knowing who has a technological edge, if one does sometimes there's no edge, massively important. Now more important than ever, Barack Obama won in part, because his operation was hadn't shoulders about John McCain's regarding the use of technology.

Part of why Donald Trump in 2016, what he was able to win, was his folks understood how to engage with the social media platforms. Ironic that in 2020, part of why Trump lost was the social media platforms turned on him in a variety of ways. But in 2016, his team has crewed liaison with the big social media platforms in a way that my reporting back Ben showed was superior to what Hillary Clinton was doing. So here's part of my conversation with Jamie Harrison,

Democrat, Jeff Rowe, the Republican on who's using technology better now and how and why role S1, please? Who's better right now on the use of technology in campaigns for all the things

“technologies used for? Democrats are Republicans, Jeff. Republicans, we are our data, I believe,”

is surpassed the ban system that Democrats have. Okay, Jamie? I wouldn't say Republicans on that. There are a lot of things that I know the DNC has been working on to continue to prove data. If Republicans have an advantage, it is a very slight one, minimum one that I don't think will make a difference when we're the other. Let's drill down on this, because again, just for respectful disagreement here, Jeff, just be

more specific. Where do you see the advantage? I believe that in the target end of taking splitters, so Jamie talked about taking splitters, I think it's probably going to be seven to nine percent

of the vote in a general election. Presidential is 150 million people vote in an off-year election.

It'll be 100 million people vote. So I think that the take it splitters, I don't really count into tennis now because a lot of people call themselves independence, but the take splitters are going

“to be less. And I think our ability to track and target voters on video, which is the most”

complicated media advertising cycle I've been in. I hope it goes away quickly. You used to be able to put it up on three stations and you're good, and then it goes in some cable and you're fine, and now 75 percent of people. That's not coming back to you. You're going to have to advertise about 75,000 places on people. Okay, so what are they saying there? They're saying that Jeff is more confident. His party has an advantage. Jamie wasn't a sure that either side

added an advantage, but Jeff saying specifically on this question of targeting swing voters, right? So now again, they use technology. They have these voter files, right? Data on every registered voter, the information you get differs depending on what state somebody's in. And then they put in a big database and they cross-reference it with consumer preferences that they get from from these big voter files. And then they say, okay, I know Joe Smith lives at 125 Main Street,

and I know he's a swing voter based on the data that we have. I want him to get to vote for my candidate. So how am I going to reach that person? Digital ads, video ads, maybe even direct mail, right, that's still used. That's the stuff that campaigns. That's the stuff that's going to determine what happens. And if Jeff Roe is right, and I believe he is with respect to Chairman Harrison, if Jeff Roe is right that the Republicans are currently superior in data, and there's a variety

reasons why that may be true. They're closer to Silicon Valley than they've been probably ever, and that produces a lot of access to data expertise. They control the White House, which gives and the RNC, which gives them a more ability to kind of be coordinated. And they have just a lot of people in the party now at senior levels, including the Trump political team who believe in data,

them out to vote using technology. That's as big as anything. Now, the fundraising matters because

you got to pay for all that. But if you're raising a lot of money, but you're spending it poorly,

“and people argue that's what the Clinton Clinton campaign did when they lost the Trump,”

that doesn't help you. Okay. So just embedded in that short clipping, you go listen to the whole episode on two ways. Embedded in there is what I'm talking about. Those are two campaign professionals discussing how campaigns work. Here's another one. This is, I asked them the question on the same thing. Is there an asymmetrical advantage on social media content in the whole red versus blue eco structure? Not just the campaigns or the party committees, but their allies outside. Does anyone

have an advantage there? This is S3, please. Who do you think has the advantage on social media?

Again, red team blue team, who's got better game on social right now? TikTok, Instagram, Facebook,

which is still big with voters, LinkedIn, who would you say is more creative, does more to win elections on social? Well, Republicans in the last election cycle show that they definitely had an advantage over Democrats in terms of how to navigate social media world and connect with voters in that space. They definitely Democrats are trying to catch up. And again, companies like Regress or helping in that speed of Republicans in this event. I think you agree Republicans have the advantage

on the content side of social creativity. Yes, maybe have the audience size yet. That's a trump, but yes. I'm going to assume you're both agree with me that podcast, the podcast space and video podcast space, Republicans have the advantage, right? Yes. Yeah. Okay. All right, so if you're thinking about the midterms, and again, this is all part of my reporting on the midterms, you look at history. Republicans should lose lose a lot of seats, lose the majority in the house,

“maybe in the Senate, because that's what's happened historically, and President Trump's approval”

rating is at a level, which normally would cause the president's party to lose a lot of seats. But then you look, look there, just that brief clip from my conversation with two political pros on campaigns, three asymmetrical advantages for Republicans. Two, they agreed on one, I'll break the tie and say reject Jeff Rose, right? Republicans are better at using technology to get out the vote. They're better on social media content. They're better on podcasting.

