How Justice Barrett & the Supreme Court Just Changed Everything, with Benny Johnson & Tim Rice

- Hey everybody, welcome to next stop with me, Mark Kaepernator, and Chief of the Live Interactive Video Platform, two way and your host, to all nexters, from coast to coasts and around the world

of everything that's next stop. I've been doing so much reporting on so many different stories on Iran and on the midterms and on the Supreme Court. But I'm gonna talk to you about something

“that I think I've a little bit of the curve on,”

which is going on to Democratic Party and the attempt of the socialist to take it over. Two great guests for you today.

First, the host executive producer of the Benny Show,

Mr. Benny Johnson himself will be here, Benny and I, we'll talk about all manner of stuff in the news. And then the Daily Wires, Washington Bureau chief, Tim Rice is here. Tim's just wrote a great article about why young people

are obsessed with Richard Nixon. We'll talk about that and we'll also break down the Supreme Court decisions that came out on the last day of the term and what the politics and meaning of those are.

But before Benny and Tim are here, my reported monologue on Hakim Jeffries and his dilemma over the upstart candidates in his midst, how the victories by three underdog candidates and the establishment candidates in New York and House races.

And other races around the country are exposing what is now a clearly, very deep divide within the Democratic Party. I wanna start with, you know, when you're reported for a long time, you pick up on patterns.

And a pattern I picked up over the years is about Hakim Jeffries.

He's not the only Democratic leader

under a lot of pressure to understand what's going on with the party

“and protect the Democratic Party from having its image ruined”

by the socialist. But he's under a lot of pressure because the House this week and last has been the focus of the socialist. And here's Hakim Jeffries.

I wanna show you two pictures. I've learned over the years that when Hakim Jeffries is under pressure, the man looks a little tired. More than a little tired.

He looks puffy, he looks off, and that's because according to my sources, he's on the phone a lot. He's talking to people, he's consulting, he's in meetings.

He's trying to figure out how to handle a particular situation. So here's a one on the left and I'll describe this for those who listen to the podcast. He's a very handsome young man. Mr. Hakim Jeffries in line to be speaker of the House.

Dress nicely, face looks great. Just a handsome guy. And then on the right, and we did not AI this thing, we did not Photoshop it. You'll see a very puffy and a very sleepy hiking Jeffries.

He does a lot of morning TV, and I don't know too his credit or not, but he's been out there trying to explain why Democrats are so fine that what's a few socialist being elected?

Here's what I found in my reporting this week

about this problem. You got these House candidates winning in New York. And two of them are socialist. One of them is a socialist aligned in Dressby, our socialist mayor, Mr. Montgomery.

And the danger of these candidates is three full to the establishment. First of all, they're anti-establishment. They're running against incumbents. They're saying maybe they won't vote for Schumer

and for Jeffries for their leadership, if they have the majority or not next Congress. And if you're in the establishment, you don't like anti-establishment. That's number one.

Number two, they've got positions that are divisive in the party, sometimes expressed on social media, sometimes repudiated from the past, but still out there.

And sometimes there's things they still say, and particularly on Israel, okay? Critical and Israel. Some of these positions are divisive. Now, being against a military aid to Israel,

it rubs a lot of people the wrong way, but it's popular. It's popular in the parts of the Republican party. So category one is anti-establishment. Category two is divisive positions,

but not all the divisive positions are unpopular.

“I think what's gotten too little attention”

is category three, which is socialist positions. It's one thing to embrace someone who's taking controversial things, 'cause they can say Democrats can say as they've said with Graham Platter,

not in every case for Democrats, but in many, he's learned. The things he said that were controversial. They're in the past. He's deleted them.

He's repudiated them. He's grown as a person, right? So that's one thing to say, well, they said controversial things, but they regret them.

But it's category three that I think is not enough attention, which is the party being extremely, the socialist being extremely liberal, a being for no police, being for no borders, being for no ice, being for Amas in some cases,

being hostile to Israel after October 7th. Really liberal positions are a problem. And they're problem within the party because Hakeem Jeffree is afraid of these people. He's not repudiating them.

He's saying I don't agree with them on everything, but he also over the weekend, I did a lot of reporting about why he did this,

Why do you do it? Because they're the nominees to the party, and the energy and the action and the base of the party is for these folks. They like them.

They excuse or like their controversial positions. They like how liberal they are, and this is where some people on the right make a mistake. These are positions that are popular with tens of millions of Americans.

Tens of millions of Americans with like single payer out here. Tens of millions of Americans with like to abolish heights.

The problem is many, many more Americans don't agree

with these positions. And if you want to be a majority party and when general elections, you can't have these positions. Now a few Democrats are speaking out about this,

not many, but a few. Here's Mark Thesen. He's a Republican, he's a conservatives, a Trump supporter. On Fox News, and he did a better job this week than any Democrat I saw,

“honestly crystallizing why these very progressive,”

communist in some cases, socialist in some cases. Candidates are a big problem politically for the Democratic party and not something the Republican party would get away with. Here's Mark Thesen on Tuesday

on Fox News channel as 12, please. - They're anti-Sumites.

This is the equivalent of imagine

if Nick Fuentes and Candice Owens and the and the gripper right suddenly run started running congressional candidates and winning and knocking off good solid conservatives. You've got these far left candidates,

knocking off left wing Democrats and engaging in a hostile takeover of the Democratic party. It's a big problem for them. It's a big problem.

Again, it's a problem because they're left wing really far left wing, like socialist, like they're a vowed socialist. But it's also a problem according to Democrats I talked to,

including some liberals who say, we're not gonna win elections if these people can be tied to our party. A lot of Democrats say, get out of our party. You don't wanna be Democrats, you're socialist.

Go be in a socialist party. But the socialist or smart, they know that in this country we gotta be, typically have to be part of the major parties. So now you have every Democrat being asked,

what do you think of these folks? What do you think of their left wing positions?

“What do you think of their controversial statements?”

And they don't really know how to answer. Here's Chris Murphy. He's a very, very liberal-cent Democratic senator on meet the press being asked about controversial statements and the way he handled it is typical

of how they've handled it. That's five please. Or a senator, that was an attack from a fellow Democrat. You've talked about this bigger tent. If you're saying the Democratic party needs a bigger tent,

does that include someone who called a former Democratic president of the United States a rapist? - Yeah, well, I mean, I'm not super familiar with that race. All I'm saying is that this party has to have a real contest of ideas.

- I'm not super familiar with that race. Well, maybe brush up before you go and meet the press. That's what they're gonna try to say. They're gonna try to fuzz it up as Republicans have done for years of that controversial statements

from people on the right, including sometimes the president of the United States. Why is Jeffrey so afraid of them? Why are these folks afraid to call that stuff? You know, we're talking to folks privately, they don't.

Not only do they not agree with, not only do they not like, but they recognize as politically perilous 'cause they're afraid that the base will come for them.

