Trump’s Supreme Court, the Shadow Docket, and the New Normal (with Aaron Parnas)

Welcome to the Open the Office podcast. I'm John Figuelsen. It's so great to have you with us. And let us welcome the star of our show, the author of the Open the Office.

That would be Brown University political science professor. Corey Brechdider. Professor, it's good to see you. Welcome back. Thanks, John.

You know, I look forward to this discussion every week, even as the chaos and the threats to democracy increase. And we're going to talk of course about the shadow

docket and some amazing inside information that we finally

have about this secret process.

“We'll explain this secret process and why it is a threat”

to democracy. And we'll also talk about our favorite Supreme Court justice on that exactly. But somebody we'd certainly find interesting. That's Clarence Thomas and his speech that he gave.

So it's going to be an amazing show. And of course, we have Aaron. Partners, one of the best commentators, young commentators, on politics today, really focused on breaking news. And one of the reasons I've been so eager to talk to him is

whenever I talk to young people, by which I mean, really people under 35, his name always comes up as somebody who's really doing a lot to keep people informed even the midst of this messed up media ecosystem. So quite a show today.

Well, I want to talk to you about this shadow docket business because I've learned a lot about this from you. And now the New York Times had this uncovered internal memos that reveal this shadow docket wasn't really an organic evolution. This thing was rushed.

It was a strategic break from centuries of judicial restraint.

John Roberts always says he wants the judges to be umpires.

“But it turns out I think or he wants him to be the kind of”

vampires who call the game in the first inning and then go home. In just five days in 2016, this five-floor conservative authority halted Barack Obama's clean power plan before any lower court could rule on it. They just put out a one-power grapple order with no explanation.

And these memos show there was a real rush to predict the outcome of a case before it even got litigated. You're the one who taught us that this shadow docket was like a judicial uber eats. You know, just your ruling has arrived.

Don't ask who made it. So I mean, what exactly is the shadow docket? Corey, and how has its use changed in recent years? Well, I really want to lean into the uber eats, you know, analogy because one of the things that people worry about with uber eats and

other apps is that there are these shadow kitchens. You know, that you think you're ordering from a restaurant, but you're actually ordering from some strange kitchen on the seventh floor of, you know, a tenement somewhere. And the food isn't prepared as carefully as you might have thought

and the restaurant you thought you were ordering from. That really is the shadow docket, you know, to get into it. What this is is, first of all, let's start with what the law is. That might sound like a basic idea. But what the law is is judges making decisions based on prior cases,

based on the text of the constitution, based on the principles of the constitution. And they write opinions. That's how we know, they're careful. They share opinions, they negotiate, they correct one another.

It is a slow, deliberate, careful process. Even if we don't agree with what an opinion says, the fact that it exists is what makes it law. And the shadow docket is the opposite. It's what more formally is called emergency orders.

It's the process by which the court will often, especially when it comes to actions by the executive branch, bypass that normal process of law and just make a decision. And our suspicion and our discussions about it, the shadow docket, it's often called this secret docket,

is that it really isn't law that it's just being done based on partisan politics. And certainly we can see the votes, even though we can't see the reasoning.

That suggests it's partisan and now that the New York Times has these amazing

memos that we're leaked. We don't know by who, but it gives us an insight into what's going on. That idea of John Roberts is any kind of empire, like I don't think so. It really shows not just his raw partisanship, because he's opposing Obama and defending Trump in the shadow docket decisions.

But where his real passion lies, which looks like it's for the coal industry. And I can say more about that. But it's a lot of worry about the coal industry.

“That's what this article is really, really about.”

I mean, these internal documents show, yeah, there's disagreement between the conservative and liberal judges. But I mean, this is now being called the birth of the modern shadow docket. And Chief Justice Roberts, this aristocrat who cares so much about appearing unbiased, he really seems to have justified emergency intervention as necessary

due to economic consequences. But it's one paragraph, there's no reasoning. Okay, it's like a breakup text. It's not like a Supreme Court ruling. Elena Cagan warned this was unprecedented.

No justice on either side mentioned climate change. The deciding vote came from Anthony Kennedy, who kind of treated this whole thing as a foregone conclusion. I mean, this moment didn't just block a policy. This created a new governing method, didn't it? I mean, these fast opaque high impact rulings without any explanation.

And this is now routine.

This has really helped this no talent racist reality show clown run rough shot over our laws.

You know, I love it.

“What the shadow docket is is a kind of breakup text that it's short and inappropriate.”

And insensitive. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like.

It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like.

It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like.

It's what the ruling feels like.

It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like.

It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like.

It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like.

It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like.

It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like.

It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like.

It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like.

It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like.

It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. It's what the ruling feels like. administration is engaged in and they're using this, I wouldn't even call it constitutional law, there's raw power technique of the court to make these decisions. And again, they're inviting

what the court was focused on was stopping these actions and using their shadow docket as a way of torpedoing a president and Robertson particular is in sense that a particular policy by the EPA

“is going to cost a lot of money to the call industry. That's what we see him complaining about. He's”

not acting as an umpire, it's a kind of emotional frustration that you see in the memos. And now, and here's the partisanship, it's, you know, used to enable Trump again and again without any opinions without any reasoning. And it's not necessarily what's protest within the court. The liberal justices like Justice Kagan push back, really criticizing it as a contrary to the way the court is supposed to operate. So there was recognition that this is a dangerous move by the court.