Those are in the age in which we live. If you have advantages in those areas on a campaign, big advantages, that's why so many Republicans continue to believe that if they can get the presence of approval rating up, if they can improve voters' perceptions of the economy, having to do with politics, then their campaign apparatus. Again, the whole red side of the thing,

“those are big advantages to have. If you think about all the political content you've consumed,”

in many of you consume a lot of political content, just in the last couple months, you haven't read much about that, right? You guys just heard much about that on TV or on podcasts or on YouTube, that just for some reason, just to sports reporters tend to not ask the right questions of coaches and quarterbacks and other players. For some reason, people in my profession, not everybody, there's some exceptions of folks I admire, do it right. There's not a lot of coverage of campaigns

and campaigns are more determinative than politics about who wins and loses, who represents what the government ends up doing. So, I'll continue to cover campaigns and the mechanics of this stuff. For some of you, maybe it's a little wonky, maybe it's two-inside, maybe you don't want to see behind those curtains. But if you care about who's going to win the midterms and we'll keep talking about that in so many of you do, focus on campaigns. At least as much or I would argue more than politics.

This is what has allowed me in my career to understand stuff and I can't tell you how few reporters even think this way and every time I talk to anybody who works in a campaign and I express the least bit of appreciation, the least bit of understanding of these asymmetries.

There are always very appreciative and gives me a little bit more time with them because they want

to be appreciated for what they do and what they're good at and what they're trying to excel and what they're trying to create these asymmetrical advantages and and for most of them, that's not politics, that's campaigns. All right, that's it for the day, I've reported monologue curious to know what you think of. It sent me an email next up, [email protected]. Let me know if you see my distinction between politics and campaigns. Keep the conversation going. As always, you can get the

full picture of what I do here literally. Subscribe to our YouTube channel, watch the show, know, just listen to it. At next up, Halpern on YouTube. If you like to listen on the go, you like the podcast version. Don't care to see if my shirt has any mustard stains on it.

Tell people you love next up. You're next during you'd like them to think about it too.

Turn your downloads on wherever you get your podcast. We want to build, build, build towards November. We want the community grow bigger and louder and more engaged. Please, all of you send at least one person. You know, the link to today's show, whether the podcast

“link or the YouTube link. If you want to send it to more than one, do. But I will consider you to have”

not supported the show sufficiently. If you don't send it to at least one person, you know, and tell them that they need to know the difference between politics and campaigns. Let's make the next year community. It's large as possible in 2026. All right, a quick break. And then next up, when we come back, James Rosen, Chief correspondent in Washington for Newsmax and the author of a fascinating and well received new book about Anthony and Scalia. James Rosen is next up.

All right, now I'm going to ask you something. Do you own physical gold? Most people don't and give in the current state of the world. This is something worth thinking about. Aker gold makes it all very simple. You pick a plan that fits your budget. You make monthly payments. And when you've accumulated enough, they ship you a beautifully designed 24-garet Garrett Swiss gold bar. Gold, it's up 70% year over year in central banks. They're still buying it at record levels.

Smart money has been moving into hard assets for a very good reason. It's legitimate. They've had subscribers stacking consistently for six years now because once you hold it in your hand, you understand the difference between owning something real versus just a number on a screen. Right now, they're giving away two five-gram ancient collection gold bars. Enter to win one for free and subscribe to get gold at getacreGold.com/mark. That's getacreGold.com/mark.

All right, next up and joining me now, a Renaissance man. You know, I have so many journalists to colleagues these days and I didn't put colleagues in air quotes, but I might have, who, you know, they may be able to do one or two things well, but maybe not any. And if they are on television typically, the longest thing they'll write is a script of a minute 30 and these days aren't even a lot of scripts. They're just blabbing live on the air. I'm so impressed by James Rosen. I was

having, because he's a great television correspondent and not just a presenter, but a great reporter, an actual reporter and he's a fair-minded. If you watch him cover the White House for Newsmax, he saw him hold Joe Biden accountable. You see him hold Donald Trump accountable and all the people in the White House. It's a very few White House correspond to these days who hold the president and the White House to account regardless of party, very impressive.

He's also a brilliant mimic and Beatles expert and we'll get into that. And the Beatles thinks significant to me because when James decides he loves the topic, he digs in deep. He goes, he goes all

“in and I find that attractive in people who are journalists because you want, you need to be a”

generalist. If you cover the White House, you got to be an expert on national security, you got to be an expert on the economy, you got to be an expert on civil rights policing. But so you need to be a generalist, but you also want people who have the interest and the discipline and the mental capacity, the intellectual curiosity. Say, I'm going to know everything about this.

So we're going to play some Beatles trivia here later. But first, we're going to talk about James

this book and that's the last piece I want to tell you. This guy is written many books and they're and he takes important topics and he writes narrative non-fiction that makes it cinematic, that makes it compelling character and a compelling story and add in the great history of it. His encyclopedic knowledge of Watergate is fueled by his intellectual curiosity, but also by old fashions, shoe leather reporting. He spends time in archives. He spends time online. He finds the

story with an eye for detail that puts it all together. The arc of history, individual characters who are compelling and then a real sense of bringing you back into a place in time. And in the culture we live in now, when a ten-year-old tweet for many is considered to old to read,

“understanding and appreciating American history is extremely important, whether you're in a”

adult or a child. And so I'm grateful for the Chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax, James Rosen, also the author of a book two books so far, two of three in a series about one of the Titans of the last hundred years in America. Just to Scalia of the Supreme Court, the books are called

Scalia. The first one dealt with his career in his life before he's joined the court. The new

addition deals with his the first part of his time on the United States Supreme Court where he has been as influential in American life as arguably anyone else with the possible exception of our presidents next up right here now after an intro longer than many cable news segments, James Rosen. James, welcome in congratulations on the book and thank you for being here.

leave a bit. Well, you can tell your family. There's at least someone who appreciates you.