“How came Jeffrey's on election night had to watch this?”

He was a crowd at a New York Victory celebration for the socialist.

Here's what they were changing about how King Jeffrey's

when his image came on this screen as six. ♪ You're a national ♪ ♪ You're a national ♪ ♪ You're a national ♪ ♪ You're a national ♪ ♪ You're a national ♪ ♪ You're a national ♪ ♪ You're a national ♪ - As much as America hates socialism overall, as popular as socialism is within a democratic party, the impole after polls shows that.

The thing about the socialist is they hate the establishment more than they hate the Republicans. They hate the establishment of their party. I saw this in 2016 when I talked to Sanders supporters and they had more anger towards Hillary Clinton than they did towards Donald Trump or Jeb Bush. They anger within the left at anyone who isn't all in on socialism is one of the most powerful forces in America today in American politics today.

I don't know that it's as big as maga, but it's as powerful because it's in white-hot intensity. They will broke no dissent from what they believe, including and especially on Israel. And we saw this week in a case that Democrats can't stop talking to me about. This is a guy in California, long time California politician who's running, Scott Weiner, who's running for Nancy Pelosi's house seat in San Francisco.

And his positions on everything that the liberals care about is super liberal.

The one area where he deviated was he failed to immediately say that what Israel was doing in Gaza is genocide. But after he took some heat for that, he said what the liberals demand, what the socialist demand.

“You have to say it's genocide. So he did.”

And then he shows up a few days ago at a Pride event in San Francisco that he gone to for years. And he is hostilely mobbed. Some of you have probably seen this, but some of you haven't. This is a guy who is super liberal, who's going to an event for LGBTQ and watch what happens to Scott Weiner. S10, please.

Scott, I think your legislation on trans issues and your legislation specifically protecting

the queer's law and sex of gender registry is fantastic. I really applaud you for that. And I think you deserve to be here for that. But I think you're led. I think your housing policy, and specifically your housing policy, aligning with Yimdi's. And I think you're a policy, and I think you're a policy on the genocide in Gaza.

“It's parallel. It's parallel. They're in the guy's face. They're screaming at him. They're”

using profanity, which we're not going to show you. And his crime was he too delayed basis. I said it was genocide. Here he is on CNN expanding to these attacks against him. This is S11, please. Really over the top extremists started running towards me and shouting swarmed all around me. And we're actually physically touched me. We're completely lying about my views and record on Gaza. I've called it as genocide, and I believe that it is,

and I don't support U.S. funding for these really military. But they just lie. And they also kept talking about my quote unquote Israeli handlers, which is not only a lie, but completely anti-Semitic. So he's calling them out a little bit. And he's had people come to his defense of called it out. But they're not calling it out for what it is. What this is is an extraordinary exercise of power by people in the socialist wing of the Democratic Party demanding that if you

don't do exactly what they say exactly what they ask for, you're going to be kicked out of the party. You're going to be harassed. You're going to be threatened. Democratic Socialists did not merely sustain their corner of the party with fringe support. They expanded it. And they expanded

“it right into Jeffrey's backyard. That's what I wrote in a piece for Fox News this week. Because”

the Democratic Socialists are empowered now. They're psyched up. Now, they got to have to win some general elections to really prove the party that there's where it's at. But in the short term, as they fight to win more primaries that are coming up in the remaining primaries. And as these candidates who are now going to be made by the Republicans, the face of the Democratic Party, including the ones who were nominated in New York, as they, as we start to learn more about

their views, the Democratic Party is going to have a real problem. Chuck Schumer is going to have a problem with a Senate candidate, Graham Platner and Maine. He might have a big problem in Michigan, if the if the Sanders back, the mandami back candidate wins there. And that's Senate primary. And our King Jeffrey says a problem right now. Nancy Pelosi learned how to deal with these folks. She learned how to deal with the socialist and her midst. Not by trying to defeat the meteorologically

because she knew that's where the energy in the party was. But by how maneuvering them, by using her superior understanding of the media and of the process within Congress to do it. If I came Jeffries to come Speaker of the House and had socialist and his midst, and they represent the difference between winning and losing votes, he's going to have a big

management challenge for him. And the problem is, most of the leaders, so-called leaders

that Emma Craig Party with few exceptions, are afraid of these folks. There are some James Carval, Josh Godheimer Congressman from New Jersey, John Fetterman. There's some who will call these folks out. But mostly they're doing what you heard Congressman Senator Murphy doing. I don't know much about it. They do know about it. Therefore liberal policies, they don't disagree with the socialist about everything. But they're afraid of them. And at the same time, they know that these

controversial statements they've made, and these liberal, extreme liberal socialist, in some case communist positions, they've taken are extremely unpopular. And candidates who hold those

have trouble explaining Republicans have plenty of problems, and they've they've overlooked plenty

“within their party. But as Mark Thieson said, these are, the Republicans are not nominating people”

like this, and just letting them sit within the Republican party is a real challenge. And every Democrat, I talked to this week, including some super progresses said they're going to have to hold their breath and hope that there's some distractions out on the campaign trail, because they know full well or Republicans told me all this week, which is the president will continue to look to find his voice on painting the Democrats as a socialist and communist party, which while popular in

some small segments of blue America is not going to turn the Democrats into a majority party. And

could threaten their ability to win the majorities in the house and send it in these midterm.

All right, there you have it. My reporting this week on what's going on within the Democratic Party as a socialist, try to take them over. Let me know what you think, send me your email on

“today's report at next up at devilmakecaremedia.com. Again, that's next up at devilcaremedia.com.”

Let me know if you think I got this right or I'm missing something. Take a quick break. And when we come back, the great Benny Johnson will be here, host an executive producer of his own upon a misprogram, the Benny Show. Benny Johnson is next up. You know, in today's world fighting solutions that deliver both environmental and economic benefits can seem rare. Suer century is one of those solutions. Their innovative technologies,

health communities reduce energy consumption, lower maintenance costs, and prevent costly sewer system failures before they occur. The result improved performance reduced operating expenses and long-term savings for taxpayers. Environmental advocates value, cleaner waterways, healthier beaches, stronger protection of natural resources, and technologies that can reduce vibrato contamination in waterways. Fiscal conservatives value, cost control, efficiency, and a solid

return on investment. Suer century delivers on all of those goals. This is not a choice between protecting the environment on the one hand and protecting budgets on the other. It's proof that smart technology can accomplish both. With systems that are faster to install cheaper to operate and better for overall infrastructure performance, sewer century helps communities become more resilient while reducing risk and improving quality of life. When innovation saves money,

concerns energy, safeguards, waterways, reduces contamination, and protects public health, everyone benefits. Suer century faster, cheaper, better for more information about all this, go to www.sourcentree.com. Again, www.sourcentree.com. All right, next up, and joining me now, the great Benny Johnson Host Executive Producer of the Uponemus Program, the Benny Show. Each episode drops a weekdays 11 Eastern everywhere. YouTube,

