Podcasts about Republican Party

Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt is a lawyer, former state attorney general and a skilled navigator of the old — and new — wings of the Republican Party. He also has another title: White House whisperer.  Schmitt joins POLITICO's Dasha Burns to talk about his closeness with the Trump administration, driving the Senate's $9.4 billion rescissions bill, his involvement with passing Trump's “big, beautiful bill,” his belief in Medicaid reform, the controversy over the release of the Epstein files and what he describes as his “America First” — but not isolationist — foreign policy approach.  “I think a slur that's often uttered is that it's an isolationist point of view,” Schmitt told Burns. “That's not true at all.” (Note: This interview was conducted before the Senate and House passage of the rescissions bill.) Plus, POLITICO reporter Ben Jacobs digs into his reporting on social media influencers running for office and how the phenomenon is reshaping electoral politics.  Listen and subscribe to The Conversation with Dasha Burns on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.

From the minute Donald Trump came down the golden escalator, the Republican establishment has hated his guts. In the 2016 primary, the brash New York billionaire was treated by mainstream GOP leaders and commentators as a joke responsible for degrading the political process. As the real estate tycoon gained momentum, establishment figures had two choices: Declare yourself "never Trump" or pretend to have seen the light. Many fled to organizations like the Bulwark or the Lincoln Project, but others stayed around waiting for their moment to recapture the Republican Party from the MAGA populists. Now that Trump has come to define the GOP, the establishment figures who loathed him from the beginning have a new strategy. If you can't beat MAGA, co-opt the movement. Follow on: Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-auron-macintyre-show/id1657770114 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3S6z4LBs8Fi7COupy7YYuM?si=4d9662cb34d148af Substack: https://auronmacintyre.substack.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre Gab: https://gab.com/AuronMacIntyre YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/c/AuronMacIntyre Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390155 Odysee: https://odysee.com/@AuronMacIntyre:f Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/auronmacintyre/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to The Shawn Bolz Show! Today, we're diving into two of the most controversial and culture-shaping conversations happening right now. First up: the Turning Point event in Florida revealed a deep divide within the Republican Party. While many on the Right are demanding accountability for the Epstein scandal and the massive injustice surrounding child trafficking, key party leaders seem to be dodging the issue—despite once championing it. With frustration growing inside the MAGA movement, we're asking: Is this the beginning of a civil war within the party? What happens when trust erodes between the base and its leaders? Then, we're shifting gears to explore the body positivity movement—and how it's facing a major cultural turning point. The recent headlines around Lizzo stepping back from the "big is beautiful" narrative have sparked renewed debate. She, along with others, is now emphasizing health over image, even renouncing some of the extreme expressions of the movement. Is pop culture moving toward a more balanced view—one that celebrates health, not extremes? Join us as we break down the spiritual, cultural, and political implications of these stories—and what they reveal about the deeper shifts happening in our world right now.

The IRS recently decided that it's perfectly fine for churches and other houses of worship to endorse candidates, upending 70 years of established law. It's just one of the ways the Christian right and the Republican Party have successfully demolished the separation of church and state, which we used to think was a central pillar of the American political system. Paul discusses the carnage with Sarah Posner, author of Unholy: How White Christian Nationalists Powered the Trump Presidency, and the Devastating Legacy They Left Behind.

In this compelling episode of the Must Read Alaska Show, host Ben Carpenter sits down with Phil Izon, the driving force behind the effort to repeal ranked choice voting (RCV) in Alaska during the 2024 election. Izon recounts the intensive grassroots campaign that gathered far more than the required signatures across 33 of Alaska's 40 House districts, relying entirely on volunteers and innovative technology—without the use of paid signature gathering firms. He details the legal challenges that followed, including aggressive lawsuits led by political operatives that accused him and his campaign of fraud. These efforts resulted in significant financial and emotional strain, including six hours of deposition and substantial legal fees, although Izon ultimately prevailed in both Superior and Supreme Court decisions. The conversation exposes the intense opposition Izon faced from well-funded, out-of-state interests allegedly aligned with maintaining RCV, and highlights what he describes as political lawfare—legal intimidation designed to suppress citizen-led reform. Izon also critiques the lack of support from Alaska's Republican Party leadership and state officials, despite acknowledgment from national conservative circles. With $15 million spent to defend RCV and millions more invested in promoting it nationwide, Izon raises critical questions about who benefits from Alaska's election system and why. He closes by cautioning the new "Repeal Now" effort and emphasizing the importance of strategic collaboration, insider knowledge, and persistence in future repeal attempts. This episode offers a rare insider's view into the mechanics of election reform efforts, the high stakes of ballot initiatives, and the personal toll such battles can exact.

On the Rush Hour, James Golden talks about the bickering in the Republican Party regarding the Epstein Files, NYC Mayors Race, and much more! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

***Please subscribe to Matt's ⁠Substack⁠ at https://worthknowing.substack.com/***Donald Trump's attempt to put out the Epstein fire with gasoline is backfiring, as the MAGA cult rips itself apart. As Trump continues to try to harness the conspiracy theory mindset to his advantage, how will Republicans recover from the anger and disillusionment sweeping their base. The episode provides a deep dive into the potential schism within the Republican Party and the strategic outlook for Democrats heading into upcoming elections.03:53 Trump's Strategic Use of Conspiracy Theories07:42 Interview with Matt McNeil10:23 The MAGA Base and Trump's Influence22:47 Senate Republican Angst and Future Elections28:21 Republican Resignations and Democratic Opportunities35:58 State-Level Republican Struggles42:50 Healthcare and Economic Issues53:35 Immigration and Political Messaging56:59 Concluding Thoughts on Political Strategy