My wife will need to see the second for sure. Just to Scalia, again, there are people watching the show

listening to the show who say, well, of course, I know all about Justice Scalia and I'm sad to say because I like our nexters to be considered well informed. There are people here who probably only have a easy understanding of him. So, a busy as you are, as many books as you've already written and as much as you're interested in other topics, what is it about Justice Scalia that makes you want to write a over years, a three volume biography of him? Well, Mark, I regret to, I'm

ashamed to tell you that this book began its life as a concise biography of antinits Scalia. That was the vision the publishers and I originally had that would be the kind of book that would

“acquaint readers with why Scalia was important and you could probably knock it out on a long plane ride.”

But as you know and certainly as Mrs. Rosen would attest, I don't do anything concisely. And so I wrote 170,000 words, which is about 20,000 words longer than your average non-fiction book and I'd only gotten a man to the point where he sits down in his chair on the Supreme Court. So, we decided that it would be a two volume project and the second volume would take you from his sitting down on the Supreme Court to the end of his life. And I wrote 183,000 words

and I'd only gotten the man through the first half of his tenure on the Supreme Court. So, that's volume two. That was just put out this month, it's called Scalia Supreme Court years, 1986 to 2001. It takes you from his first day showing up for work at the Supreme Court. And in one of his private letters that I reviewed and I published in the book, he says that the justices first conference. This is the closed door meeting where the

justices get together just the nine of them in the room in this or neat booklined long conference table setting and the chief justice goes around the table and they decide how they're going to, they tell the other justice, how they're going to decide the cases that they've just heard in oral oral argument. And Scalia and a private letter said to a friend that at his first conference, he being the junior justice. They come to him laps to say how he's going to vote on the cases.

And the moment it was his turn to speak, he said I felt like a character in a Woody Allen movie. So, it takes you from his first days on the court up through the National Trauma of Bush V. Gore.

“Why did I want to write about Nancy and Scalia in the first place?”

I watched him in television when I was in high school participating in these PBS debates that were moderated by Fred Friendly and they were a theater in the round setting with live studio audience and they would convene eminent minds of the time. Dan Ruther, Sandford Edo Connor, and to then Scalia, Gerald Ford and what, and they would, the moderator would lead them through kind of hypothetical scenarios about a ticking time bomb terrorist scenario or what

have you and Scalia just immediately struck me as fundamentally different from the other panelists. He had a sense of humor that was often wanting on PBS programs. In fact, his sense of humor was sarcastic and I could recognize him as a fellow outer burrow in New Yorker, although Scalia was born

in Trenton. He moved to Queens at five and always considered himself a New Yorker first and foremost.

And we had that same kind of accent because I'm from, I was born in Brooklyn but raised on Staten Island and all outer burrow in New Yorkers have a slight chip on their shoulder because they're looked down upon from Manhattan and I just found it fascinating and funny and brilliant and I said someday I'm going to interact with that man when I came to Fox News in 1999 to start my career in Washington. Fox had no one covering the Supreme Court so I just wrote him a letter and on the Supreme

Court of Stationary he wrote back to say I'm a fan of the Fox News channel. It was 1999. The channel was only two years old. There's the ratings dominance was still years away. Most people were confusing Fox News at that time with Fox 5 and when I showed the letter on Supreme Court Stationary to Brighunum I remember him being flabbergasted both of us you know a wow, a justice actually is a fan of Fox News channel but he said no because he said he had a policy as a judge not to

make a spectacle of himself. So I knew I had grounds for the P.L. Mark I wrote him back and I said what other than a spectacle should we call it when a sitting Supreme Court justice convenes with other eminent minds in a studio theater in the round studio setting with PBS cameras present to debate hypothetical scenarios and he wrote back to me again on the stationary

“and he said you are right. You know right there I think I had as a non lawyer at the age of 30 I”

had extracted from Antonin Scalia a concession that I think many of his clerks never did and maybe

some of his children never did and he said I probably should not have done the constitution that delicate balance so we agreed to meet for lunch and we had two lunches together. It's invaluable for a biographer to actually have spent time with the subject and I had two one-on-one lunches with Antonin Scalia in 1999 and 2001 and we also carried on a fairly amusing correspondence and there's a chapter in this book called The Rabbit and this chapter recounts my lunches with

Nino so to speak and my correspondence with him and the lunches were off the record I typed out lengthy memorandum to the filemark recounting everything we talked about and it was very wide ranging

but with the dispensation of the Scalia family I have I've been allowed to tell some of the

“atmospheres of those lunches and the reason it's called The Rabbit is I got their first this was an”

old and frankly very modest Italian restaurant that he loved which is no longer with us called the Avie Ristorante Italiano. There were plastic grapes on the wall. He'd been going there since the 50s and he had a kind of Jackie Gleason grand eloquent about him and he shows up he thanked me for being punctually took off his jacket the waiter hands on the menu goes pulpy what is pulpy and the waiter was a young Italian guy barely spoke English he said octopus because I have the pulpy

any hands back the menu with a great gesture of flourish and you know I'm 30 years old I'm not a lawyer then or now you know I'm in way over my head I'm meeting with one of the most towering intellects of our time I have to have some experience with powerful people before that so I knew do I had some rules don't eat anything that requires you to eat with your hands don't get anything that splatters or splashes on him or you something he easily meant to be able