Ex, major podcast platforms. Benny Johnson is here. Thank you for being here. Thank you, Marcus. You know, in advance of this morning's Supreme Court decisions, Eric Erickson published a long list of all the MAGA votes that Amy McConey Barrett has done. She's voted, we've had about 25 things she's done at Landmark. Why shouldn't conservatives forgive her for occasionally voting against the president? Well, hold on, because this gets the timing wrong,

Marcus. The timing, the world that we're living in today, the issue of most import is the survival of Western civilization. What does it mean to be an American? Can we have a country? Can we have

a culture? Can we protect ourselves from the ravages of uncontrolled, unlimited, illegal, third-world

migration for the benefit of strip mining, the American experience, and welfare state in absurdium? And that is the ultimate question. That is what 2024 was about more than anything Democrats admit this, that opening the border was really something that caused them. And so the immigration question is ultimate. And frankly, I just don't care, and I mean this, I just don't care if you make the right ruling on men and women's sports or Bible in school, or what I mean,

those kind of things are on the outside of the ultimate question, which is does Western civilization

“survive? Does our culture, does our nation survive? And that immigration question is the key”

question right now. Amy Coneybearer, but trays the president and our movement and this timeline on that question every single time. And that is why so many people in the Trump administration are calling me or texting me raging about this, multiple members of the confirmation team that

telling it. On this specific case, that she lied to them being a constitutional conservative in the frame of Justice Antonin Scalia, who she clicked for, that she effectively

“was an actress in order to get through the confirmation hearing. We remember that confirmation hearing.”

No notes, right? Like, I actually I have notes. This is the drawing that my daughter gave me. But this is, she holds up the pad, right? And she says, no notes. And she's so smooth. And she's so polished. And she's so good. And she's so intelligent. And they say she deceived us. She lied about where she really stood on certain issues. She's just like Santerdeo Connor or Souter. It's the same thing or John Roberts. Actually, some of them are old enough to have done the John Roberts

confirmation. And say that he was just so smooth and too polished. And you get your red flags up on that. And so this stipulate for the record for podcast listeners that Benny's daughter is a good artist. Let's get that out of the way. Very nice of me. Um, so then Hunter Biden, I can tell you that. Yeah. So how, although I don't know how you could sell that for several hundred thousand maybe for the right, maybe for the right buyer. Um, good. And the eye of the beholder. Um, Benny,

“uh, he's going to be president soon. You know, so you better be careful. Presidents don't get”

to pick Supreme Court justices to nominate very often. That's an app and a lot. And in the recent history, we've got Santerdeo Connor. We've got Souter. We've got the chief justice. We have any county bearer. But we also on occasion have Gorsuch and and Kavanaugh. They don't vote party line either. Justices and judges aren't supposed to vote party line. But but but you're speaking for tens of millions when you express your disappointment about this woman in her role on the court.

How can and and Democratic presidents don't seem to have this problem as much or at least Democrats don't seem as angry about it when it does happen. So so if you were thinking about

leave, leave any county bearer to side for a second, if you wanted to make sure that future

Republican presidents didn't have this up. What do they need to do? Yeah. Such a great question, but please let me if you wouldn't mind it, just buttonhooking here and to the point you just made mark, which is that this doesn't happen for Democrats. And you're you're an incredibly astute observer of the political landscape. It doesn't happen for Democrats. Well, you're not going to see Sonia Soda, my or Dr. Angie Brown Jackson's three, but Brian. Brian voted. Brian voted. Brian

voted sometimes to disappoint Democrats. He did. Well, it's not the it's not the case where you get a pick and it suddenly become they suddenly become like the five four. Yes. Okay. Democrats don't make that trip. When Democrats get a choice. Yes. When they they go full. Here can tongue. Here's Jackson.

Here's what I don't know what that means. Here's the way I'd phrase it. There's no Democrat

equivalent. Democratic Supreme Court justice. The equivalent where the party says that was a mistake.

“We shouldn't have picked that person. And yet that's what Republicans say about Souter. It's”

what they it's what they certainly have said at times about Roberts. And now after today people are going to say it it would in loud voice about Amy Coney Barrett. So again, before before he answered the question, I just asked you, I just want to double back. Well, any of the people who say she lied to them during the confirmation process, do you think any of them will speak publicly? Oh, Mark, they're calling on her to resign. They want her to resign from the court.

Or those who are these people. My Davis is one of them who was in charge of the article three project and shepherded through all three. I mean, he was working for Grassley. It was his job to shepherd these people through. And he lists Mitch McConnell as somebody who immediately called the president and demanded that it would be Amy Coney Barrett in 2020 on the eve of Ginsburg's death. In fact, when President Trump boarded the plane after that sort of famous, oh, you're just telling

me right now, oh my goodness, you know, Elton John playing in the background, famous clip. He boards the plane with Mitch McConnell in his ear on the phone calling and demanding it be Amy Coney Barrett.

Right. And that should have been, of course, the first red flag. Your question about how

doesn't this happen in the future. Let's just let me get another one. This has been the issue. The issue and that the left understands is that they show their work, right? So these leftist justices have a long body of legal decision-making that you can point to that shows where their mind is and what they are going to rule on and how. And we don't do that. For some reason, the right is blown away by the credentialism. Oh, they came from North Sudan and they came from

Harvard and Yale. And we're so, uh, the the mistake, and though the witchcraft, almost of like these, the, oh, they're from Yale. How could they ever be bad? And they're one of us. The federalists, uh, they, they, they, they like them there. The federalists club, like, that we get dupped by this without ever being able to show your work. And I'm telling you, this is something that's truly

serving in office. The trust us bro, era of American politics, trust us bro. It's good with the

CIA, with the FBI, trust us bro. That doesn't work anymore. It's show your work. But with justice. So your work, you know, show us who you're going with. But with justice and judges. Is that mean only pick people who've got lots of lower court rulings? Totally. I mean, listen, I just talk with Brett Tolman, who is, uh, you know, he's in charge of right on crime executive director, he worked for the DOJ for nearly 40 years. And he says that he's a part of a selection committee

that's looking at what could happen if there's a, you know, who knows when there's going to be the next opening and they can see on the Supreme Court. And he says that they are, they are ruthlessly eliminating from the pack. Anybody who doesn't have decades of jurisprudence

“that they can study. Right. And that's what Amy Coney bear was. You know, Amy Coney bear, everyone was like,”

everyone was blown away by like, oh, she's so smart. She's a law, you know, she teaches at Notre Dame.