And, you know, thankfully for the reporting of the New York Times, we now have an insight into what's really going on in this dangerous technique that the court is using to undermine now our democracy. And the voted really broke along ideological lines. I mean, that's not a surprise. We're kind of use to that in the Supreme Court. These justices are cast for their ideology and they run around and do a pandemic and pretend it's not that way. Occasionally, you get like a William Brennan or a

David Souter who winds up surprising people. But I mean, that's nothing new. You know, is the concern here more about not so much what the court decided, but how they decided it and announced it? Well, you know, the partisanship of the court, this is something that needs to be studied, but it seems obvious to me it's jumping out. The partisanship decreases the more transparency that there is. So you see, Justice is breaking from their ideological and in really important

cases, the tariff's cases, the most important recent case that we've talked about in depth,

but you know, three conservative justices, switch sides. And we've seen that too. We're about to see it, I believe, in the birthright citizenship case where conservative justices are going to vote to strike down birthright citizenship. We saw it in earlier cases involving gay and transgender rights, the bowstock case written by Justice Gorsuch. But on the shadow document, we're nobody's watching because there is no reasoning. There's nothing for commentators and journalists and

academics to dig their teeth into their hidden. And how are they going to act? They're going to act as politicians. And so that it just makes the partisanship all the, all the words. They're going to act as aristocrats, which is what I will always call them. These are aristocrats protecting aristocrats. These were the founders of the US who thought only white land-owning males should be allowed to vote. And this Supreme Court keeps that traditional life. I mean,

obviously, there are aware of the legitimacy problem. I don't really think the court is concerned with it. I think they're more concerned that they got found out. But are there any reforms that could reign in the use of the shadow document? Well, on the first point, you know, what's interesting is Justice Roberts in these memos, and I think there's a memo too from a leader. There clearly are aware and concerned about the court's legitimacy, but they're in

just completely misguided way. They think the shadow document's going to help them with that problem. And rather than doing what does make a court more legitimate, showing us their reasoning, showing us their work, the way Preparara put it when he was on and going through in depth, the way we were reasoning through problems. I love that phrase. There's no work shown here.

“And, you know, that's what undermines legitimacy. In terms of what we can do about it, you know,”

I think this is one of those areas where when you shine a light on it, it's embarrassing for the court. And because of what you're saying, they are concerned about legitimacy. And this threatens their

keep doing it. Let's look at this shadow document. Let's identify it. I have to give a shout out to a colleague of mine. I taught for semester or or a trimester at University of Chicago Law School.

“And there's a conservative law professor, Will Bode, who's there, who I believe is the person”

really kind of started writing about this and discovered a shining a light on something that people weren't even noticing. Right. So the Times report reveals, you know, when this started

being used and it has the memos, but it was quite possible. And this is kind of incredible.

That people would have just thought, oh, this is some weird procedure that's going on on the shadow document. Wouldn't have realized how serious it is. So it's transparency that I think is going to back them down. All right. One more question on this. I mean, because I should the court be required to provide written explanations when they give emergency rulings. Problem. Yes. I mean, I think they should. But they're covered in healthcare, right? I mean,

it's not asking too much. I mean, here's the problem. You know, when you're talking about the Supreme Court and especially the Supreme Court after Marbury versus Madison, which is really declared itself the final interpreter of the Constitution. And even even if Marbury didn't do it more recently, they've leaned into that idea that they say in the end what the Constitution is and what it means. And so the idea that you'd have legislation telling them how to operate internally,

they'd almost certainly find it on constitutional. I mean, an amendment, even that, the court court,

“I think regard separation of powers is as sacred saying. So we've got to come up with other”

techniques besides legislation to make things transparent. Clarence Thomas just gave us speech this week professor where he railed about the American sea despises. And he suggests that rights originate outside of government. This is, of course, Clarence Thomas saying that rights come from God, author of the Bible, a look that Clarence Thomas doesn't really follow when he gives out rulings. But he's saying that rights come from natural law or divine authority. In this century,

I have many thoughts on this. But how does that basically compare to what the Constitution's actual structure and enforcement of rights professor? You know, I listen to the speech and it's been criticized a lot. And I'm going to start maybe by differing from some of my fellow commentators and say what I think is good in it. I like the idea that he leans into the idea of Frederick Douglass as one of the most important interpreters of the Constitution. And I love, I would say,

and share the idea of Frederick Douglass. And evidently, even Clarence Thomas, yes, this is going to

surprise you. And we're going to get critical in second. But I want to just say what I agree with

“that you should use. And this is really Douglass's idea that Thomas is repeating. That you should”

use the declaration of independence and its proclamation of equality as the lens from which to understand the entire Constitution that it's got a moral foundation. So all that is straightforward or Douglass, the hero of my book, the Presidents and the people. But here's where Thomas just goes off the rails. And it's really not doing what Douglass was doing. First thing is he has an idea that the principles of the Constitution and the declaration come from God. And that, you know,

somehow you can almost directly infer God's plan in all of this. And that just gets into the world of theocracy, not democracy. And then not surprisingly, what he thinks the framers were doing in using the declaration and he goes quickly to the 18th century framers is to use it in order to curb democracy. He uses the phrase excessive democracy. That's what he's worried about. And that's not what Frederick Douglass was doing. He was using the idea of equality

in order to further the idea of democracy. In fact, Douglass's most important argument is the preambuses. We the people, not we the white people. And Thomas is just ignoring all of this. And finally, what Thomas is really about is just getting away from the idea that government has a role in making our lives better. And that's the extreme opposite of what Frederick Douglass thought. Douglass's huge contribution to America was to recognize that the Constitution needed to be

clarified through amendments, the amendments that were passed to guarantee equal protection of all persons nationally. And you need an active federal government to do that. You need a department of justice was created during the granted administration. You need national civil rights. Those are all the things that Thomas is trying to kill. Which is goofy. Why, you know, Clarence Thomas

would invoke him because Clarence Thomas's career is always siding with power over the less powerful,

always siding with labor, over management, always siding with polluters, over the environment, always siding with the wealthy, over the poor. And he references his upbringing under Jim Crow, right? And he argues, government was the source of injustice, not rights. But at the same time, all of the key advances in civil rights didn't come from angels. They came from federal legislation at court decision. So I mean, it seems like he wants to hate the government for the bad things

and then ignore the positive things that he also legislates against. I mean, if you think of the two most important pieces of legislation in the 20th century, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, they were attempts to make good on the promises of the

albeit imperfectly trying to guarantee a right to vote, regardless of race, at least for men.