“with knife and fork as I mentioned I'm from Staten Island so I know Italian food I said I'll”

have the veal park for a shot the guy's writing it down and Justice Lees says no given the rabbit and the waiter and I look at him in a unison we say rabbit because yeah he's going to like you're going to like the rabbit given the rabbit and the guy takes the menu some walks off now

I'd never had rabbit in my life I didn't want to have rabbit I was grossed out by the thought of

having rabbit I had I wondered in my mind do they serve it with the heads still attached like some fish you know I had no idea what was happening and and you know I I haven't had rabbit since but what's amazing about this moment mark is that here you have the country's foremost opponent of judicial activism over ruling my lunch order which is something this is Rosen doesn't even do and I had this sort of struggle through it and just keep maintaining eye contact you know we

knocked back wine he made me eat off vegetables off of his plate I said Mr. Justice no I couldn't he said no no that's like so I had to shovel and it is clear as vegetables off of his plate and he drove me back to fox in his own car smoke and cigarettes it was just an extraordinary couple of experiences and I said someday when he died I said maybe I'll write something about him I thought maybe it'd be a law review article or something and here we are on volume two

“amazing and again just to maybe I've been spent time with someone who's one of the most important”

figures in the modern conservative movement quite a thing let's just lay down some basics for people who are needs Scalia 101 what year was he born? Scalia was born in 1936 died just over ten years ago in 2016 okay and what did he do before he was put on the Supreme Court so Scalia was the son of an immigrant to a Sicilian immigrant who came here with $400 in his pocket and not not knowing word of English and who made himself into a professor of romance languages his mother

was a first-generation Italian American the daughter of immigrants in the teacher as well he was

only child he was ditted upon he was valedictorian at his high school which was Xavier high school in New York City which was then an unusual hybrid of a Jesuit academy and a military academy he then went to Jesuit college at Georgetown University he was valedictorian there as well and then he went to Harvard Law graduated top five practice private law for six years a chance day out in Cleveland then came east to teach at university of Virginia Law School for four

years during the turbulent sixties and then begins his government career in 1970 he's named the general council of a newly created institution created by the Nixon administration called the White House Office of the Telecommunications Policy all of this is covered in volume one

and his work at OTP had never been examined in any detail by any of his previous

biographers and it's fascinating stuff and I was the first to go through those archives and they show that Scalia and the chairman or the director of the of the White House office of telecommunications policy in the early seventies they were throwing around terms that ordinary wouldn't escape the lips of ordinary Americans for another quarter century like shared communicable mobile networks and mobile phones and so forth and Scalia wrote a paper in 1971

for for the agency in which he called the computer society in which he absolutely 100% predicted the internet talking about how people would have said it remote terminals in their homes conduct banking have hundreds of television channels would have news printed out as fascinating news additions and so forth access to libraries around the world he also raised the attended privacy concerns in that paper then he serves briefly let me let me stop you there

why did he want why did he go into the government and he was good officer and you know Scalia was a political animal and was he was he ambitious to to be a attorney general or to be a judge at that point so it's interesting he was asked once by his lifelong friend Brian Lamb who worked with him at the White House Office of telecommunications policy in the early seventies

Supreme Court and if you knew the two men you could read between the lines and see

“that they were kind of needling each other and Lamb asked him when did you first want to become a”

federal judge he was a judge at that point on the court of appeals and Scalia stammer's through an answer saying well not until I was offered to me and then ten months later as a justice he tells an audience in New Orleans that he had the ambition to be a federal judge as early as 1960 in my research for volume one I came across I found a summoning father Bob Connor who's still with us who attended Xavier with Scalia in the early 1950s and who was one of his dear friends at that time and in

in 1959 when Scalia was in Harvard Law he gets a call from from Bob Connor's mother says could you please come talk sensing into my son he's just quit medical school and he's flying off to Rome to

join an opus day and this story had never been published until volume one and Scalia shows up

and he says what are you doing and and his friend Bob explains to him they had gone on double dates together they had played hoops together they were in the marching band together they knew

“each other well and and Bob Connor's father used to watch Scalia as a student on television in the”

50s on quiz programs where which don't survive unfortunately but he used to say to the son all you missed it Scalia really gave him a tune again this week the man the kid had fans as a teenager in the 50s and he Bob Connor says look I'm going to go study opus day I said did he understand what opus day was because Scalia was a very devout Catholic he said I explained to him many said okay and then Bob Connor destined to become a priest says to Scalia in the summer of 1959 what are you

doing and Scalia said back to him I'm going to the Supreme Court and Connor says and says how he going to do that he says I'm going to work for this law firm Jones Day they have a Washington branch they will I will be sent to Washington and I will rise and so that settles forever the what had been an outstanding mystery of Scalia's life as to when he first Harvard does that ambition so yes to your question very early on all right we're talking to James Rosen he's a sheep