And she, you know, she says the right things about the Constitution, but we haven't, we didn't see any of her rulings, right? Yeah. Like we didn't see it. We saw the empty note pad. And that's what we're getting. Yeah. Um, what's, what good for the things you care about? She's not going to resign. I don't think. Um, what good comes is it, is it ratings fundraising? I don't mean just mean you. I mean, everyone like you today on the right who's just enraged and, and asking her to be hung in

effigy or get at the, the wippy, the pin cushion, the voodoo doll. What good does it do things you care about to rail against or why not just say, well, that's unfortunate. We learned some lessons. Let's move on and hope she votes with us going forward. What good comes from the assailing her with such vociferousness? I'm a parent and your parent. And I want to call, I want to country for my children.

“I want a nation. I want their American citizenship to mean something. It's not magic”

dirt. This is a big one. This is, this is a tough one. Yeah. Because this is, I get how strongly feel about the issue. Yeah. I'm written it up, but I want to focus on my question. And what good does it do? Why not just say, this is a horrible decision. This, this is not adequately read the constitution. Accurately read the constitution. It doesn't adequately protect America. Let's look for ways to try to find the same result without having to go through the Supreme Court. Why isn't

that a better for our kids than then, then talk about how horrible this woman is and how would a horrible mistake it was to put her on the court? I would probably turn it down a bit if it was a statutory decision, but they decided to go in the constitutionality of birth rights citizenship. Therefore, making it impossible to overturn. We'd have to have a two-thirds

constitutional convention. Not at all. In order to overturn this, of course, never gonna,

we'd have civil war before we'd have that market, and I both know that. And so what they did was decided, and into eternity, and until we get a, maybe a news, you can bring the question up perhaps again, and you can get a new Supreme Court, but you're gonna talk, you're talking generations, generations, at least one generation. Exactly. And so on a question like this, on a question like this, you have, I'm upset because of the way that they decided to. And

Cavanol is a great example. He wanted to decide it's from the statute, which says, hey, listen, Congress, if you don't like it, you can go amend it. Here's a good example. The fortune the amendment didn't cover Indians, American Indians. They had to go, an act of Congress, in 1926, had to go give American citizenship to the children of Native Americans. And so what

“should have happened here in this Supreme Court is they could have said, well, if you want to give”

citizenship to Chinese nationals for some reason, Congress can make that decision as the voice of the people, but the idea that we live in magic dirt and that every, like a Haitian woman who practices Voodoo can touch the border wall, and suddenly her child is as American as any American child that ever lived, or somebody who's been in this country for 200 years, is wrong. And no other country does that. Other countries have had statues like this, and they've done a way away with them

because it's a national security issue more than anything. I normally don't like to ask people why other people think what they think because I should ask them, but you're here. I'm going to ask you, why do you think people on the other side feel so strongly that we should have birthright citizenship? I don't care. I get the equities you care about. I don't want a bunch of Russian and Chinese men sure in candidates coming back here and being as American as your kids,

because they're parents slipped in here to birth the kids. I get that. But why do people, why do people feel strong about the other position, except for a fidelity to their reading of their sense of the intent? Why do they care so much? This Supreme Court decided and on the left mark, I'm not going to sit here and be like let's burn the Supreme Court down, let's pack it, let's change it forever, let's snap all their gabbles, right? I'm not going to

And I'm going to live by it. You're exactly right. But yes, to your exact question here into the Amy Coney bearer. The Amy Coney bearer question, the reason you go hard against Amy Coney bearer is that that was a decision, a mistake, that was made in recent days, right? Not too long ago, just a couple of years ago, by the president's team. And so you want to make sure that doesn't happen again. It just seems to keep happening. As a parent, I want to break that out of my children.

Again, I'm interrupting to just go this back. Why are they cheering? Why would someone cheer the left? Yeah, yeah. Why do they? Why do they? And it can't be, you know, the thing that they want these people to vote, they just not the answer. The numbers aren't that big. It's principle. That

“many people babies vote. That's why they're that's why they're cheering because they want”

Chinese and Russian babies to come here and vote. Well, the children of first generation

immigrants vote 90% for the Democrat. But you really, that's the reason you're a number's guy, right? I don't like that's why they're cheering. But this is a population. Holy, I mean, listen, this is a population that votes 90% for Democrats. I think that is a perfect rationale as to why they would want as many criminal or legal immigrants as possible into this country. You want to know what they haven't done and what hasn't been done is nobody has elucidated for me from the left.

Why we need third world aliens in our country? Yeah. Nobody's ever made that argument. So I'd love to hear it, actually. I don't get it. Okay. So we got four justices nominated by Republican presidents who sometimes vote different from the way you would like, including today. Gorsuch, Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett. Do you consider them all equally flawed? All equally problematic and shouldn't have been selected or do you have gradations

between the four of them? Gorsuch is in nine out of ten. Kavanaugh is a seven out of ten.

“Any Coney Barrett's a two out of ten? How about the chief justice?”

Of two out of ten? Two out of ten. So you make those two worse than the others. But are you disappointed in Gorsuch and Kavanaugh overall because they're not 10 out of ten? There are some decisions that obviously has been frustrating for both of them and that's just the way that it goes. You're exactly right that they shouldn't be political, but that's not reality. We live in reality.

And the reality is that Joe Biden quite illegally said I'm going to put a black woman on the

Supreme Court. By the way, that's against like federal discrimination laws that you can't do that. I would also think it's wrong for somebody to campaign on putting a white man on the Supreme Court who's 40 years old. Like when they vote, when they vote at verse to your wishes? What do you think causes that? Is it they're trying to appeal to people in Georgetown and in

“the New York Times? Do they decide it based on their view of the law that just happens to be different?”

What accounts for the votes that it go against the way you think they should vote? And why they don't always vote with Alito and Thomas? Is it trying to appease liberals or something else? I think there's a left crew. There's like a hive mind, an academia hive mind that is controlled entirely by the left is that has birthed people like John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett. And we need to break the spell of the illusion that somehow that creates a better justice. It doesn't

in fact, it creates a worse justice. I would much rather have Saul Goodman on the Supreme Court than Amy Coney Barrett. Let me just be the first to say I want to nominate Saul Goodman. Yeah. At least he'd have the Constitution behind him in his office. And I'd take that any day. And he probably got his law degree from a community college. Then somebody who is only concerned about what she reads about herself in the New York Times. And I think that is a major problem.

I think there's one other critical issue here, Mark, that is existential to the court itself,

which is court packing. The left has made it very clear that they intend on doing that. And it's very popular with their base. And I personally believe that this decision by Barrett and by John Roberts who's grooming her is a decision in order to placate them as a political decision in order to try and all of branch the left into saying please don't destroy the court for us. Is that based on reporting gut feeling? How would you characterize why you think that?