On the Rush Hour, James Golden talks about the bickering in the Republican Party regarding the Epstein Files, NYC Mayors Race, and much more! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Chuck Todd begins with a rant about his beloved Washington Nationals before pivoting to Trump strong-arming congressman Zach Nunn into running for reelection and Texas into holding a mid decade restricting process to try and maintain control of the house. He weighs in on California governor Gavin Newsom's threat to gerrymander his state in response to Texas and why that plan may not work. He also surveys the state of several 2026 races. Then, Chuck is joined by renowned CBS News Capitol Hill correspondent Scott MacFarlane who delivers an unflinching analysis of American politics in the post-January 6th era and recounts his harrowing experience of being in attendance during the assassination attempt of Donald Trump. MacFarlane, drawing from his extensive experience covering the insurrection trials and congressional proceedings, explores how the events of January 6th continue to reshape the political landscape, from Trump's recent blanket pardons to the ongoing divisions within the Republican Party. He provides insider perspectives on the Secret Service's challenges during campaign season, the diverse backgrounds of January 6th defendants, and the broader implications of political violence in American democracy.The conversation spans critical topics including the decline of local journalism, the judiciary's politicization, and the increasingly siloed information ecosystem that defines modern American politics. MacFarlane offers candid insights into the DOJ's handling of January 6th prosecutions under Merrick Garland, the death threats faced by trial witnesses, and how Trump's survival of the Butler assassination attempt reinforced his supporters' belief in divine intervention. The discussion also touches on contemporary challenges facing journalists, from the pressure to develop personal brands to declining morale in newsrooms, while examining ongoing political realignments and the future of democratic institutions in America.Finally, Chuck answers listeners' questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment about Trump trying to rescind some of Biden's late-term pardons, Gavin Newsom's political evolution and why Dan Osborne is running for senate rather than governor in Nebraska.Timeline:(Timestamps may vary based on advertisements)00:00 Introduction00:45 James Wood didn't have competent pitching in HR derby02:00 Lack of summer sports programming04:45 Trump has unprecedented control over the Republican party07:30 Zach Nunn flirting with run with Iowa governor or switching seats09:30 Trump forced Nunn into seeking reelection 10:30 Trump strong arming Texas into mid decade redistricting11:45 Additional gerrymandering is risky for Texas Republicans13:30 Gavin Newsom threatens to gerrymander CA in response to Texas15:15 Newsom's rhetoric may not match the political reality16:30 Republicans are trying to rig their house majority17:30 Donald Trump is dictating all of these actions18:15 Trump is trying to destroy Thomas Massie for no vote on BBB19:15 Republicans risk candidates being tied to an unpopular president21:15 Democrats are grappling with whether to fight fire with fire23:15 Gerrymandering fights are popping up around the country24:30 The White House is obsessed with holding the house26:00 Trumpworld will stoke fear of impeachment to juice turnout27:00 NRSC has gone all-in on stopping Ken Paxton in Texas28:15 John Cornyn could walk away and back Wesley Hunt30:30 Susan Collins is raising money as if she's seeking reelection31:30 Jonathan Bush may run for governor in Maine32:45 Mary Peltola may run for governor or senate in Alaska35:15 The PGA Tour announcing a new tournament at Trump Doral38:00 Scott MacFarlane joins the Chuck ToddCast! 38:30 Scott's origin story 40:30 Local news has been decimated in recent years 42:30 People have the closest connection with local news outlets 44:30 Local news should be targeting millennial parents 46:30 Why was the response to the Butler assassination attempt so muted? 48:30 Secret service is stretched thin during campaign season 49:30 Was the secret service underresourced? 51:00 Scott felt the vibe was "off" at the event 53:00 If Trump hadn't survived, the crowd would have attacked media 54:15 Trump surviving created a divine intervention belief in his supporters 57:00 Many J6ers admitted "they don't know what got into them" 58:30 The J6ers are an incredibly diverse group of people 59:45 Only two J6ers were acquitted 1:01:00 The electorate sees almost everything through a red/blue lens 1:02:30 The senate broke the judiciary 1:03:30 There's only ONE apologetic January 6th defendant 1:05:00 Republicans now in congress wouldn't condemn J6 1:07:15 The blanket pardon was Trump condoning political violence 1:08:45 Have all the DOJ prosecutors who worked on J6 cases been fired? 1:10:00 People who testified at J6 trials have received death threats 1:12:30 Merrick Garland slow rolled DOJ's J6 prosecutions 1:14:30 It's surprising how quickly Republicans came back to Trump after J6 1:15:30 If the senate voted to convict, we'd have a president Ron DeSantis 1:18:00 Mitch McConnell's surrender handed the keys over to the MAGA wing 1:19:30 The information ecosystem is incredibly siloed 1:21:15 The public dismisses Trump's corruption as "they all do it" 1:23:00 January 6th is still ongoing, it's just taken different forms 1:24:30 What to make of the ongoing Epstein files saga? 1:26:15 Trump's people fanned the flames of Epstein conspiracies 1:28:00 You can't release names of Epstein associates without proof of a crime 1:30:00 America's political realignment is fascinating and potentially disastrous 1:31:15 Is Pam Bondi's job safe? 1:32:30 Trump flexing his power over the city of Washington D.C. 1:34:00 Muriel Bowser has handled Trump well 1:35:00 Morale for journalists is low and unsettled 1:36:00 Journalists are now required to have a personal brand 1:37:30 Every journalist wants to be Woodward and Bernstein 1:39:30 The state of D.C. professional sports1:40:15 Chuck's thoughts on the interview with Scott MacFarlane 1:40:30 Ask Chuck 1:40:35 What to make of Trump trying to undo Biden's late term pardons? 1:45:45 Will Gavin Newsom's "pivot to the middle" work in middle America? 1:49:30 What is the advantage of Dan Osborne running for senate over governor?