Washington correspondent for newsmax author now of two of three planned volumes on Justice Scalia of the Supreme Court I want to get to volume two but so just take off for me we now have him in the Nixon administration just take off his jobs that he had from there just the jobs from then to being nominated to be on the Supreme Court so 72 to 74 he serves as the director of something called Acus the which is the administrative conference of the US which is a kind of a quasi public

quasi private think tank that that advises the federal government on how to streamline operations all right what now is then then he becomes assistant attorney general of the United States for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel it's the same job that rank was to have held previously yeah uh and then and and and from there he when Ford loses this 76 election at Jimmy Carter Scalia goes back to academia University of Chicago law school and A.E.I. and waits out that

that uh interregnum between Republican presidents president Reagan in due time nominates him to serve on the court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit the DC circuit often described

as the second most powerful court in America because it's docked so heavily shapes the work of the

Supreme Court and so many justices are plucked from the ranks of the DC circuit when Scalia was there his colleagues his world colleagues on the DC circuit bench included Ruth Bader Ginsburg Robert Bork Larry Silberman Kenneth Star Jim James Buckley it was just a murderers rev talent and then he's nominated by president Reagan to serve on the Supreme Court in June 1986 and he's confirmed by the Senate 98 to nothing all right so which of course would never happen today so

and uh in 86 he becomes the Supreme Court Justice and he's the Supreme Court Justice for how many years the next 29 and half terms until his death on a hunting trip in Texas in February 2016 all right so your book the new book covers the first portion of the almost 30 years that he's on the first half the first half yeah and and explain how you make a Supreme Court justice and towering intellect but who operates you know without a lot of public comments how do you turn him into a compelling

character for an audience it's not interested in a stuffy legal book how do you bring that to life

“in your in your process and in your writing I'm glad you asked and it's an important point this”

new book Scalia Supreme Court year is 1986 to 2001 covering the first half of his extraordinary and momentous tenure on the Supreme Court this is not a book just for lawyers this is for everyone I'm not a lawyer and I wrote it and when I was rereading what I had written for the process the editing process and putting it out I found myself cracking up because Scalia himself was such a hilarious man and so gifted in witty so this story how do you make him human how do you make it come alive the

law the answer is you you tell it like a novel you create just as Tom Wolf used to advise you create

apply to any stuffy subject can make it come alive and all the the reviews that are out so far talk about how this book reads like a novel and how it's you couldn't put it down and it's funny his hell often and I alternate between the case law and the judicial philosophy which is why he

“was so important I assume we'll get to originalism which has to be explained but and the cases the”

cases are all there up right up through bush v. Gore but I alternate with what's going on in Scalia's faith what's going on in Scalia's family what's going on in Scalia's appearances at in public events there's the rabbit chapter which we discussed there's one chapter talks about

and this had never been disclosed before how Scalia tried hard to get a Wall Street Journal

reporter fired in the 1990s after that reporter published an unflattering profile and there are his relationships with the other justices the relationship with our Ruth Bader Ginsburg is best known and in the first volume I used her papers to show the beginning and the origin of that relationship how they covelled over each other and kiddos with each other and needle each other in their own words from Ruth Bader Ginsburg's papers from her time on the DC circuit and you can really see the

friendship flourish in this new volume when they are doing operas together and they're writing elephants together but the relationship with Clarence Thomas goes even deeper than the relationship with our B.J. after Thomas's ordeal just to get confirmed the out-stretched hand he found on the court was Scalia's and the relationship with San Judeo Connor which ruptured after Scalia 1989 wrote in one of his opinions that O'Connor's writings quote cannot be taken seriously and there's a whole

chapter about the the confrontations between the courts first female justice and its first Italian American justice so we make it come alive through bringing you the man the devotee at the developmental Catholic the father the husband and and the colleague and I think from the reviews I'm reading people are joining yeah we're talking to James Rosen about his new book about Justice Scalia going the Amazon page for the book and you'll laugh at how favorable the quotes are

from about 70 people from all walks of American life talking about his James said what a great read it is and it is but it's an important work of American history as well we're going to take a quick break when we come back we're going to talk about why this charming loved lovely brilliant guy is such an important figure in legal history because of his view of have justices and judges judge and rule next up more with James Rosen about his book on Anthony Scalia Scalia right after this

“you should max out to your 401k and your IRA and then they make you beg for permission to use your”

own money it's time to get the truth and discover a better way to grow and protect your money bank on yourself is the proven retirement plan alternative that the big banks and Wall Street desperately

hope you never hear about it gives you guaranteed predictable growth and retirement income

even when the markets tumble your principles protected your growth is locked in and under current tax law your retirement income can be tax-free you're in control with access to your money for emergencies or when opportunities come up with no questions asked I know government penalties or any restrictions even when you use your money it keeps growing like you never touched it built in inflation protection your savings grow every single year so you'll always know the

guaranteed value of your retirement and have real peace of mind you can get a free report that reveals how you can bank on yourself and enjoy tax-free retirement income guarantee growth and control of your money just go to bank on yourself dot com slash mark and get your free report again that's bank on yourself dot com slash mark bank on yourself dot com slash mark next up more with James Rosen author of a new book second of the three volumes plan on the

life the personal story and the legal life as almost 30 year current Supreme Court of Justice