What you've seen John Roberts do? How you've seen John Roberts behave as like the mayor of Chevy Chase? Exactly. Yes. Yeah. I think he feels some obligation as the chief to be the mayor of Chevy Chase. And you know, it's from Washington. He's been to Chevy Chase Country Club. I think that's

background that would make her want to say, man, I hope a man I hope Ruth Marcus and Nina Totenberg

like me. I just, I don't, I don't see that. But I understand your point of view about it. I just, I just wonder if, if she were joining us now. And she heard that characterization that you're doing this because you want to be vice mayor of Chevy Chase. I wonder whether she, how does she actually feel? Because my gut tells me she really doesn't care about that. Nothing in her background suggest she would. So I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying,

I don't feel as confident that that's the reason as you do. Well, she's incredibly pedigreeed through the Ivy leagues. Yeah. And she has, she's sort of steeped in that. But I think that you bring up a great point here, Mark, which is that we don't know a lot about her. Yeah. She didn't have a lot of jurisprudence. There wasn't a huge background. She was kind of like just a blank slate.

“And you should be, that should be a red flag for every conservative going forward. So it's nothing”

personal against me. And you know, I mean, like, listen, she's had threats against her family, people of docks to her come after her kids at her house. The same things happened to me. So worst thing you could possibly do, who another human being or apparently, is it being a parent's hard enough, man. And that is demonic. It's evil. It's awful. But it does change you. And I, I, I, I, I, I worry that there's sort of that there might be like give a month or a cookie kind of thing dynamic going on

here. And it's just human nature. And what do they do it? What a colossal failure of the process for conservatives to win all these present elections to get the opportunity to nominate justices. And then pick people who are disappointing as we said, don't have the same thing on the left. All right, let's do some rapid stuff. Who's the most overrated person in the Trump administration? And why?

“The most overrated person in the Trump administration. Do they have to be currently in the administration?”

They do. They do indeed. It says right here in the fine print. All right, let's start. I'm going to leave it at the people who would qualify for this answer demonstrably have been removed from administration. Who's the most underrated person in the administration? This is going to get me in trouble. But I think that Mark Wayne Mullen has had a huge

mess to clean up. And the two, the two questions are actually connected the first and the second.

And he had a huge mess to clean up. And he has been going about it very quietly and very calmly and without making a ton of huge of mistakes. And he has increased for the base what we want to see out of DHS, which is enforcement of our laws in this country. And he's done, I think, an excellent job on that very silently, which is what you want, I think. What's the last professional thing you cried over?

That's just a little pride. Not really a cryer. The last professional thing that I cried over. Maybe, well, here we go. Okay, the inauguration of President Trump and let me explain because I have watched it from the maternity ward, welcoming our fourth child. And so I cry at the birth of all of our children because it's like, you know, it's spiritual and you're welcoming an angel into this world. There's a new soul. And it's a gift from God. Eros in the Quiver as the Bible says.

And so I cried the birth of everyone on my children. Trump happened to be being inaugurated in the hours of like my fourth child's birth. And so we washed off from the hospital.

“Yeah. What's the thing that liberals get most wrong about you?”

That I'm actually better at this game than them. Like, we're, we're actually so fundamentally better at social media and audience and gathering audiences. And we don't ask for a turf anything. Yeah. And we've been at it for a longer time. And so they're, they're wrong about a popular UR on the parents. They vanished. Well, I think they had this, this was a huge problem that they had, I mean, this, if you would ask any, any liberal activists, what's scared

them the most about Charlie Kirk? Yeah. It was how good he was at TikTok. It was like how effective he was at reaching people. Right. And because young people are, and by nature going to be going to gravitate towards the truth, they're going to desire the truth. And what Charlie was able to do in these mediums. And I worked with Charlie for a very long time. And he was able to reach people on a level and resonate with them far beyond any of the corporate, an access media.

And so suddenly this trillion dollar investment in MSNBC and CNN, ABC and BC CBS, like that matters not when there's a Charlie Kirk video in your TikTok feed that has been seen by for

20 million people. Yeah. All right. Last, last one. Last one because we're up against a hard

out for one of us. I can't say you. Um, be honest about this, brace yourself. Don't know, no fog

2028. Then John Osoth, if they were the Democratic nominee. Oh, no, he's he's the dark horse.

“You're exactly right. Yeah, but who would you fear the most would win the general election?”

In other words, would anyone be a stronger general election candidate at this point in your mind? Then John Osoth. I mean, okay. So I don't care about like getting canceled because I've been

canceled so many times and it never works. Um, so I'm just going to straight up say what's the reality

of the Democrat party. They're the two people that I was the most scared about is John was Josh Apiro and John Osoth, but they're both Jewish. Yeah. And the Democrat party has made a swing towards geodism and that you can see it right now. I watched the videos of Dan Goldman getting kicked out of Brooklyn coffee shops. I'm seeing what's happening with Scott Weiner arguably the most progressive Democrat elected in the country and how he's being screamed out and chased out of like places in San

Francisco because he's Jewish, but but that's a question. That's a question. They're going to have to like struggle with some of their base isn't going to like that. If somehow Shapira or Osoth got nominated, those would be the two you'd fear the most. Absolutely. Absolutely. Yes, Benny. Thank you. As always,

we ran out of time before I ran out of questions. I wanted to hear from you on, but hopefully you'll

come back anytime. Mark. All right. Don't forget. Don't forget the Benny show available to you every day. Wherever your finer podcasts are or on his Vaunted YouTube channel. Thank you Benny. Thank you Mark. Next stop right here after a quick break. Tim Rice will be here. DC bureau chief for the daily wire we'll talk about more about the Supreme Court decisions and about America's youth and their love affair with Richard Milhaus Nixon. Jim Rice is next up.

Everybody, if you're 64 years of age or older, here's something worth knowing. Medicare has thousands of plans, thousands, but most people, they pick just one with that ever seeing the full picture. Plenty of people will call telling you, they've got something better. The question

“is whether you can trust them. That's why I tell my audience about chapter. They're the only”

Medicare advisors that compare every plan nationwide. Their advisors aren't paid to push one plan over another. They look at your doctors, your prescriptions, your priorities, and they show you what plan actually fits for you. There's no cost, no obligation. Chapter review your options in under 20 minutes. And if you're already on the right plan, they'll tell you that. But if not, they'll help you make the switch. Chapter has already saved members of my audience thousands of dollars by helping

them find the right new plans. Call chapter. That's the advice that I give to my friends. Talk with the chapter advisor. They call them at 262-454-0503 again. Call chapter advisor today at 262-454-0503. All right. Next up. Enjoying me now. The great Tim Rice is the Washington DC Bureau Chief for the Daily Wire and a man who both covers breaking news and thinks about longer-term stuff and wrote a

great article about Richard Millhouse Nixon, which we'll talk about in a second. But I want to start

Tim with the news of day and all these Supreme Court decisions. The president won too on campaign

“finance and trans athletes and lost the birthright citizenship case. I think that it's an inside-based”

ball thing, but the campaign finance case is huge. Republicans have more money, more big money, and they've got James Blair, and there's no Democratic analog for that. So explain to people who care about the midterms, but maybe don't really understand why it's a Supreme Court decision can affect the midterms, why this is such a big deal. Yeah. Essentially, the case says that campaign finance or contribution limits two party organizations violate the first amendment. So after this

ruling, you can donate, there is no limit to how much money people can donate to the Republican party or the Democratic party. And there's no limit to how then the party can use that money. So this has been the sort of, when we think about campaign finance reform and limitations and regulations for the past 15 years, we've talked about citizens united, we've talked about, you know, packs and things of that nature. But this is now sort of bringing it back to the original,

the original, you know, kind of political organs behind these things. So I mean, in the short term, as you sort of alluded to there, the Republican party, which has more cash on hand and has a better sort of fundraising and distribution apparatus than the Democrats, could, you know, can are going to go out right now and James Blair is going to start raising as much money as you can be possible into the GOP coffers and try to deploy that as best they can through the midterms.