“And, you know, that Douglas was critical of that, actually, that it was too limited.”

But it requires active government to protect civil rights. And here, Thomas is giving this speech about how government is bad and really corporations are great and that the idea of government itself was a danger. And that just, it doesn't, I can't even understand what he's talking about. I will say one interesting thing too, too, is he picks up, you know, in my book The Presidents

and people I talk about, which were Wilson as the first white nationalist president,

spreading white supremacy through the segregation, for instance, of the military in that federal government. And he also hates Wilson. So we share that. But when he's starting looking at what he's doing, Wilson was all about disparaging government's role in protecting civil liberties and civil rights, I just say, in particular, and yet he thinks he's an ally, you know, an opponent, sorry, of which Wilson. In some odd ways, an ally.

They actually love government. They hate democracy. That's kind of how it plays out. That's a theme. Basically, that could have been the title of its speech. Exactly, right. That could have been the title of this party. We got to take a break, but when we come back, I want to ask you, what does it mean when a career prosecutor with draws from a high profile politically sensitive revenge case investigation? Is that a bad sign for Donald Trump

“Corey right back at a moment on the oath in the office?”

Hey, it's Corey. If you're like me, you may need to take a break from the 24-hour news cycle to recharge and renew your mind, which is why I recommend listening to how to with Mike Peska, the longstanding advice show and the ambinominated, best personal growth podcast. Back for a new season, with a new host, how to with Mike Peska, finds answers to your most pressing questions. I'm a fan of Mike and you might recognize him from being a recent guest

on the oath in the office, or from his award-winning reporting, or from his role as host of the longest running daily news podcast, the just. Each episode of how to follow the security of a listener invited guest to tackle a real problem, with help from world-class experts who actually know what they're talking about. Think of it as ease dropping on someone else's therapy session without the copay or awkward silence. You've got questions, they find the answers.

Follow how to with Mike Peska on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and tell them I send you. You're not going to be a dictator, are you? I said, don't know no other than day one. How did Donald Trump turn the presidency into a king? Well, it didn't start with him. It was the goal of a decades-long master plan. When the president does it, it is not illegal. I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. Where they won't act, I will.

I'm David Sarota from the Lever. On our new season of the award-winning master plan podcast,

we uncover the stealth plot to create an all-powerful president, or as some call it

the unitary executive. The unitary executive. The unitary executive. Our journalist revealed the hidden scheme to eliminate checks and balances, crushed democracy, and turned government by the people into government by one man. I have to write to do whatever I want as president. Check out master plans season two, the king makers. Visit masterplanpodcast.com or search master plan in your podcast app to start listening right now.

Welcome back to The Oath in the Office. I'm John Fugel, saying Professor Cory Brechneiter, over in Florida, this federal prosecutor just walked away from the investigation. I should say the hatchet job into former CIA director John Brennan, reportedly over concerns about the legal viability of the case. What a shock. This is good, right? Like, what is it signal when a career prosecutor withdraws from a high profile politically sensitive

investigation dictated by a president who wants revenge on his critics who used to run the damn

CIA. We've had a lot of amazing episodes, but one that I'd really urge listeners to go back and

listen to is the episode with Preparara, who was the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. It was fired by Trump, and we talk about this question of resignation. He makes the case that it's no longer a hard question. If you're being called by the Department of Justice to be involved

“at all with the prosecution and Trump's political enemies, you have to immediately resign. And, you know,”

maybe you should basically everyone should resign from this Department of Justice. It is so messed up what's going on. And that's what you see, increasingly people who have had careers, have integrity, they're being asked to prosecute Trump's opponents. And there really is one thing to do, which is to resign. So this is a good sign for democracy. And, you know, in the long run, it might help us because as people refuse to engage in these political prosecutions, the quality of the lawyers

there, it gets less and less. And in court, that doesn't play well. Judges get frustrated and it

by this president in an attempt to try to destroy what the integrity that was created after Nixon, the idea of any independence, and to turn it into a personal tool of the president. We talked about how the acting attorney general was the president's personal lawyer. And this is another example of it.

But, you know, I don't want to lose the hope in this. You know, we always look for the hope,

and you have people of integrity saying, "No, I'm not going along with this. I'll give up my career rather than partake in a political prosecute." Which is amazing. I mean, I'm curious historically,

“how have institutions responded when legal professionals resist pressure from higher routes like this?”