Moses Heredia is the Founder and CEO of Global Processing Systems, one of the world's largest payment processing companies, Moses brings decades of real-world experience, faith-led leadership, and strategy that delivers results.Today, Mark Savant sits down with Moses Heredia for a deeply insightful conversation that goes far beyond business. Moses shares his inspiring journey from humble beginnings to leading a successful company in the competitive world of payment processing—where he now advises industry giants. But it's not all numbers and tech talk; Moses opens up about the values that guide him, the importance of giving back to the community, and why empowering children is at the heart of his mission.This episode dives into the power and challenges of AI technology, the evolving landscape of business in California, and the crucial role of personal relationships in building lasting success. Plus, hear Moses' take on the future of education, job displacement, and how entrepreneurs can seize new opportunities in a rapidly changing world.Tune in as Mark and Moses weave together business wisdom, personal values, and a candid look at the questions shaping our society today. You won't want to miss this thought-provoking and uplifting conversation!In this conversation, you'll learn:Moses's proven strategy for building long-term business partnerships—including landing Fortune 500 clients—without ever taking a college business class.The secret to unlocking unstoppable motivation and giving back, even before you've “made it,” and why his proudest achievement is transforming the lives of underprivileged children in Los Angeles.A front-row seat to the AI revolution as Moses unpacks real-world examples of next-level AI voice technology, the wave of automation in customer service, and the critical skills you need to stay relevant in the job market.Unfiltered insights from a Republican Party delegate and business leader on surviving California's challenging business climate and how entrepreneurs like you can help drive positive real-world change.The most overlooked opportunities in tech and healthcare right now, and why Moses believes these sectors are ripe for massive growth and innovation in the years ahead.Key Takeaways:Building trust and strong personal connections is foundational for long-term business success, even in a tech-driven world.Philanthropy isn't just about money—giving time, encouragement, or a smile creates ripples of positive change.While AI brings disruption and opportunity, maintaining personal touch and adapting ethically is essential for the future.Connect with Moses Heredia:Website: https://globalprocessingsystems.comInstagra_____________________________________________

This week, as Trump's FEMA struggles to answer questions about consequential budget cuts in the aftermath of Texas flooding, Rachel and Aaron look at how the Republican Party deliberately turned climate change into a conspiracy theory. It's MAGA thought control. Plus, the FBI tries to go after thought crimes. And the Epstein Scandal threatens to unravel MAGA, despite Trump's best efforts to move on. Which of his allies aren't letting it go?LINKS:* The Cycle (Substack): The Big Ugly Cuts to Climate Science* Nancy Pelosi & Newt Gingrich Climate PSA (2008)* Frontline: Climate of Doubt* New York Times: The F.B.I. Is Using Polygraphs to Test Officials' Loyalty* KOCO-TV (Oklahoma City): OSDE introduces 'America First Assessment' for teachers moving from certain states* Megyn Kelly & Charlie Kirk on Epstein scandal* The Hill: Bannon warns GOP could lose 40 House seats over Epstein files* Vox: Why everyone runs for president these days* Hit ‘Em Where It Hurts: How to Save Democracy by Beating Republicans at Their Own GameThe Cycle- On Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to The Cycle- On Substack at thecycle.substack.com/subscribe

Sponsored by Rula. Rula patients typically pay $15 per session when using insurance. Connect with quality therapists and mental health experts who specialize in you at https://www.rula.com/rushhour! #rulapod Rush Hour Podcast – July 14, 2025

This week, Rep. Anna V. Eskamani returns to the show to talk about the legislative session that just ended, the in-fighting within the Republican Party, her hopes for 2026, and her forthcoming campaign for Orlando mayor! See more from Rep. Eskamani right here! Pick up your copy of FLORIDA! right here! Thank you to Chelsea Rice for her incredible design of our logo! Follow Chelsea on Instagram here!   I do not own the rights to the clip used in this episode.  Hello This is Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer   All of the music was originally composed.

2 - Who will be on the show throughout this week? Will school choice be codified into PA law? 210 - Former 1210 WPHT employee Jack Posobiec went off on the Trump administration at the TPUSA event. 215 - Dom's Money Melody! 220 - Is fake news still a thing? Is it affecting public discourse to this day? How young can you teach kids to differentiate between what is real and what is fake? 225 - Your calls. 230 - Scott Presler joins us for yet another weekly installation. Churches are allowing Scott through their doors to register voters? With an IRS ruling looming over churches, is it imperative that parishioners register to vote in order to save their places of worship? Are people leaving the Republican Party? 250 - The Lightning Round!

12 - We kick off the week with Bill O'Reilly! He gives his live reaction to the breaking news that the US will be selling weapons to NATO. How will this affect the Russia-Ukraine War? How will Putin respond? Why would Trump do this? What should be done about Trump's Department of Justice after Pam Bondi teased the Epstein files and then didn't deliver and are trying to retcon the story? Will this erode trust in Trump among the MAGA base? How is Bill O'Reilly's YouTube channel coming along? Is Bill going to pay the European Union 250,00 to have his show broadcasted there? 1220 - People are ratio-ing Donald Trump on Truth Social regarding the administration's now lax stance on the Jeffrey Epstein files. What will the likes of Pam Bondi, Dan Bongino, and Kash Patel do to save their reputations? Harry Enten gives the details of the increased internet traffic around Epstein. Side - perfectly cast roles. 1250 - Listener Sam Chew calls in to discuss him casting Superman star David Corenswet in a play while he was in high school! What did Sam think of the movie? What did Dom and Henry think of this headline? 1 - Penn is preaching the message “Do as I say, not as I do” as they apologized for allowing men into women's sports, but still cannot define what a woman is within the classroom. Why does Penn continue to stand on a losing issue? 105 - Your calls. 120 - Are the Cristopher Sanchez/ Ranger Suarez all-star game snub complaints warranted? Is it diluting what the game is? 135 - Are front license plates coming to a state you live in? Your calls. Dan is very for the license plate legislation. 150 - Your calls. 2 - Who will be on the show throughout this week? Will school choice be codified into PA law? 210 - Former 1210 WPHT employee Jack Posobiec went off on the Trump administration at the TPUSA event. 215 - Dom's Money Melody! 220 - Is fake news still a thing? Is it affecting public discourse to this day? How young can you teach kids to differentiate between what is real and what is fake? 225 - Your calls. 230 - Scott Presler joins us for yet another weekly installation. Churches are allowing Scott through their doors to register voters? With an IRS ruling looming over churches, is it imperative that parishioners register to vote in order to save their places of worship? Are people leaving the Republican Party? 250 - The Lightning Round!