Long term, I'm super interested to see what happens and whether or not this kind of heralds some return to a more centralized, stronger party, right instead of, I've talked to a couple of academics who are experts in political parties and they sort of think that it's not going to

lobbyists and all sorts of other, you know, kind of super a party organizations that would need

“to give up a lot of power in order to return the parties to, to prime place. But I really think”

it's hard to understand how big this is and how transformational this is going to be over the next couple of years. Yeah, I agree that it could be transformational on current, but it's unpredictable, but I'm just thinking in the short term for these midterms. James Blair proved last cycle. He's the president's top supervisor was doing it at the White House. It's left the White House and it's now coordinating. He proved last cycle under previous rulings that loosened the limits

on coordination, that he knows how to do it. He knows how to sit with the lawyers and say, "What can I do? What can I do?" And then organized and coordinated with maximum efficiency. He's now been on shackled to do it even more and I think the Republicans have become the party of big contributions. James Blair can now and Democrats have better at small dollars, but James Blair can now go to the biggest donors in the party and say this. We want to keep the majority. We can keep the

majority in the Senate for sure, maybe in the House, but if you don't want the commies to be running Congress, give right-ass big checks and rest assured, the money will not be wasted. It'll be spent by me, James Blair, who you trust in a coordinated way for the biggest bang for the buck. That may or may not happen, but you can bet James Blair's going to try. Yeah, and I would also just say it couldn't come at a better time for President Trump,

not just in the obvious way, which is that now he might have access to more resources as his party heads into the midterms, but something that I've really been struck by over the past few months

is just how much the president has been acting like a traditional party leader, right? In his first

term, we saw a lot of people would call loyalty tests or picking winners and losers, trying to elevate fringe magnifigures to establish politicians. There's a little bit of that this term, but if we look at the primaries that we've already seen in the run-up to the midterms, this isn't Trump kind of just settling petty grievances or things like that. There's obviously a grievance element. He's very clear, right? He went after Bill Cassidy because he was mad at Bill Cassidy,

but Julia Letlow wasn't some random Trump loyalist from the sticks, right? He was a representative and elected member of Congress. I'll be at one with a sort of different record, but the president is getting involved in these campaigns in a way that we are used to pre-Trump presidents getting involved, right? More as a party leader and Kingmaker in the traditional sense, less as sort of

kind of like the mafia boss that we saw in the first term. So now to take this second term

more established president who is clearly interested in political maneuvering in a more traditional way and giving him even more resources to put behind that effort is, again, I think if this had happened in Trump one, again, the unpredictability would have been cranked up to 11, but I think now it's pretty clear what's going to happen, what Trump and what James Blair are going to do

“with this decision. I agree with your macro premise, the only thing I take exception with this,”

I don't think it's ever been common for a president to work to be an incumbent of his own party. Sure. That makes that case a little exceptional, but otherwise, I think your points spot on and kind of brilliant. The two other cases decided today, one, the president and his side win on saying state law is that allow states to say trans athletes can't participate in women and girls sports. That was upheld, and then the president lost on the birthright citizen

case. His executive order said, "No, inconsistent with the Constitution, which allows people born in the United States on American soil regardless of the legal status immigration status of their parents to be American citizens." What I'm already hearing from people is these are cases where the losing side wins politically. This is going to rev up the left who, although public opinion is not on their side. It's going to get the base of democratic party revved up to say,

"We need to fight for equal rights for everybody," and on their present side, he's going to be able to say, "Those pointy-headed liberals on the Supreme Court are keeping me from protecting our border and every way," and I'm going to keep fighting for the border. How much do you credit

“that theory that losers in the Supreme Court are the winners politically in the midterms?”

I think that's probably right. I think with all big cases like this, especially again, coming on the heels of a midterm election cycle that we can definitely expect that, the birthright citizenship case, absolutely. I take that point hands down, although it's kind of funny that this is, it's funny to me that this has become this temple issue for the Republican party, because as the majority, as the court's ruling says, and as I think even conservative

defenders of birthright citizenship have pointed out, this has been the pretty standard ruling or our reading of that line in the constitution since the amendment was ratified. And with

this novel reading of birthright citizenship, it's amazing how quickly the president and his team

have picked that up, and how far it's gotten so quickly. I remember seven years ago, this was something we were talking about in seminar rooms and cocktail parties, now onto the Supreme Court. And so to your point, yes, I think those pointed ahead in liberals and that traitor Neil Gorsuch, they they want illegal immigrant anchor babies to live in the United States. That's a winning message for Republicans. And I think that the same is true with the trans-athlete case,

“but the only thing that I'm looking at there is the liberal justices concurred with the majority”

in agreeing that Title IX does not protect a biological men who identify who become trans women, identifies trans women. They descended on whether or not the equal protection clause should be read in a way to kind of again, like a more expansive reading of the equal protection clause. We should kind of change the way we think of it to include them, to kind of expand the rights regime. But they didn't dissent on the central question. They didn't say,

which is a little bit surprising, especially from the sort of my or who has become very political and very explicit in her recent dissents. She had an opportunity to say, in the court,

trans women are women, and she basically didn't. So that's probably a little too nuanced to make

a difference on, you know, in midterms and certainly in upcoming midterms. But that I think is