You know, I think there's always mixed performance. One of the things that I'm focused on is the analogy with the Nixon era. And one of the people in our textbooks that we often write about as a real hero is Leon Joorsky, who is true after the Serenite massacre when Trump fired Archibald Cox, who was looking into his criminal misdeeds, and those of his cronies took over. You know, for a long time, it was like, "Oh, look, this amazing hero, these great lawyers step

in and they do great things." And what my research has shown is that we overestimate that, that in the case of Jorsky, the pressure to continue in large part was that brought by citizens, by the grand jury. So I don't know that I could just trust that all professionals are going to do the right thing. I think it requires pressure from all of us. This lawyer did do the right thing in resigning. But we've really got to start and we could use this podcast and other venues to say,

“you know, you have an obligation as a lawyer to not simply evade the law to not shut down the law,”

to not use the law as a weapon against the enemies of the president and the powerful. And so

it's not going to happen just by the norms of professionalization. And what I worry is without the ABA, which has been speaking out, I was proud to win the Silver Gavo award from the ABA, partly because they have been doing what I'm saying, putting pressure on lawyers, to not go along with this attempt to take over of our government. But it requires peer pressure, both from within the profession and from without. And so I'm glad to be doing this with you, John,

every week. Before we hit the break, I got just a one last thing I want to ask you about, you know, Jimmy Carter famously said the majority of a society is found in how they treat their weakest. And when you're thinking about the weakest people in this society, you think undocumented immigrants, you think poor people, you think transgender folks, you think prisoners. Let me focus on the last two because a federal appeals court has opened the door for the

Bureau of Prisons to start transferring transgender women prisoners into men's prisons under a new policy. The court said the evidence doesn't meet the threshold for cruel and unusual punishment. So bring on rape, which we essentially silently sanction and allow as part of our penal process. Corey, how have the courts historically interpreted eighth amendment in prison conditions, cases?

narrowly, and that's unfortunate that there are a lot of conditions that in my minds really are cruel and unusual. And this is one of the areas of the constitution that lays out a broad principle. And it should be used wherever abuse is being found. And I'm not hopeful that the eighth amendment will be used to stop this. It's possible. And I certainly worth litigating. But you know, the court has simultaneously narrowed the meaning of the eighth amendment and the

cruelty of this administration has just increased. You know, you would think just to kind of narrowing on that idea of cruelty that one of the things that you would want in the society is not to subject people to torture, not to subject them to possible death, sexual violence. And yet we know that this policy that the administration is pursuing could well result in all these things. And so whether or not the eighth amendment is going to stop this, we as citizens have to just see

cruelty where it exists and stop it. This ruling reflects a pretty clear shift on how courts

“are approaching gender identity claims under constitutional law, right?”

I'm not sure. You know, you have this amazing moment where Justice Gorsuch now it was specifically

about employment and using Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act did something that I never

would have imagined. I mean, I opposed his nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court after discovering his PhD thesis in philosophy. He's the only Supreme Court justice with the PhD in philosophy. And in it he compares uses bestiality to disparage the idea of gay marriage and gay rights. What a shock. But now here's the shock. When the court asked the question does the 1964 Civil Rights Act and its ban on sex discrimination also protect gay and transgender people,

you would think he'd say no way. And in fact, he wrote the opinion saying yes, absolutely. What is discrimination against transgender people, but a form of sex-based discrimination? So, you know, sometimes the court and this is a monumental ruling. It isn't a by the way ruling comes forward by

And that was Gorsuch. And yet here the court is, well, we'll see what happens, but the administration certainly is pushing the extreme opposite direction. We got to hit a break, but really quick,

“are there any other constitutional provisions equal protection that could come into play with us?”

You know, I would think that we could try to use all of these areas to litigate. And, you know,

it is, I don't want to say that Quilin unusual punishment is never used. There's a prison

over crowding case for instance. And the more that we can reveal and I think maybe the research will show this, that the court is intentionally or recklessly showing disregard for the lives of transgender people, the more the possibility of these cases being won comes out. And let's do that investigation and hope we prevail there. We got to take a quick break that will be right back with Mr. Aaron Parnus. This is the oath in the office.

"You're not going to be a dictator, are you?" I said, "No, no, no other than day one." "How did Donald Trump turn the presidency into a king?" Well, it didn't start with him. It was the goal of a decade's long master plan. "When the president does it, it is not illegal." "I'm the Decider, and I decide what is best." "Where they won't act, I will."

“I'm David Sorota from the lever. On our new season of the award-winning master plan podcast,”

we uncover the stealth plot to create an all-powerful president, or as some call it, the unitary

executive, the unitary executive, the unitary executive, our journalist revealed a hidden scheme to eliminate checks and balances, crushed democracy, and turned government by the people into government by one man. "I have the right to do whatever I want, as president." Check out master plans season two, the king makers. Visit masterplanpodcast.com or search master plan in your podcast app to start listening right now.

[Music] Welcome back to the oath in the office. Professor Brechner, I'm very excited to welcome this next guest. "What a pleasure to welcome Aaron Parnas to the oath in the office. Aaron has a lot of degree from George Washington law school, and is one of the best people out there covering what's happening with this Trump assault on democracy.

These all, can I just mention, can I just said, sir, you're in production to say this guy is one of the people redefining independent media. At a time when corporate legacy media has shown, it can't be valuable. This guy has over 4 million followers on TikTok. Everyone should subscribe to the Parnas perspective on sub-stack. I mean, if you're tired of news, that's filtered through a corporate lens. Aaron is doing vital work, and this is where young people are getting their

news now. And it is, I dare say, a much more ethical source than some of the ones we grew up. I was supposed to say, you know, you beat me to the hyperbole, but yes, that is a lot of factual hyperbole. I was at dinner with family friends recently, and some people at the table were in their 30s, and when I mentioned that we had Aaron on, you know, they listened to the podcast, but they really lit up, like this is the person that we need to hear from. And that actually is

how I wanted to start Aaron that I think you've probably done more than anyone to break through the media ecosystem that has so much falsehood in it, so many lies, so much as we'll talk about in the future episode, anti-science, and yet you're able to cover what's happening, you know, without corporate backing, independent as we are. So, you know, tell us, like, what is the way forward when it comes to the media ecosystem that we're in? So many people worry that with the

demise of corporate media that, you know, things are so fragmented that the truth can't win out, but you're out there battling every day to get the truth out. So, what's your way forward,