07/14/25:Chris Gibbs is an Ohio Farmer, and former Chair of the Republican Party in Selby County Ohio, serving for seven years until 2015. He was then elected as the Chair of the Democratic Party in Selby County in Ohio. He’s also the Chair of Rural Voices USA and the Chair of Gateway Arts. (Joel Heitkamp is a talk show host on the Mighty 790 KFGO in Fargo-Moorhead. His award-winning program, “News & Views,” can be heard weekdays from 8 – 11 a.m. Follow Joel on X/Twitter @JoelKFGO.)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week we kick off the first of a three-part interview with Mister Adam Brandon, a senior advisor to the Independent Center (https://www.independentcenter.org). Among the various topics we discuss is the lie that the Republican Party and Democrat Party are two different entities. Take heart though, there is a way forward to restore our constitutional Republic. Get your tickets for the annual Freedom Fest hosted by Tennessee Constitutional Grassroots Coalition this coming October 4th. Don't forget to subscribe to the blog at https://libertyleadershipandlies.comYou can subscribe to or follow the podcast on Apple or Spotify, or on your favorite podcast platform – Rumble | YouTube | Overcast | Amazon Music | iHeartRadio | Pocket Casts | RadioPublicJoin me on social media:Twitter – both at @LarryForTN12 @LiesLibertyTruth Social – @LarryForTN12Instagram – @larry_conservative_activist @the_l5_podcastFacebook – Larry Linton - Sevier County Conservative Activist Facebook – Liberty, Leadership and LiesGab – @LarryLintonGETTR – @LarryLintonTelegram – t.me/libertyleadershipandliesTiktok – https://www.tiktok.com/@libertyleadershipandliesOr on the web at – https://libertyleadershipandlies.com#LarryForTN12 #LintonForTN12 #LarryLintonForTN12 #LibertyLeadershipAndLies #Liberty #Leadership #Lies #Constitutionalist #Conservative #Tennessee #StandInTheArena

Today on MetroNews This Morning: --The state Republican Party will soon have new leadership--New Presidents on board this week at WVU and Concord--The state Board of Education will learn more about a lawsuit over vaccination requirements--In Sports: Major League Baseball has reached the All-Star Break

As ICE raids continue to surge across the country, new reporting details the infighting inside the department, with one former official describing the morale as “in the crapper.” Another longtime official attributes the lack of detained convicted criminals to Stephen Miller's fixation on arrest numbers. Coincidentally, a new poll shows President Trump's immigration policy is unfavorable among Independents and Democrats. Then, Representative Debbie Dingell joins The Weekend to discuss Trump's health care cuts and how they could impact the midterms. 

Tucker Carlson continues to be highly visible and active across conservative political and media circles. Just this weekend, Carlson was a featured speaker at Turning Point USA's 2025 Student Action Summit in Tampa, Florida, sharing the stage with other prominent conservative figures including Donald Trump Jr. and Laura Ingraham. The event, drawing thousands of young conservatives, put Carlson in front of a live audience as he addressed themes related to youth activism, economic opportunity, and the evolving state of the Republican Party. His appearance was widely discussed across social media and conservative news outlets.On the business front, Carlson has assumed full ownership of the Tucker Carlson Network, having bought out his previous investors. He explained that this move was made to ensure complete editorial independence. The network has already reached profitability, relying on a subscriber model and host-read promotions, with no outside advertisers. His main show continues to air on both his website and on X, formerly known as Twitter, where he consistently garners large audiences and remains one of the most-watched political commentators. Carlson, along with longtime collaborator Neil Patel, is reportedly raising investment for a new media venture that aims to build on this momentum, planning a company that blends free short-form content with paid, longer-form programming. Discussions are underway to expand across multiple platforms, indicating a continued push to monetize and amplify Carlson's substantial digital following.Carlson's recent broadcast content has generated considerable controversy. In a new podcast episode, he challenged the role of Israeli intelligence in the Jeffrey Epstein case, suggesting Epstein operated as a foreign agent tasked with blackmailing U.S. officials. This claim has reverberated through both traditional and social media, drawing sharp criticism from various quarters and further fueling debates around Carlson's influence, editorial choices, and responsibility as a media figure.Another flashpoint has been Carlson's recent interviews with controversial world leaders. His much-publicized sit-down with the Iranian president sparked discussions about media ethics, with other commentators, including those on the PBD Podcast, questioning Carlson's approach to sensitive statements like “Death to America” and the line between providing a platform and amplifying hostile rhetoric. His earlier interview with Vladimir Putin similarly drew global attention, reinforcing his ability to set the agenda for political discourse but also inviting criticism for the perceived normalization of authoritarian viewpoints.On the legal and professional front, Carlson remains engaged in ongoing disputes with Fox News. The standoff centers on the terms of his departure and allegations of contract breaches on both sides, including claims of fraud and the unauthorized disclosure of private communications. Fox News has denied these accusations, and negotiations continue, especially with the expiration of his contract approaching in early 2025. These legal battles remain a backdrop to all of Carlson's public activity, adding intrigue and uncertainty to his next moves.Carlson's alignment with Project 2025, a sweeping conservative policy blueprint, has become another focal point in recent days. Analysts at the Brookings Institution and elsewhere have highlighted the controversial aspects of Project 2025, such as its recommendations on government structure and civil liberties, with Carlson's vocal support sparking renewed debates about his role in shaping the direction of right-wing politics heading into the next election cycle.Interactions with other high-profile personalities have also kept Carlson in the news. His appearances alongside Donald Trump Jr., Megyn Kelly, and Charlie Kirk at recent events underscore his continuing relevance and centrality to conservative media. Meanwhile, his statements and interviews remain a flashpoint for both supporters and detractors, generating significant discussion about his ongoing impact on political discourse, activism, and the future of American media.Thank you for listening to the Tucker Carlson news tracker podcast. Please subscribe for more updates and analysis on his ongoing activities and their wider implications. This has been a Quiet Please production, for more check out quiet please dot ai.For more http://www.quietplease.aiGet the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOta

The Department of Justice's recent Jeffrey Epstein report has left some in the MAGA crowd with more questions than answers. FBI deputy director Dan Bongino is considering leaving his job following a heated confrontation with Attorney General Pam Bondi over how the Justice Department handled files on the convicted sex offender. Mary McCord and Joe Walsh join The Weekend to discuss the fight roiling the MAGA faithful.