“Scalia one of the most important figures along with people like Ronald Reagan and a handful”

of others who have shaped the modern conservative movement from an unlikely place perhaps from the courts James thank you again congratulations on the book talk about why Justice Scalia's legal philosophy is his view of the constitution his view of a co-equal branch talk about why that makes him such an important figure in American history so a reminder this new book Scalia Supreme Court years 1986 to 2001 covering the first half of his nearly 30 terms on the Supreme Court is not just

for lawyers but of course it is and obviously it's not just for conservatives of Scalia is not just

one of the most important Supreme Court justices he is one of the most important Americans

beyond any particular movement in American society over the last hundred years and why is that

judges and justices they tell us what the law means they interpret the law and tell us what it means

“very simple and once Scalia joined the federal bench in 1982 they're prevailed in American law a”

liberal notion called the living constitution this is the idea that when we interpret the constitution it should be a kind of a living breathing expanding the document that its meaning can be expanded by

latter-day judges interpreting it to account for phenomena that the founding fathers never could

anticipate it such as nuclear weapons or the internet and in order to breathe this expanded meaning into the enduring text of the constitution liberal judges those who believe in a living constitution construct relegate the text itself to secondary status and they look for the intent behind the law what was the law makers intent and to find the lawmakers intent again they bypass the text of the law and they look back at the legislative history of the law what was said in all of

those house and senate floor speeches what was said in those committee reports that and Scalia stood a thought all of that Scalia felt the the constitution is not a living or dead it is an enduring

“legal text and if you want to know what the founding fathers intent was or the intent of any lawmakers”

responsible for enacting any given law ever since the constitution you all have to do is look at the

text of the law nobody voted on a floor speech or a committee report they voted up or down on a text a law and that was either signed or not signed and when looking to do the business of a judge Scalia argued he didn't want latter-day judges through some expanded elastic interpretation of the text to graft their personal policy preferences onto that text he thought that that was a way where judges gave themselves more power and the judge in Scalia's view the honest judge

or justice will limit himself to the original meaning of the constitution or given law that's called originalism the meaning that that law or that provision was widely understood to have

when it was enacted and to find the original meaning of a law, Scalia practiced what he called

textualism textualism is the metal detector to find the original meaning of a given statute or or phrase in the constitution or any statute and if the text was ambiguous and often it is then Scalia looked to historical tradition so he takes something like abortion in this country and as early as 1978 then professors Scalia was appearing on PBS to denounce rovers as way as the embodiment of the an imperial judiciary if you can't find abortion or write a constitutional

“right to the abortion in the text of the constitution then you should be able to find at least that”

there was some historical practice protecting the or historical tradition protecting this practice and an abortion that was absent as well and that's why he favored returning the regulation of abortion to the states as was eventually done in in dogs so originalism and textualism were kind of radical notions fringe notions when Scalia came along by the time he died thanks to his evangelism on behalf of these philosophies and approaches both on and off the bench

and who was a tireless speaker at events year and in year out no less a figure than Supreme Court Justice Allen and Kagan who was an appointee of President Obama pronounced that in effect as a result of Scalia's counter revolution which changed the way we draft the law we argue the law and we decide the law in his country on all subjects from criminal procedure to to regulations from the federal government and everything in between even Justice Kagan said as a result of all

that we are all originalists now that touches every area of American life today absolutely it's this again these are not stuffy legal issues these are the stuff of American life of business and families the relationship between the states and the federal government there's so many great stories in the book I want to talk about one issue I met Justice Scalia twice only briefly and you could see in medium in person anyone who would met a larger than life and in a slightly

different era in Washington the ability to be close friends with somebody like Justice Ginsburg who he was ideologically different from I want to talk about Bush versus Gore which which is the way you deal in the this is the dividing point between this volume and the next because almost everyone I know who knew Justice Scalia on the right who admired him said you know very principled guy have believed in a very clear principled way of judging rather than on politics

I consider Bush versus Gore to be one of the decision to be one of the biggest abominations for anyone who wants to contain the injustices are not result oriented all five for public and nominated justice is voted to give George Bush the presidency all four liberal justice voted no to defer to the state court in Florida with Justice Scalia and his four colleagues did

government's going to tell Florida how they should run this election in their state that is anathetical my understanding of the law and I'm not a lawyer either but I've studied this case

“a lot it's anathetical to what I believe Justice Scalia would normally say which is normally”

to say defer to the states the federal court should not tell Florida how to run their election how did he defend that decision how do you explain that decision except for their politicians that he even he thought of as this high principled guy was a politician in a robe who said we're going to give the Republican the presidency. So the last two chapters of this new book Scalia Supreme Court years 1986 to 2001 deal with Bush v. Gore both one chapter about

the legal wrangling and the legal outcome and then the final chapter of the book about is about the perceptions of the case and its impact and how perceptions of antigen

Scalia's Supreme Court were never the same after Bush v. Gore so brief history here the 2000

presidential election featured Texas Governor George W. Bush son of a former president as the Republican nominee and sitting vice president Al Gore as the Democratic nominee and as election night 2000 war on it was clear that the race was so close that neither candidate had clinched the electoral college to win the presidency and it all came down to the late balloting that was

“still coming in in Florida which had I think 25 electoral votes back then and it became clear”

that whoever won Florida was going to win those electoral votes in win the presidency at one point on election night vice president Gore telephoned Governor Bush to concede the election and then on the advice of his age called Bush back a few minutes later to say I am retracting my concession Florida is too close and this commenced a moral amount malstrom of of legal wrangling that went on at county and state and federal courts up to the