“and what do you have to say to the skeptics who think that our media environment is, you know,”

destroyed for the long term? Yeah, well first, thank you so much for having me on super excited to be here, be here with you guys. I mean, I think truly it goes back to one principle, and that's just kind of sticking to the facts. I'm a big believer that right now, where media really lacks in the same age is kind of this gray area between opinion and fact, and there's been so much opinion that has seeped into a lot of the media that we've seen on television on radio and elsewhere,

and I think media devoid of opinion, media focus on fact, just the truth, no, and removed of hyperbole, now removed of AI and that click bait nonsense that we see everywhere. That is really kind of the path forward for media, and that's the way to break through. I really think that

there is, and it's funny, a lot of people come up to me and tell me what Aaron, I never thought

what you do could be successful, because all you do is you have your monotone voice and you just share the news. And I'm like, well, that is what a lot of people are looking for these days, because just the news doesn't really exist in a lot of places, unless you spend your day reading the wire in terms of the AP and Reuters as things come out. Otherwise, you're not going to get that on any cable TV show or even imprint nowadays in many newspapers. But I don't think younger audience

is necessarily looking for neutrality to you. I think they're looking for clarity and perspective.

can. I'll never tell you who to vote for or what positions to take or whether it's something

or not. It's not my responsibility, my responsibility is just to educate you and hopefully

“empower you with the tools that you need to then go and make whatever decision that may be.”

That's where. And how do you deal with the fact, and this is just something that I'm facing in the classroom, too, where on the one hand, you don't want to be partisan. On the other hand, as John suggesting, I don't think you want to be neutral either. And I think a lot of my students are similar to a lot of the people who are watching and listening to you. But the worry is, and we push Jake Tapar on this, too, I should say, into an ultimately agreeing with us. But that if you're too neutral,

the worry is that we might miss the story of the century, which is that Trump is really bringing in all out of salt on democracy. Now, you know, that might sound like an opinion, but I think that

if you don't have that frame, you'd miss a lot of what's going on. So how do you combine that?

I mean, I certainly appreciate what you're saying about this reporting. But how do you deal with the, well, the frame of this episode, which is not just this episode, the podcast, to try to think about why this isn't businesses as usual? Well, I think it's a bit of a

“loaded question, and I'll respond them kind of two parts. I think the first part is it's important”

not to say wash what we're seeing today. It's a term I use often, right? Just because Trump is president or the DOJ is what it is today. Doesn't mean that a president gets a free pass when he says praise be to a law on Easter, right? Like that is not normal and saying that is not normal. In my opinion, is a neutral perspective because that is factual in that like no, it is not normal for a president to be posting the end of a civilization, right? Like that, it's threatening war crimes.

That is not normal. And it's important that we not sane wash the times that we're in. And I think

to the second point is saying that Donald Trump has launched an assault on our democracy. That

is not a part as an opinion that in that is an opinion at all in my opinion, because he probably would admit that he has launched an assault on our form of democracy as we know it. He himself would say that, because he doesn't agree with where we are as a nation. So I think that that is true. And I think that he has launched an assault on our institutions on both in government, but also in

“private institutions, colleges, et cetera. And I think that is it's important to”

frame it in kind of that way, which to me still is neutral because it is factual. Yeah, but I think in that sense, you're carrying on the the Kronkite tradition. It's unreasonable to believe that journalists can be automotons with no opinions whatsoever, but you're guided by morality and you're guided by the dictates of journalism. And I mean, you're reporting on all the growing concern among Trump advisors about his discipline, about his temperance. What you've been

doing lately has been so fair as a comedian who's job is to be biased. I so enjoy getting my information from you because you're not pulling the same racket on polling. And we see figures like Tucker Carlson distancing themselves for whatever dubious reasons or apologizing for past support from your reporting area and our insiders concerned about political liability, or they concerned about national security implications, or are they just looking at their

own resumes and realizing that this is turning into the last scene of Scarface? Could I say all of the above? I mean, I think that's it is all of the above. I mean, I think that there is genuine concern with where we are as a nation in terms of whether the president is fully fit and has the mental security to continue serving in his capacity as president. I think there are serious a lot of people have serious questions about the president's discipline and whether

or not he can stay on message, which we know he can't. And then yes, I think a lot of people in the White House went to the White House as you do in any new administration. You go there to get a box checked on your resume and then go into private practice and make a whole boatload of money. And I think a lot of people are looking for their exit strategy before it gets too crazy. And before it gets to the point where they're so toxic that they won't be able to get hired.

I believe we may be at that point already. But I think that a lot of people in this White House are looking for, okay, Trump is only going to be president for another three years no matter how much he wants to stay on longer. What is my day after a look like? Someone like Susie Wiles, I think, is the right now thinking, okay, what is my day after a look like? How do I profit off of this White House? And so that, I mean, that's another concern that a lot of folks have.

Yeah, it sounds like your idea of neutrality is different. I would say then sort of the New York Times journalist who tries to distinguish between the op-ed page and the front page. And you kind of have a conceptual idea within neutrality that can think about the law and think about democracy. I mean, let's get into some of the stories that I know that you're covering. And one of the ones that you have been talking about that is not getting nearly enough

attention is this attempt by Donald Trump to really distort the IRS for a massive payment and pay out. I mean, how do you tell us about that? What's happening there? How you cover it? And, you know,

fit into a virtual story because it's hard to cover it without being outraged.