Fresh off its award-winning run in Europe, Democracy Noir arrives in the United States as a very timely documentary film about how Viktor Orbán politically reshaped Hungary. It paints an incisive portrait of how Orbán used a free and democratic election to install authoritarian rule, enjoying widespread approval from Hungarian nationalists as well as from conservatives around the world inclined to his illiberal views. He changed the constitution, took over the courts and the media, and dismantled the rule of law. Admired by Donald Trump and the Heritage Foundation, Orban's influence helped shape Project 2025 and the current policies of the Republican Party. Democracy Noir tells this story through the activism of its three subjects: opposition politician Timea Szabo, journalist Babett Oroszi, and nurse Nikoletta (Niko) Antal. It details how unchecked power can quickly remove rights that once were taken for granted, and it shows how three women come to terms with their country's unravelling social and cultural landscape. Studying the recent history of another country whose political trajectory mirrors your own can bring clarity to your situation. Join us to view, and then to discuss, this example of an increasingly emboldened far right political party and the rise of autocratic politicians around the world. A Humanities Member-led Forum program. Forums at the Club are organized and run by volunteer programmers who are members of The Commonwealth Club, and they cover a diverse range of topics. Learn more about our Forums. Documentary image and post courtesy Clarity Films; Field photo courtesy the speaker. OrganizerGeorge HammondNotes Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

President Trump made it clear he's not interested in talking about Jeffrey Epstein... but it's the arguably the biggest story of the week so we're covering it. And we dive into the Republican Party of 1912.

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show, lower federal courts are ignoring Supreme Court rulings, with judges defying the Constitution and law on immigration. In LA, a judge rules that ICE roundups are racist, alleging indiscriminate arrests of brown-skinned people at Home Depots, car washes, farms, etc., due to ethnicity and a 3,000-daily quota. In addition, in New Hampshire, a judge upholds birthright citizenship via national injunction, citing long-standing practice over constitutional analysis. The media ignore this, while actions persist. The judges have changed, not the Constitution. Also, President Trump has made enormous progress domestically and internationally, but institutions are being turned against Americans. Democrats will inevitably win elections and use the permanent government, courts, and administrative state to try to permanently embed their ideology, making it irreversible. Zohran Mamdani's Stalinist Islamist fusion of ideologies has overtaken parts of Europe and is now infiltrating the U.S., funded by entities like Qatar, Hamas, Iran, and Communist China. Later, socialism is an economic ideology from Marxism, which is a broader life ideology encompassing socialism but extending to cultural, social, and political transformation. The modern activists and professors are unoriginal Karl Marx wannabes who regurgitate ideas from Marx, Hegel, and Rousseau. Thery reject individual liberty and free will as divisive and weak, favoring instead class unity and collective power. There is a comprehensive war on civil society, culture, and America's foundations—targeting family, economy, and liberty—rooted in deadly, anti-human Marxist principles that promote genocide and centralized power.  Afterward, there is a vile and destructive element within the Republican Party. Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene is undermining Trump and introducing amendments removing $500 million in military aid to Israel from the National Defense Authorization Act.  Finally, Mahmoud Khalil filed a $20 million claim against the Trump administration. Only in America does a pro Hamas protestor like this turnaround and bring a lawsuit when he should never have been here in the first place. David Schoen calls in to explain that Khalil is 100% deportable under U.S. Code sections 1227 and 1182 for endorsing and supporting Hamas. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As the 2026 election cycle takes shape, three stories signal how the political terrain is shifting: the return of Iowa to early-state relevance, the emergence of an independent challenge in Nebraska, and the Republican Party's willingness to get aggressive — fast.Iowa Democrats are pushing to reclaim their first-in-the-nation status — and they're doing it with or without national party approval. Senator Ruben Gallego is already promoting visits, and the message is clear: Iowa is back. For Democrats, this matters. The state has long served as a proving ground for insurgent campaigns, offering low costs, civic-minded voters, and a tight-knit media ecosystem. Barack Obama's 2008 breakthrough began in Iowa for a reason. It rewards organization, retail politics, and real ground games.The party's 2024 decision to downgrade Iowa was framed as a gesture to Black voters in states like South Carolina and Georgia. In reality, it was a strategic retreat by Joe Biden to avoid a poor showing. That backfired when Dean Phillips forced an awkward New Hampshire campaign and Biden had to rely on a write-in effort. Now, Iowa's utility is being rediscovered — not because it changed, but because the party's strategy failed. For candidates who want to win on message and mechanics, Iowa remains unmatched.In Nebraska, Dan Osborne is trying to chart a different kind of path — not as a Democrat, but as an independent with populist instincts. Running against Senator Pete Ricketts, Osborne is leaning into a class-focused campaign. His ads channel a blue-collar ethos: punching walls, working with his hands, and taking on the rich. He doesn't have to answer for Biden. He doesn't have to pick sides in old partisan fights. He just has to be relatable and viable.That independence could be Osborne's biggest asset — or his biggest liability. His support for Bernie Sanders invites the question: is he a true outsider, or a Democrat in disguise? Sanders has always caucused with Democrats and run on their ticket. Osborne will have to prove he can remain politically distinct while tapping into a coalition broad enough to win in a deeply red state. Nebraska voters might give him a chance, but they'll need a reason to believe he's not just another version of what they already know.And then there's the tone of the campaign itself. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is already running attack ads that border on X-rated. A recent spot reads aloud hashtags from a sexually explicit tweet in a bid to link opponents with cultural extremes. The strategy is clear: bypass policy, bypass biography — go straight for discomfort. Make voters associate the opposition with something taboo. Make the election feel like a moral emergency.These tactics aren't about persuasion. They're about turnout. They aim to harden the base, suppress moderates, and flood the discourse with outrage. The fact that it's happening this early suggests Republicans see 2026 as a high-stakes cycle where no race can be taken for granted. And if this is how they're starting, the tone by next summer could be even more toxic.All of this — Iowa's return, Osborne's challenge, the NRSC's messaging — points to a midterm cycle already in motion. The personalities are distinct. The tactics are evolving. But the stakes, as ever, are the same: power, perception, and the battle to define the political future before anyone casts a vote.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:56 - Midterm Ads00:15:18 - Interview with Dave Levinthal00:37:31 - Update00:38:11 - Ken Paxton and the Texas Senate Race00:43:02 - Congressional Districts00:47:31 - Fed Chair00:52:42 - Interview with Dave Levinthal (con't)01:11:22 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Jacob welcomes economic policy expert Mike Konczal for a wide-ranging conversation on American capitalism, industrial policy, and the evolving role of the state. They explore how the Biden administration's economic agenda challenges decades of neoliberal orthodoxy, discuss the implications of increased public investment, and examine what it means to have a “pro-worker” economy. Konczal brings deep insight into the politics and pragmatics of economic reform, offering a nuanced look at the shifting landscape of U.S. economic policymaking.--Timestamps:(00:00) - Introduction and Guest Introduction(00:17) - Disclaimer and Encouragement to Listen(01:13) - Starting the Conversation: Economy and Tariffs(01:34) - Discussing Richard Rorty and Substack(04:31) - The 2025 Tax Act: Key Points and Implications(07:45) - Healthcare Market Rework and Medicaid Cuts(10:57) - Energy Market Changes and Green Energy(13:38) - Immigration Policies and ICE Funding(18:11) - Balancing Criticism with Positive Aspects(27:15) - Economic Shockwaves and the Republican Party(27:39) - Market Reactions and Fiscal Policies(28:30) - Deficit and US Debt Perspectives(30:14) - Healthcare Cuts and Fiscal Impact(34:04) - Tariffs and Market Uncertainty(39:53) - Inflation and Interest Rates(45:54) - Future Economic Strategies and Affordability(52:41) - Concluding Thoughts and Future Outlook--Referenced in the Show:Mike's Website + Book: https://www.mikekonczal.com/--Jacob Shapiro Site: jacobshapiro.comJacob Shapiro LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/jacob-l-s-a9337416Jacob Twitter: x.com/JacobShapJacob Shapiro Substack: jashap.substack.com/subscribe --The Jacob Shapiro Show is produced and edited by Audiographies LLC. More information at audiographies.com --Jacob Shapiro is a speaker, consultant, author, and researcher covering global politics and affairs, economics, markets, technology, history, and culture. He speaks to audiences of all sizes around the world, helps global multinationals make strategic decisions about political risks and opportunities, and works directly with investors to grow and protect their assets in today's volatile global environment. His insights help audiences across industries like finance, agriculture, and energy make sense of the world.--This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Podtrac - https://analytics.podtrac.com/privacy-policy-gdrp