“going to be a very interesting, I'm no legal scholar, but that seems to me like the seeds of”

something that people on the right that conservatives will build on in the future. Don't say your show is short as legal scholar. I hear people at the time say, you're a young Nina. People say, we're talking to Tim Rice, he's a Washington bureau chief of the Daily Wire and a big thinker. Tim runs a newsroom that's got a high metabolism, but also a big thinker. And you've been thinking big about Richard Nixon. My dad's second boss in Washington

was Nixon worth the Nixon White House. And this is not the first run-off sauce for President Nixon,

but there is a bit of a run-off sauce going on. Led by two great men, one is Tim Rice, but the other is the Vice President of the United States. Here is JD Vance on his trip out to the Nixon Library where he was promoting his book, talking about in positive terms, Richard Millhouse Nixon, SA please. If Watergate happened tomorrow, it would be like a 12-hour news story. The idea that it would have taken down a presidency is crazy. And by the way, if you look at

the story of how the deep state took down Richard Nixon, it's not all that different from what the same groups of people, the same institutions tried to do to Donald Trump and the first Trump administration. There is a parallel. I also just at a personal level, you know, okay, young Senator Vice President writes some best-selling books, is hated by the media. It kind of sounds like JD Vance. Well, now downplaying Watergate and talking about it as a made up scandal

by the deep state at the Nixon libraries. Well, that's easy to do. That's pandering to the home crap. But Tim Rice wrote this, how the kids learned to love Richard Nixon. This is a C1, please. Tim, who are the kids and why do they love Richard Nixon? Yeah, so I started noticing probably a year ago at this point that whenever I would open Twitter or Instagram, I'd see these very,

“the best way I can describe it is very genzy-coated, memes and video edits of Nixon, you know,”

kind of black and white, smash cuts, like rave music in the background. And at first, I thought, you know, this is just some kind of irony-paled internet meme. As you said, much like, you know, much like defending Nixon at the Nixon Foundation or the Nixon Library, right? You know, making kind of glorifying controversial figures on the internet. This is so bad. He's good. Right. Yeah, this is not the first time this has happened. But then in the past few months, I noticed a

cup vanity fair and a couple of other publications, maybe the Washington Post, we're running stories sort of about about these memes. Who's behind the Richard Nixon memes? Why are why are Genzy getting excited about Richard Nixon? The thesis, of course, for them being that, you know, it's bad if we have it. It's some conspiracy, because if we can rehabilitate Nixon, then we can rehabilitate Trump, which just as a side note, I found as a funny sort of, I like I obviously

got where they're coming from. I'm not, I'm not trying to play dumb. I understand where they're coming from. But, you know, to be very pedantic, Trump's in the White House right now. It has been necessarily neat that kind of rehabilitation. But I digress. So, I started looking into it, and it turns out that the memes are coming from the Nixon Foundation. And the Nixon Foundation is

of Richard Nixon. And they recently hired a bunch of young guys to run their social media team,

and as all good social media people, you know, do they know what young people want. So, I talked to them, I started looking into it. But the craziest thing for me is that, yes, these funny memes and edits on Instagram and on X are getting millions and millions of views. But in the past couple of years since they started this new strategy, something like more than half of their YouTube subscribers are under the age of 30 and on YouTube. They're not crazy. They're

not posting memes. They're just posting clips of Nixon speeches, just like Nixon talking about Russia. Nixon talking about China. Nixon, oh, pining on Kissinger's style of foreign policy. So, clearly, there's something else going on here beyond that initial kind of, ah, yeah, we're

Nixon maxing this summer. That's a funny meme that gets people hooked. But then that's not enough

to get. So, what's the thing? What do they like? They like this sense of humor? They like

“it's like post-modern irony. What do they like? I think it's two things. I think one is that is”

what the vice president touched on and I clip that you just played, which is that I disagree with advances characterization of a lot of things. For instance, I think he's completely wrong. The water gate would be a 12-hour story. I think water gate would be, it would be an even bigger story than it was at the time, right? Because we'd be parsing every single thing, every, there'd be, you know, every minute, the White House tapes, every plumber, anyway. But I do think there is this sense

among Gen Z especially. This is a generation that probably not since the 1960s has a generation felt so betrayed by the powers that be. I mean, you think this is the generation that grew up in and had a lot of their milestones taken away by COVID lockdowns. Only then defined that kind of regime sort of crumble, right? And everyone kind of admitted, oh, you know, yeah, we probably didn't need to do social distancing. And again, whether we're a guardless of what side of the political

while you're on, they saw sort of the rise and then fall of Trump and then the rise and fall

“of Joe Biden and peak woke. And now we're back to Trump again. So, you know, I think that there's”

a lot of distrust in the government in the media in the people who are who we traditionally trust to tell us what is true and false, what is right and wrong. So I think on the one hand, they are just very interested in a figure who they feel, yes, yes, maybe a figure they feel was subjugated or victimized by the deep state. But really just a figure who they didn't have access to. Right? I think there's a there's a a thirst among young Americans to question official narratives,

to question official histories. And what better place to start than with Richard Nixon, a man who at this point, everyone learns in school, you know, Watergate, I'm not a crook. He opened China end of Nixon. That's the Nixon unit in every APUS history class. But then it turns out, not only is there more than Nixon, there's a lot more because he had this massive career and he's spanned everything from, you know, he started as the comedy catcher. He ended as the elder statesman

who presidents were calling, you know, for advice and his dodech and he did everything in between.

“And I think that's why, right, that's why we see them staying on the YouTube page watching,”

you know, the kitchen, the kitchen cabinet debate or, you know, later in life, interviews or speeches were Nixon talked about, you know, the threat that Vladimir Putin posed, or, you know, the kind of dangers of the globalized economy, or even, yeah, as you said, it's sort of postmodern ironic, waxing about, you know, what makes men happy. You know, there's there's so much content there. I think it's just sort of for a lot of young

people. It's like, okay, wow, who knew that there was this guy. I want to learn as much about him as I possibly can. Yeah, Richard Nixon's a fascinating figure and Tim has done a great job both here and in the piece explaining why there is fascination with Richard Nixon now. The piece available in the daily wire website, as is Tim's work and the work of his charges in the Washington Bureau and Tim, where are you on social? Tim Rice DC on X and that's about it.

That's all I need. Tim Rice DC on X. Tim, I love having you on. Thank you for congratulations on the piece and great to spend some time with you. Thanks, Mark. Oh, he's a pleasure.

All right, next up, I get to read some of your incredible feedback to recent episodes here.

That's right. Mark the male man is next up. So, think about the last 30 bucks you spent maybe is on a streaming subscription if something you don't even watch or a lunch you've already forgotten about. That's $30 and it's gone forever. Acre gold lets you turn that so called loss money into something better physical 24 carat Swiss gold. You pick a plan, your bounds builds up and once you hit the price of a bar, they ship its straight to your front door. Think

about this real gold in your hand at your house and over time you're sitting on something that's been valuable since the dawn of civilization. And for the collectors out there, they've just dropped something really cool. The limited edition Hot Wheels collection. These are officially licensed by Mattel. They're strictly capped and once they're gone, they're history. So, while you're checking

that's cool. A one-gram Hot Wheels Gold Bar plus a massive grand prize. It's the 10-gram 24-carat Gold Hot Wheels Bar both come in official collector packaging and they're both up for grabs right now. So, start stacking for just 30 bucks at getacregold.com/mark. Again, go right now to getacregold.com/mark and subscribe today. Next up, letters. We get letters. We get lots and lots of letters. And this is why I love the

second so much here. The brilliant feedback from all nexters out there. And so, we'll go to the

mail bag right now. Mark the mailman on duty to read for you from some of your fellow nexters. Here's one from TJ and Philadelphia. TJ says, "Hey, Mark, for your 8-for-28 predictions by the way, they're not predictions. TJ, they're rakeings." You often mentioned how Josh appear in his team does little to combat scandals. And that will be a liability for him if he runs. But it's a Pennsylvania resident. I see it differently. Most of these miners scandals go under the radar

“and most folks around here don't know about them. I think addressing these scandals and drawing”

attentions to them were the result in a strife's end effect where they get more attention. Either by accident or intentionally, I think Shapiro is handling it the best by ignoring it

and not giving it more unnecessary attention. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this angle.