“No, listen, that story. I mean, I think is one of the crazier stories you'll actually hear”

in any of the administration. I mean, for background for those who don't know, Trump is actively suing the IRS and the Treasury Department, his own government, the government he controls for

$10 billion for what he says his tax returns were illegally released, I believe, to the New York

Times. He and 42 others, 42,000 other people had their tax returns illegally released by a whistleblower by someone in one of these agencies. One of the people leaked it so we all owe him 10 billion dollars. Correct. How many years of thing? The leaking of his returns, that is illegal for sure. And I think no one disputes that. But I think that the problem here, which a lot of people are recognizing, is that the president is suing his own administration to take money out of your pocket to put it into

his pocket. Right? And when you're in a typical lawsuit, you're going up against an adversary. You're not going up against a friend, usually. Here, he's going up against Todd Blanche. His personal criminal defense attorney, who's now the acting attorney general, Scott Bessen, his Treasury Secretary. So the people he's negotiating with the people he's trying to settle this lawsuit with are the same people that report directly to him. And if he doesn't, I mean, there could be a situation where

if he doesn't get the favorable settlement, they could lose their jobs and no one can do anything about it. That is a raging conflict of interest. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I also think of it. And I'm interested if you agree with this that there's no way to really think about why he's able to do that without thinking about the assault on democracy. And that Trump has expanded executive power, commanded loyalty over what used to be thought of as independent civil servants. And the IRS,

for instance, is not supposed to do the bidding of the president. We've had presidents who have tried to control the IRS for their own purposes in the next administration. Yeah. So are you seeing that as a sort of trend more generally, this sort of theme that Trump's corruption and the massive amount of it are connected to his expansion of executive power and demands for sure. I mean,

“I think that Trump from the beginning, I mean, since 2017 he has believed in this kind of”

theory of government where the executive is the end all be all that you can really do anything you want through the powers of the executive that you don't need a function in Congress that who cares what the judiciary really thinks or says because ultimately I can do whatever I want, however I want it. He figures out how to get around any court ruling or most court rulings. He figures out how to get around the Congress that doesn't function. So yes, he fully believes that

in the consolidation of the executive and making a very powerful, unitary executive. But also,

we know one should be surprised about this. This will project 2025 was written on, right? Like that was the basis of everything that they ran on. So it should come to no surprise that he's actually doing what he said he would do. But is this an example of using the government power to target your perceived enemies for revenge or is this something more debased is it just a shakedown because he sees a chance to pocket 10 billion? No, I don't think he's going to pocket 10 billion.

“I don't think he is either, but I think that could be the intent.”

No, for sure, that could be the intent. I mean, listen, I think at the end of the day, this is definitely him trying to use the levers of the executive to enrich himself. I will also say that something Trump likes to do and we've seen this especially the second term. It's kind of like a velociraptor testing offense, right? He's trying to see where the vulnerabilities are in the federal government and if he finds a vulnerability that he can ram through and bite through,

he'll go through full force, but there is sometimes that fence is too strong or too electric, and he can't get through. So that's kind of, this is just another test of the fence. Another story you've been looking at and one of the things that you do so well, Aaron is covered the individuals that are in the midst of this administration and the supposed loyalists who are also at the same time deeply incompetent and it's hard to think about that theme

without thinking about cash fatality, FBI director and the recent reporting that we've got there. I mean, what's your sense of this? The Atlantic, of course, has the story about his drunkiness is thinking that it was fired when it was unable to log into his computer, possibly because he was nebrated or just paranoid. So what's your sense of where things stand with Patel and what this says to about Trump's, you know, demand for loyalty, but also willingness

to throw people under the bus when they don't serve them anymore? The same day he thought he was fired. I actually had heard that he was fired. So I heard that earlier that day and then seeing the

story kind of validate that which wasn't kind of interesting. But I think ultimately,

number one, I think the Atlantic did a great job in its reporting and I think that anyone who questions the Atlantic's reporting should go back through the history of the Atlantic and see why there haven't been any successful defamation suits against the paper because it's a really good and well-vetted piece. I think number two is it just shows that the big takeaway in all of this is not cash fatality is alcoholism or the fact that he may be a threat to national security or whatever.

right? We had a sense. The real takeaway to me is that it doesn't actually matter what you do.

You could still stay in the job, right? If an article like that came out against say a supermarket worker, that supermarket worker would be fired tomorrow, placed on administrative leave, suspended, whatever. But in the Trump administration, it doesn't even matter. You're exactly right. You think it's just loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, I mean, this is what I mean. I mean, we're looking at Pete Heggsett for instance and, you know,

the incompetence and well, we could go on and on about Iran, but certainly I'm minimum the incompetence that he's showing there. I mean, do you think Trump will, in these cases, have a moment where even in the most, when it comes to extreme loyalists that he's had enough them? Well, I would say, especially had enough of. Yeah, I mean, I would say I thought this may be enough

“for him on cash fatality. Honestly, because of the alcoholism part of it, Donald Trump a lot of”

people don't know this, but he has been sober his entire life. He lost his brother to substance abuse. This is like the issue that like bothers him more than anything is when someone close to him

engages in substance abuse. He's never allowed his kids to touch alcohol or drugs. And so,

I would think that this would be if anything. This would be the straw that broke the camel's back. And it may very well have. We may just not know about it yet. So we'll see. Yeah, my opinion on this has been that he's deliberately for the second term hires on qualified people because qualified people in the first term told him you can't do that. So it's illegal. And by hiring flunkies, it allows him to lance them like a boil if things get too hot for him.