Florida Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna joins Mike to discuss the youth movement in the Republican Party. Plus, she gives her thoughts on the first few months of Trump's second term. Plus, Charlie Kirk's Executive Producer, Andrew Kolvet, joins Mike to discuss working with Charlie and the future of the GOP. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna goes after the billionaire who's been reportedly bankrolling the LA Riots and threatens to seize his assets if he refuses a congressional order to appear and testify. Louisiana Sen John Kennedy calls on the GOP to pass Trump's recission bill to claw back billions in wasteful spending approved by prior administrations. Big Pharma wants to nuke RFK Jr because Kennedy knows the surgical precision needed to take down mRNA vaccines and get them permanently off the shelves.

In this episode of ThePrint WorldView, Consulting Editor and foreign policy expert Dr. Swasti Rao sits down with George "David" Banks, one of the rare American policy insiders to have served under three U.S. Presidents—George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. A seasoned advisor with experience across the CIA, the State Department, and the National Economic and National Security Councils, Banks brings unmatched insight into the tectonic shifts underway in America's political economy. As Trump's former Special Assistant for International Energy and Environment, and Republican Deputy Staff Director at the Senate Environment Committee, he was at the heart of key policy transformations during Trump 1.0. In this candid conversation, Banks unpacks the driving forces behind Trump 2.0's economic populism, the much-debated “Big Beautiful Bill,” and the rationale behind the 10% tariff baseline that signals a permanent shift in U.S. trade policy. He explains why Elon Musk has publicly broken ranks with Trump, how the climate agenda is being sidelined, and why the Republican Party is undergoing a deep identity crisis between isolationism and global cooperation. He also weighs in on India's place in Trump's geopolitical calculus, what has changed, what hasn't, and what New Delhi must prepare for if Trump returns to the White House. #trump #tarrifs #india #us #elonmusk #musk

The budget law passed by the US president's Republican Party may add $3 trln to the debt while cutting healthcare, green energy and more. In this Viewsroom podcast, Breakingviews columnists discuss the consequences for firms across the globe that were banking on an American boom. Visit the Thomson Reuters Privacy Statement for information on our privacy and data protection practices. You may also visit megaphone.fm/adchoices to opt-out of targeted advertising.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ryan Wrecker is once again filling in for Mark Reardon. The show starts with the question if President Trump has changed the Republican party. Ira Mehlman, Spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform joins the show to talk about the recent violent attacks on ICE and border patrol agents and legislation to force ICE agents to take off their masks. Paul Mauro, Fox News Contributor joins the show to talk about the one year anniversary of the attempted assassination of then Candidate Trump and Biden's former doctor Kevin O'Connor pleading the 5th when summoned to appear before a House subcommittee to answer questions about the mental acuity and health of then President Biden.

The death toll rises in Texas as local officials face intensifying questions about their response to the floods. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) speaks with NBC News following his vote to pass President Trump's tax and spending plan despite opposing its cuts to Medicaid. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) shares his thoughts on the state of the Republican Party and his decision to not to seek re-election in the House. 

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Yesterday we learned that Sen Julia Coleman (R) would not be seeking the Senate seat but potentially throw her name in the hat as Republican candidate for Minnesota governor? We talked to her about this, what the future of the Republican Party both in Minnesota and the country looks like, her own safety as a lawmaker following the horrific events of June 14th - that and much more with her!