Supreme Court for about two to three weeks and people forget more that Bush v. Gore actually

reached the Supreme Court twice the first case that reached the Supreme Court was called Bush v

Palm Beach County canvassing board and then it came back a second time as Bush v. Gore and all of this happened on such a compressed timetable for the Supreme Court ordinarily they get months to consider their decisions and how they're going rule and hear all of these that had to hear oral arguments and exchange drafts and issue rulings within like a weekend at certain points and basically you've omitted from your introduction of this mark a very important fact

you said that it was five to four the five Republicans in the majority the four democrats in the minority to hand the election at George Bush that's not exactly how it went down

what happened was when the first case Palm Beach Bush v. Palm Beach reached the Supreme Court

they sent it back down to the Florida Supreme Court which was dominated by democratic justices in Tallahassee for additional considerations if he will it's called a demand and the Florida Supreme Court then issued another ruling ordering more recounts what was wrong with the recounts was that about it about it can be organized one way in one county in Florida and the ballot is structured a very different way and the rules for counting ballots and trying to discern

voter intent if they didn't quite push out the little chad and they thus gave rise to the term hanging chads that could disadvantage the resident of one Florida county over the other if if they leave a little boat right good in that that's an equal protection argument that the credit voter in one county should be treated the but that's something that traditionally a liberal justice would say Washington needs to tell Florida you're treating the voters of county a different

than the voters of county b historically that would not be a Scalia position so the Florida Supreme Court after receiving that demand effectively ignored it and just did not even reference that they had received a demand from the Supreme Court and ordered a very expansive series of new recounts what also was omitted so two things were omitted from your introduction mark one is this is not just a matter of federal deference to to the states known as federalism

of which as you properly note Scalia was a champion the we're talking about a federal election for the highest office in the land and both the the state laws in Florida and the U.S. Constitution carried very specific provisions imposing deadlines for meeting the requirements for the electoral

“college vote to be certified that's why January 6th is such an important date the the the the the”

role call of the electoral college has to be certified on that date due to federal law the other point that and so once this the federal the Florida Supreme Court just ignored the Supreme Court's

the the Bush team appealed immediately to the Supreme Court and that's the case Bush v. Gore that reaches them and in granting cert and agreeing to hear Bush v. Gore the Supreme Court announced and this was Scalia's contribution really to the whole Bush v. Gore thing otherwise his role has been largely inflated and and twisted he announced publicly that in granting cert and hearing Bush v. Gore agreeing to hear the case the justices have determined that Mr that Governor Bush

has a high probability of succeeding in his appeal yeah okay so ultimately here's the other

fact you left out more the justices ruled seven to two seven to two that the Florida Supreme Court was not obeying the state laws or the federal constitution that's in how these that in how these recounts can happen and what time tables have to be met it was five to four as to what should be done about that and four of the the four liberal justices said well let's set it back to the Florida Supreme Court ask them to do the public and said no we've tried that and they ignored us

and this process needs to end it's an equal protection violation and so forth so you know

“I think the case is popular with the misunderstood and many respects all right I'll never believe”

that Scalia did anything but vote politically with as all the justices did here's the question I wanted to ask him I was once at a event where he was taking questions and I raised my hand desperately and didn't get called on how would he answer this question he very big tenth amendment guy very differential to state power not a big supporter of of gay rights as something that should be created by the courts if the state of Delaware wants to pass a law signed into law by the governor of

Delaware that gay people can't write on public buses should the federal Supreme Court

strike that law down how would he have answered that well first I have a handy trap door for such

questions you know when I was promoting the first book I appeared a lot of right-wing radio programs where the host might say something like all right so James Rosen how would judge scale you have felt about the j6 officers you know and right my handy trap doors that since we've just explained that his great contribution to American society and history was originalism which which I looked at a scan set latter day judges grafting their own latter-day policy preferences onto existing legal texts

“I think I can be forgiven for passing on on imputing to Justice Scalia who left us 10 years ago”

particular opinions on on particular cases based on how we ruled but based on how we ruled on other cases yes so one other case that's covered in the book is the rumor case out of Colorado where a one municipality I think in in Colorado no there was it was an amendment to the state constitution of the voters approved in 1996 that denied homosexuals as they were called in a law at the time any special protective status and a number of individuals including Martina and

of Rattalova sued to challenge that policy and Scalia held the view that that the state had the right to enact that that provision and in oral argument it was Ruth Bader Ginsburg just as Ginsburg who posed the question and and this turned out to be to play out in many cases in the future where you have people baking a cake and who want to refuse to serve let's say a gate couple getting married she asks kind of hospital refuse to allow a gay person access to a lifesaving technology

let's say and so Scalia lost that case but perhaps that would give us some indication of that would respond to your hypothetical all right I wish I could have been able to ask him I want to in a little time we have left I want to demonstrate two of your extraordinary talents one is mimicry a you and I are just huge fans of the capacity to imitate I do a great outgore but I have to requires two more tini so I'm not going to do that just I just want to make everybody understand

what we're dealing with you we're dealing with a true talent let's just hear a little bit of

your trump please say whatever you want first of all to do or might require a couple of martinis

but also that your audience be over the age of 50 okay okay but let me I have nothing if we I've