Pan-Bondi takes the blame for Epstein. She goes off. Kristi known will take the blame for the death subsidicence. P-Tag Seth will get fired as soon as this war really makes Trump look bad and he needs to blame it on someone else. And it's the same for Patel. I don't think f***ing up on this level is going to get him fired. But are you hearing about through your sources any pushback from within the FBI or intelligence community? Because that's the fascinating

angle to me here, the career agents who are watching law enforcement fired by these henchmen.

“And so what they're doing? Without a doubt, I mean, I think there's a ton of pushback”

within the FBI, but I think that there's this overwhelming fear within the FBI that they want to keep their jobs. They cannot keep their jobs if they come out against cash. So yes, there is a fear and they want to come out against him, but they just can't. I'm going to pull back a little Aaron and ask, "Are you seeing from your audience, many of whom are in their 20s and their 30s?" Of course, you're a huge on TikTok and that younger

audience is watching in there as well as your sub-stack. Do people have a sense of, I mean, my worry, frankly, from teaching is that there isn't a sense of how abnormal this is, how dangerous to democracy. What's your sense of the culture and in particular of young people's perceptions as they're watching your videos? Do they appreciate how dangerous this is? Do they think it's business as usual? Well, to me, it has business as usual, actually. I'm going to push back

at the premise of much. I mean, yeah, you might be one of the, well, no. And the reason why is because so I'm 27 years old. Right. First presidential election, I remember was 2016. I don't remember the Obama years. I don't remember the Bush years. I was a child back then. I didn't care about politics. Most people might age where the same way. Almost everyone younger than me is the same way.

“The only thing we know is Trump won Biden Trump too. And when you look at the world view through,”

okay, all we know is Trump pretty much, then this is normal. The chaos is normal. The dysfunction is normal. So I would argue that we are in a time normal. It's just a new normal and it's going to be very, and it's better to adapt to the reality of what we're in rather than try to achieve something

that will never get back. Do you think, I mean, when you take the broad, I'm 52. So I've, you know,

seen more than that, but I'm also a student of history. And when I think of what is happening in this moment, it's not that we've never seen anything like this before. And, you know, in the Nixon era, if you go back, John Adams attacked democracy. It's nothing new. Before it's a continuation, this is the Clinton impeachment. This is the Iraq war. This is gingrichism. This is, I mean, Aaron entered this thing in progress. Donald Trump, I agree with that. Donald Trump represents

anything. Actually, new, just a trashierhood ornament to the car. Well, what I agree with John and the sense of like, policy wise, not of it is new. I mean, we're in a war in the Middle East, 20 years after we started a war in the Middle East, right? Like, it's the same thing and the same playbook over and over again. It's just how it's being done. I think Trump having access to truth social and putting out truth social post every hour of the day about crazy shit. And I mean, that

is very different. We didn't have that 25 years ago. So I guess it's like the means by which it's being done rather than actually what is being done. Well, I guess I'll push back against both of you because the way I think what's happening is that it is, it is different in some fundamental ways that one, for instance, the lawlessness of the administration and the amount of theft that you're

dates back to the 1980s and the idea of this kind of consolidated power. But the idea of a president stealing this amount of money from the IRS, for instance, as he were just talking about. I mean, really trying at least the steel billions, maybe he'll get, you know, something less than that. But that I haven't seen before. And that's the use of social media and stock manipulation to try to make money. You know, the use of the office really to try to

become a Putin style billionaire that we haven't seen before. And then I'll also talk about the civil servants within the government as John was saying that in the first administration there was a kind of sense that, you know, the civil service protection and that people saw themselves as temporarily

occupying offices that they know they wouldn't always have. So you had the DOJ, it was a threat to

democracy from Trump that you had the DOJ pushing back against his attempt to steal the election. They didn't go along with it. You had a vice president pushed back against that attempt in a way that you wouldn't see with J.D. Vance. And then when we go to previous administrations, the Republican and Democrat, the lawlessness that we associate, that we've been talking about. No, I don't think that we've seen that. We've seen elements in the culture of this, but the theft and the

threat to democracy in the sense of threatening elections themselves, the attempted coup of January six, all of that strikes me as quite different from what we've seen before. But I appreciate Aaron. I mean, you are echoing what a lot of my students say, which is, I've only seen this, and so I appreciate that within your lifetime it might look normal, but it certainly isn't normal. I think,

but I welcome your response, yeah. I mean, I mean, that's history for you, right? Like every time

we have a new period in history, that new period is a new normal in a way. Right? And this is just that new period in history, in my opinion. I don't know if we'll ever swing back to where we once were. I don't. Well, I mean, it's a bit of a year, you know, since the administration, I guess I'd

“argue, that's what's different. We didn't see this kind of lawlessness in Biden. We saw things”

I didn't like, like the part of his son, and in Trump won. We certainly saw attempts to do what he's doing now. We saw pushback. So I guess I think, you know, what's important to see, and, you know, maybe this is also relevant to the earlier question that we were talking about is the the fundamentals of the rule of law and the way, you know, that actually has been part of the American system from the beginning, and then we're seeing it uniquely threatened. I guess I would

want that to be part of any coverage of this administration in saying year. I'll jump on that.

One of the areas where it's also different is this harassment and persecution of the press. Yes. What we're seeing now, Don Levin goes to jail because he covered a non-violent protest. I mean, these legal threats are having a chilling effect on investigative reporting. And Aaron, I wanted to get your thoughts on that, as well as your thoughts on the return of the White House correspondents dinner. We saw a ton of legacy journalists including our pal Dan Rather come out

and say, you guys can't do this unless you're going to challenge Trump to his face. I mean, yeah, how should journalists be navigating this? Is it time to play kissy face with this man? Who will lock them all up if he could? You know, I'm sick and tired of I'm sick and tired of every single journalist and DC having Donald Trump's personal cell phone. I'm calling you up all day, and then, and then putting out a tweet saying Trump said all of these things that end up told me this.