TJ and Philadelphia. TJ, you're absolutely right in terms of your sort of like short-term analysis that if he dealt with them in a bigger way, we'd get more attention. What I'm pointing to as what I see as one of his biggest kill these seals is they're not handling them. Whether they should be handling them in a quiet way or a lab weight, they're not handling them. And if he performs in his team perform at that level, when they're on the big stage, when they're not on the

bubonatorial stage, but we're in there on the big stage, I believe that it will be fatal. And I've done to my reporting to know inside his operation that it's there. This is not some genius plan. They'd like to handle them better. But you're right. They don't get attention in Pennsylvania. They're not really breaking through nationally. But if they don't get better dealing with these things, there's nowhere to run and nowhere to hide when you run for president. Great question, though.

All right. Let's go to an out of Brian W. Brian says this. Hey, I've heard you give Tallahureka. We're talking about the Democratic Senate candidate in Texas. A 20% shot and I heard 35%. From Trump trusted Republican commentators, 20% is not a small number. That's a better chance than any NFL team has of winning next year's Super Bowl right now for odds makers.

“I don't know if that's true, but it might be true. If he does upset Paxton, what does that mean?”

Towards 2028. If his message can win in Texas, they can win in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, right? With such a weak field as Tallahureka ride this momentum into the nomination, he will be the darling of midterms and thought of as next stop. Brian, so much smart stuff

in here. First of all, you're right. 20% is high given the Democrats have in one statewide

in Texas in decades. And you're also right that if he does win, he will be counted as the next great big thing and people will wonder what does he have that others should emulate. However, Paxton is a really weak candidate. This is why Democrats not just oppose him because they're the establishment, but this is why they wanted corn and estinomity. Even Paxton's supporters, even his own campaign team will tell you, he brings a more baggage than a super sized

damn track train. And that means that while there'll be a temptation to learn lessons from a

“calorie of victory, it might be sent to lessons. Simply might be, don't run a guy who's been”

and indicted a lot. Don't run a guy who's faced a lot of allegations personal and professional. And I'll say this about Tallahureka and 20% chance. 20% today, let's see if they can eliminate him through more of this opposition research and negative ads. If they eliminate him, we'll go down to close to zero. If he survives it, if he's still standing tall and still getting the kind of poll numbers he got in a nearer timespole this week, which shows the race a toss up, I may make it more like 35%

to 20%. It's still taxes, he's still an extremely liberal Democrat, and we just have to keep watching it. But no doubt, if he wins, he's on the national stage in a big way and will be more even more the toast to the media than he is now. All right, next, let's go to Mary W. Mary W. Right, so this is just people can work hard to change the electoral systems in their various states, sounds great. But we seem to be at an impasse on proof of citizenship and voter ID,

and it appears the leaders in the Democratic Party want to resist that at all costs anyway. Courts are another issue. I do think Republicans have made efforts to get courts to address perceived flaws in certain states, Pennsylvania in 2020. And the court said the issue wasn't ripe until votes were counted. After it was too late, it seems like a catch 22 to me. I know there is a vibrant election integrity movement bubbling along in certain states. And actually,

I think this would be like Grand Dog Day wish could be more optimistic all the best, Mary W.

You know, Mary, like most next years, you're extremely well informed that raises a lot of really important points and accurate points about what a challenge this is. But what I will say is Republicans would be smart to do three things that they really want to have this as an area of progress rather than just have an issue. Number one, stop exaggerating about how widespread election fraud is. I know that will produce a lot of letters from you all. But there is election fraud,

but there's never documentation that it actually changes the outcome. And while one election

“fraud is one too many, and 10 is 10 too many, I think better documentation of the actual fraud”

would be helpful. Number two, I think making cases for legislation to tighten things up, that doesn't overreach would be good. Some cases, I think there's overreach. And then lastly, work with Democrats when you can. There are a lot of Democrats who would find many of the things Republicans are pointing to to tighten up the system to be good public policy. And I think they'd go for not all of them, but some of them. And I think whenever you're making changes to how people vote,

it's good to do it in a bipartisan way if you can. Great letter, Mary, thank you, lastly. This is from Andrea. Andrea writes this, "Hi, Mark. I think you're right about platinum

“and it's similarity to Trump. Take away Trump's wealth and he's no different than platinum.”

When it comes to the way they talk, I don't entirely disagree with what platinum bills platform on. This is the main Senate candidate, of course, Graham Platner. I'm not for changing the energy industry, but it's probably time to have universal health care. The industry is so affected by the government already, but we have to figure out how to make sure we only do this for Americans. I also want to see Citizens United overturn. That's the big campaign finance law case.

And this is a priority for him. So I don't really care if he is elected. I'd like to state a GOP, keep the Senate so that Trump can replace Thomas and Alito before he goes. But otherwise,

“it change might be good for the country. Let the impeachment's commence because this is all the”

house will do when they get power, but it's better than passing bad laws, Andrea, in Napa, California, and Andrea. Really interesting email because our mail rather, piece of mail, because you're a crown of across the board here. Very, very much like a lot of Americans in contrary to the impression that the media paint sometimes, that people are hard, hard, hardy, red or blue. You got some nuance here, Andrea, and I appreciate that. And we'll see about all the issues

you raise health care and citizens united and control the Senate all up for grabs. But I like the way you laid it out. All right. Thank you to all our writers, TJ Bryan, Mary, and Andrea for their insightful messages. The rest of you next year's out there, keep the messages coming, opportunity to be featured on the program. The next time we do mark the mailman and even if we don't feature you, I do enjoy hearing your thoughts. Thank you for writing in. All right. That's

it for today's program. We'll be back on Thursday, a special episode, celebrating the 4th of July, the special 4th of July, America's 250th birthday. Have a lot of great surprises in store for you, including my monologue reported over the fan of my career on America. Won't want to miss it.

So subscribe to next up on YouTube wherever you get your podcast. Make sure you never miss an episode,

so you always know what's coming. Next up.