“had no intention of assuming maybe we'll see I think we do very well the pursuit I'm going to”

sue her fat shlong right off of her face very good let's do a little of your Obama please the notion that somehow I or members of my administration would extend a sentence and extend some more then some more is false all right very good and lastly in this we acquire people over 80 a little of your harry co-celled legendary sportscastle man I wish I had little ding noise to sort of like okay hang on now yeah just you know

jabbing moving like the Muhammad Ali of all all right that's probably right there all right

“now we're going to beatle trivia you know if you're our age you love the Beatles and I remember”

when the Beatles at the Hollywood Bowl came out George Martin you know it didn't a producing of it that they're a long time producer was they were liner notes and he wrote in the liner notes that he'd had an exchange with his nine-year-old daughter Lucy this is 1977 and Lucy said asked about the Beatles dad where they as great as the Bay City rollers to which George Martin claims he replied probably not my point is that even back in 1977

kids today didn't know much about the Beatles but for us and for my colleague Paul Wilkie who's going to join us now to play some Beatles trivia the Beatles are everything and they continue to be the Rolling Stones may have called themselves the greatest rock and roll band of all time but they weren't the Beatles were and I've lots of friends like you who say I know so much

“about the Beatles but we're going to test it now with two of you you want to stop you right”

not before we even do this I got to stop yeah number one you keep making as though you know today the kids don't know the Beatles the Beatles was on the band to to to reach a billion

streams with and rich and trivia which song reached a billion streams first in all the world

I'm asking the questions here Rose and yeah here comes the sun yeah so number one there's they remain very popular with younger audiences and number two I can't believe you brought up the liner notes and the exchange between George Martin and his daughter Lucy where she says you know are they as great as the basic rollers and he ends the line notes by saying one day she'll know right yes good sure 1991 true in 1991 I ran into George Martin and his family at LaGuardia airport

and completely embarrassed myself jumping up and down like something out of Calvin and Hobbs like screaming and an exaltation before getting it together and having him sign my copy of Tom Wolf's electric collet acid test and then I went and sat with the Martin family for about 15 minutes to bother them some more and he says in George Martin starts introducing his family this is my son Jiles I said hello Jiles and his jiles is a very big Beatles fan and it's okay now of course

Jiles has taken up his father's legacy is the one who remixes the Beatles releases today and he says this is my daughter Lucy and I said Lucy I said I know Lucy Lucy he still like the basic rollers and she like nodded as if to say yes here is here is this month's iteration of that idiot you know and so I have actually asked Lucy about that quote all right Paul you see what you're up against Paul woke he's my colleague here perhaps produced the show with other

colleagues and I'm just going to ask some questions I've wanted to do this forever with you too shattered out there no buzzers just if you know the answer shattered out if you've shattered at the

“same time I'll be embarrassed here I know this but we'll see we'll see I think you're home no James”

we'll see here we have what Beatles solar release was the biggest selling song in UK history until it was to place replaced by bohemian rhapsody low of contire correct Paul step it up here dude let's see imagine yeah all right uh let's see here what my record for faster so I'm asking the whole of contire stop it stop it no it's not it's a free for all of you too who played the Piccolo trumpets solo on penny lane uh Allen civil incorrect anybody know David Mason David Mason

I was a David civil okay what was the name of the Liverpool record shot we're Brian Epstein

first heard customers asking for the Beatles Nens correct yeah let's see uh what Beatles song features

Paul counting in the band audibly at the beginning I saw her standing there correct Paul you listening you're playing attention so I'm gonna get the paramedics for Paul here we go uh well who is the Beatles road manager that appeared in recordings and on the Abbey Road cover of Mel Evans correct uh what was the last what what what did Mel's stop it you're not you're not asking the questions it's my when I come on your program you can ask me for everyone was the last song

all four Beatles recorded together in a studio oh just goodness that's a good question I know the last one they worked on was I'm in the mine um the end the end what was the first Beatles album track during longer than seven minutes hey Jude incorrect but revolution number no revolution number nine is correct because hey Jude said 11 yeah let's see Mel yeah well

all right I knew some of these would be challenged uh what was the first album all the

Beatles contributed to after the band broke up ringo correct all right Paul you've done an

you for that but these were dangerous about it these were tough Paul thank you James

“uh congratulations on the book I'll just say to folks if you're interested in American history”

you're interested great characters you're interested in understanding the conservative movement

and you're interested in reading some great writing uh I got a book for you James tell them where

they can buy it it's called Scalia Supreme Court years 1986 to 2001 it's just out you can find

“on Amazon Barnes and Noble wherever you buy books again it's not just for conservatives not just for”

people like legal stuff if you care about America and you want to read a great American story well told in a compelling way I recommend it to you and and again I don't know how you got all those people are right the reviews but there's a very well reviewed book folks for a reason it's

“extremely compelling and it's gonna teach you a lot but you'll you'll turn every page it's like”

reading a movie script James congratulations on the book thank you for being here thank you my son all right and uh we're gonna get Paul some Beatles tutorial thank you both for playing that's it for today new episode coming up on Tuesday so be ready to get back on your screens and listen to your devices all new stuff we got some good guests coming up which will announce soon make sure you're not found behind in the new cycle subscribe to next up on YouTube listen to it on a podcast platform

that you like and make sure you share the show with others help us grow the community make sure you got the downloads turned on so you get the podcast if that's way listen to it and check it

out as always on YouTube have a great weekend everybody join us again on Tuesday so you always know

what's coming next up