In today's episode of the Center for Baptist Leadership podcast, William Wolfe sits down with Ambassador Designee for International Religious Freedom at the State Department, former Congressman and Pastor, Mark Walker, to discuss the global fight for religious freedom, working with President Trump, and his service as a pastor and congressman.   Mark Walker is an American politician and former pastor who served as a U.S. Representative for North Carolina's 6th congressional district from 2015 to 2021. A member of the Republican Party, Walker was elected to lead the Republican Study Committee in 2017 and served as vice chair of the House Republican Conference in 2019. In 2024, Walker joined Donald Trump's presidential campaign as director of faith and minority outreach. On April 10, 2025, President Trump announced his intention to nominate Walker as the U.S. Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, a position within the State Department.   Learn more about Mark Walker's work: https://x.com/repmarkwalker   ––––––   Follow Center for Baptist Leadership across Social Media: X / Twitter – https://twitter.com/BaptistLeaders Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/people/Center-For-Baptist-Leadership/61556762144277/ Rumble – https://rumble.com/c/c-6157089 YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@CenterforBaptistLeadership Website – https://centerforbaptistleadership.org/   To book William for media appearances or speaking engagements, please contact him at media@centerfor­baptistleadership.org.   Follow Us on Twitter: William Wolfe - https://twitter.com/William_E_Wolfe Richard Henry - https://twitter.com/RThenry83   Renew the SBC from within and defend the SBC from those who seek its destruction, donate today: https://centerforbaptistleadership.org/donate/   The Center for Baptist Leadership Podcast is powered by American Reformer, recorded remotely in the United States by William Wolfe, and edited by Jared Cummings.   Subscribe to the Center for Baptist Leadership Podcast: Distribute our RSS Feed – https://centerforbaptistleadership.podbean.com/ Apple Podcasts – https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/center-for-baptist-leadership/id1743074575 Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/show/0npXohTYKWYmWLsHkalF9t Amazon Music // Audible – https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9ababbdd-6c6b-4ab9-b21a-eed951e1e67b BoomPlay – https://www.boomplaymusic.com/podcasts/96624 TuneIn – Coming Soon iHeartRadio – https://iheart.com/podcast/170321203 Listen Notes – https://lnns.co/2Br0hw7p5R4 Pandora – Coming Soon PlayerFM – https://player.fm/series/3570081 Podchaser – https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/the-center-for-baptist-leaders-5696654 YouTube Podcasts – https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFMvfuzJKMICA7wi3CXvQxdNtA_lqDFV

What would an Elon Musk-backed third party do for American politics? The fellas look at which party benefits and if the formation of an "America" party would pave a clear path for Democratic victories. They also cover if Musk misunderstands US politics, or if he promised more with DOGE than he (or any one man) could deliver.   Smug wants an influencer-based Epstein inquisition impaneled with some broad powers.   Great coverage of the “kill the gringo” protests and if Smug would escape them in Mexico City, plus Hakeem Jeffries humiliating photoshop fail. PLUS Josh Dawsey On His New Book: https://www.amazon.com/2024-Trump-Retook-Democrats-America/dp/0593832531    Our Sponsors: ➢Beverage America believes in the promise that makes this nation great. Learn more at http://wedeliverforamerica.org/ ➢Put America first by ending lawsuit abuse. Go to https://moreaffordableusa.com/ to learn more.

In this episode of the Bill Press Pod, Bill reconnects with Carl Hulse, Chief Washington Correspondent for the New York Times, to discuss The Big Beautiful Bill recently forced through Congress. They compare it to the fights around the passage of The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and highlight the legislative muscle required, including Vice President's critical tie-breaking votes. The bill, encompassing Medicaid cuts to border security, faced criticism for bypassing traditional processes. They delve into the political ramifications, with Republicans like Josh Hawley and Tom Tillis grappling with the bill's implications while nearly all Republicans caved to political pressure from Trump. The pod also addresses the bill's potential impact on the national deficit and how Democrats could leverage this in future elections. Additionally, the influence of figures like Elon Musk on the legislative process and Trump's ongoing impact on the Republican Party are examined.Today Bill highlights the work of Jose Andres and the World Central Kitchen now providing food to the people in the Texas Hill Country recovering from the flash flood disaster. More information at WCK.orgSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode, Scott Becker examines the use of the term “RINO” within the Republican Party.

I sat down with long time Democratic activist Mike Nellis about why I became a Democrat, what problems the Democratic Party has, and what the party needs to do to prevail and help democracy prevail. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Councilman Frank Morano calls in to discuss Mayor Eric Adams and his re-election prospects come the general election for Mayor of NYC in November. Frank criticizes Adams for his perceived incompetence and corruption throughout his term, discussing the misguided endorsements of other politicians, mentioning Peter King's and others' mistaken endorsements of Adams over Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate for mayor, highlighting Sliwa's integrity compared to other political figures. Morano suggests that the Republican Party should rally behind Sliwa to exploit the divided Democratic vote. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

While the spending bill aims to cut healthcare and food aid services, ICE is set to receive a historic boost in funding. Representative Robert Garcia joins The Weekend to warn how this increase can turn ICE into President Trump's “federal police force.” Plus, after weeks of condemning the bill, Elon Musk defies MAGA and announces a third political party.

Happy Independence Day! We'll be back next week with a new episode, but today we're sharing the episode that started us on the path to “Interesting Times.” Ross Douthat talks to Reihan Salam, the president of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Together they wrote the book “Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream.”They review their George W. Bush-era prescriptions for the Republican Party to reclaim the working-class vote and the ways they were right (and wrong) about building a new Republican majority.03:47 George W. Bush era12:06 Rise and fall of the Tea Party18:19 Trump's 2016 “blood and guts” message28:11 Trump's effect on the right and left35:48 Trump's first term economic agenda39:30 Elon Musk vs JD Vance46:50 Imagining an activist, conservative government(A full transcript of this episode is available on the Times website.)Thoughts? Email us at interestingtimes@nytimes.com. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

President Trump put essentially his entire domestic agenda in one bill.It would significantly cut clean energy incentives, Medicaid and food assistance programs — and double down on tax cuts, immigration enforcement and national defense.Despite opposition from Democrats, and divides within the Republican Party, it passed through Congress.How did that happen? And what does it mean for American taxpayers? NPR correspondents explain.For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.nprth.org.Email us at considerthis@npr.org.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

President Donald Trump is poised to sign the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law, after the House and Senate passed the bill in two all-night sessions this week. Trump and his allies consider its passage to be a big victory, but the bill, which extends Trump's 2017 tax cuts, will also result in millions losing their health insurance — a cost that could leave fissures in the Republican Party. Today on “Post Reports,” Colby Itkowitz sits down with congressional reporter Theodoric Meyer and the Post's “Early Brief” newsletter author Dan Merica to discuss the consequences of the bill and how it could influence the 2026 midterm elections. Today's show was produced by Arjun Singh, and edited by Laura Benshoff with help from Emily Rauhala. It was mixed by Sam Bair.Subscribe to The Washington Post here.