Right. And great. Trump has been manipulating the market through you. Like that is what's happening. Yeah. No, I think trading journalism for access. Exactly. And I actually, and I, somebody that I correct, I think that the, what Dan Rather did and, and those journalists did

“signing on to that letter. I think it's important. I think that the White House correspondents”

dinner should not celebrate a president who generates the press. I think I'm even more upset. Brendan Carr was invited. That's DC chairman by Paramount to sit at their table. He'd headset was invited by CBS News to sit at their table. Like this is not like, yeah, it's tough. It's tough to watch. I mean, but at the end of the day, people forget, and this is why to me independent media is not so important. That big media companies need

clicks and need headlines and needs any access to make money, right? Without this access, many of them won't make the money. And so they're trading access and eventually money for kissing up to Trump. Yeah. It's one of the things that you touched on, but I want to ask you about, because I also think it's part of what's unique is the sort of accusations of insider trading as announcements are coming. For instance, there's a worry that White all features are being

bet on based on insider information before Trump's announcements come about sees fires or updates. So I mean, is that one of the stories that you're looking at and, you know, how do you say that? Yeah,

“for sure. I mean, I, I mean, I think like no one really knows what's happening. And I think anyone who says”

they know is lying to you. And I think it's, it's been very fascinating to watch kind of the fall of axios through all of this to me of like that specific paper because it's like, oh, everything Trump or in Israeli official says is now news. They're moving like Friday night or Friday at 1 pm, three hours before the market's closed. We're moving closer to a ceasefire, great oil prices fall.

13 tweets in an hour about how there's going to be a ceasefire. And there's not really a ceasefire.

Correct. But I guess I would add that to my, to my preaching about why this is not normal, that that, that kind of inside manipulation of the markets, you know, I don't think we've seen anything like this kind of criminality from any president. I think a lot of people are having to learn how to understand what this particular brand new form of scandal is and how this is being done and the I'm sure in government, the Iranian government is acting like an SEC whistleblower explaining to

“Americans exactly what's happening. That's how bizarre this is.”

100% complicit. All right. But let me close on a positive note, Aaron, because, I mean,

we're also, we just saw the reports of more than 150 veterans protesting at the Capitol.

That's the largest protest of veterans tied to this conflict. And I'm curious, what does that do for your heart? As a person who, like Cory and I, I have to stay marinating in this swamp all day. When you see protests like this beginning to break through to mainstream political discourse, I mean, what does it say about where the public opinion on this destructive conflict is setting? I mean, it just shows that it's pretty bad. It's pretty shitty for the White House,

right? I mean, I said it from the beginning, like if you're going to bring American to war, you got to prosecute the war, you got to explain why we're going to war. Bush did it successfully.

It's why he had a 90% approval rating on the war when he first started out, even if it was

a BS reason for it. Trump started out at 40%, because he thought he could just fit a square peg through a round hole. Yeah. It didn't work. Yeah. All right. On that note, we're at a time, but pleasure, Aaron Parnas. Thanks for joining us. Thanks for your time work. Thanks for speaking to young people. Thanks for speaking to old people too. Everybody talk to this old people at a task. Everybody subscribe to the Parnas perspective. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right

for the Parnas perspective. And great to talk to you. And thanks for joining us on the earth in the office. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks again, Aaron Parnas. Well,

“Corey, are you feeling more hopeful for the future of independent journalism after that?”

Well, you know, I am thankful that there are people like Aaron out there trying to report this story and get it through to people, but it reinforced a worry that I have and a reason why I wanted to start this podcast, which is that there is a sense among young people. And he said it in this plain away as you can, that this is normal. And it's not as I tried to emphasize to him. We have to really see this threat to democracy for what it is. And educate people about it and

give the wider frame. Because if we don't see it for the threat that it is for the abnormal moment in American history that it is, we might not ever return. And it might become what looks normal, might become prophecy, might become normal. That's really a worrisome idea, especially when you have a president who's not only comidured, exactly a branch for his own purposes, but for his own criminal enrichment. That's the story of the year. And to me, it's just another lesson why it's so

important for every member of our audience to try to be healthy, to try to get enough sleep, break a sweat, do cardio a few times a week, watch the partying, watch the alcohol, the drugs, the meat, the wheat, the dairy, stay healthy because you deserve to live long enough to see karma. Come for cash, Patel, Donald Trump and Pete Heggseth because oh boy, it is coming. Professor, I would thank you. We covered a lot of ground on the show this week. What is the best

weight for our listeners to follow you and your brilliant study at the other six days of the week? Wow, our audience is growing so fast and it's because people are sharing it with one or two people. So just share it with somebody. If you haven't, the author in the office podcast, be sure to subscribe. Of course, if you haven't and to review us on Apple or wherever you get your podcast,

“there's also a YouTube channel if you want to watch us not just listen to us and the author in the office”

sub-stay. And I want to thank everybody for joining us. I host the evening programming on series XM progress. I also the John F. Eagle Sankt podcast. My book is called Separation of Church and Hate. I want to thank Wendy and Beowulf and everyone who helps keep this monster train on the tracks, Corey, the ratings for this show. My God, the charts. I'm glad you're keeping it un-track of all this. And everybody should follow our sub-stack on our YouTube page as well. Professor, thank you so much for

another fact episode. I have to go process all that I've learned. We'll see you guys next time on the O-ten the office.