Tonight on The Last Word: The Senate passes Donald Trump's budget bill with Medicaid and food assistance cuts. And Stanford University Professor Jack Rakove says the Trump era is a “constitutional failure.” Rep. Brendan Boyle and Jack Rakove join Lawrence O'Donnell.

Alicia Menendez – in for Nicolle Wallace – on the division in the Republican Party as Trump's megabill reaches the Senate floor, continued ICE raids in Los Angeles stoking fear, and the Trump administration's plan to build a national citizenship data system.Joined by: Vaughn Hillyard, Charlie Sykes, Cornell Belcher, Angelo Carusone, Jacob Soboroff, Andrea Flores, Sen. Cory Booker, Eddie Glaude, Kim Atkins Stohr, Marc Elias, John Hudson, and Justin Wolfers.

SEASON 3 EPISODE 143: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:45) SPECIAL REPORT: Which is worse? That Trump is running a “Protection Racket Presidency” and bribed one Senator to vote for his Big Beautiful Soak The Poor Budget Bill while metaphorically bumping off one Senator who wouldn’t? Or that Trump threatened Israel, threatened the government of Israel, if Israel's courts don’t do what HE wants on behalf of Netanyahu – and nobody noticed. Which is worse? Well it’s a trick question because these are actually just two different aspects of the same story. It’s a protection racket. These are a) the domestic operations of the protection racket, and b) the international operations of the protection racket. Thom Tillis, the vaguely responsible Republican senator from North Carolina, refused to let Trump politically rape him Saturday night and would not vote to advance the budget bill. Trump had been threatening him for weeks, months, accelerated it, finally began to ask for volunteers to primary him, Tillis announced yesterday he will retire from the senate at the end of his term next year. So much for Mr. Tillis. So much for somebody, anybody, in the Republican party saying “I owe this country something.” So much for the thought that when the country is up against it and the breaks are beating the boys, tell ‘em to go out there with all they got and win just one for the Tiller. I don’t know where I’ll be then, but I’ll know about it and I’ll be happy.” Well I know where Thom Tillis will be: he’ll be back home in Cornelius, North Carolina. Presumably drinking heavily. Reflecting on how he represents the utter moral and ethical decline of the already near-bankrupt and nearly-totally-declined Republican Party. Meanwhile Senator Lisa Murkowski turns out to be Susan Collins with less Kibuki make-up. She sold her soul to get herself a carveout for Alaska, only to find out the Senate Parliamentarian says it violates the Senate's Byrd Rule and the carveout must be carved out. Lol. AND TRUMP THREATENED TO DEFUND ISRAEL - what would be the end of the political career of any other American figure - and nobody noticed. And it seems to have worked. ALSO: WHY KRISTEN GILLIBRAND MUST RESIGN (and get treatment), Stephen Miller has a financial interest in the ICE raids, the plot to make Eric Adams the Republican nominee for mayor of New York, and you missed the new SCOTUS rulings on porn! Pay attention, Mike Johnson! B-Block (37:32) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: Jeopardy aficionados worried about a conflict of interest because the contestant was related to the person who was the answer to the question? I was on two episodes of Jeopardy in which a contestant had the same name as the answer to the question, and where a contestant wrote four of the five sketches that were all the answers in an entire category! Plus the Fox host who doesn't know when World War 2 was or which American party caused breadlines; Chris Cuomo thinks AOC destroyed the Democratic Party not, say, he and his brother; and idiot Senator Bernie Moreno discusses "anals" with Laura Ingraham. C-Block (56:00) THINGS I PROMISED NOT TO TELL: It's that time again. July 10 is the 46th anniversary of my first broadcast on my first full-time broadcasting job, which means you have a choice: you have to listen to it, or skip it.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

U.S. Military Strike on Iran: The episode centers around a recent U.S. military strike that reportedly devastated Iran’s nuclear capabilities, setting the program back by years. The hosts argue that this action was necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and praise President Trump’s leadership in authorizing the strike. Criticism of the Left and Media: The conversation includes strong criticism of Democrats, liberal ideology, and mainstream media outlets (e.g., CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times), accusing them of downplaying the success of the strike and sympathizing with Iran. The hosts argue that liberal logic is inconsistent, especially when it comes to foreign policy and national security. Iran’s Role in Global Terrorism: Iran is portrayed as the primary state sponsor of terrorism, funding groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. The episode discusses Iran’s alleged attempts to assassinate Donald Trump and its broader hostility toward the U.S. and Israel. UN and International Response: The United Nations and its Secretary-General are heavily criticized for condemning the U.S. strike, with the hosts mocking the UN’s stance and questioning its legitimacy. Internal GOP Debate: Cruz and Ferguson highlight a divide within the Republican Party, between those advocating for a strong global stance and those favoring isolationism. They criticize figures like Tucker Carlson for opposing the strike and accuse them of spreading misinformation. Peace Through Strength Doctrine: The hosts emphasize the idea that military strength leads to peace, contrasting Trump’s decisive action with what they describe as the appeasement strategies of Obama and Biden. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and the Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. Thanks for Listening #seanhannity #hannity #marklevin #levin #charliekirk #megynkelly #tucker #tuckercarlson #glennbeck #benshapiro #shapiro #trump #sexton #bucksexton#rushlimbaugh #limbaugh #whitehouse #senate #congress #thehouse #democrats#republicans #conservative #senator #congressman #congressmen #congresswoman #capitol #president #vicepresident #POTUS #presidentoftheunitedstatesofamerica#SCOTUS #Supremecourt #DonaldTrump #PresidentDonaldTrump #DT #TedCruz #Benferguson #Verdict #justicecorrupted #UnwokeHowtoDefeatCulturalMarxisminAmericaYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.