Hudson River Radio dot com. It beats listening to nothing. Be Frank. We're the only way to be is Frank Low and welcome to being Frank. We're the only way to be is of course, Frank. I'm your host, Frank Leabono. We'd like to thank you for joining us here on the Intelligent Conversation podcast. We know that your time is valuable. Competition is fierce. It seems everyone has a podcast these days, but we'd like to think of ourselves as an alternative to all that noise, so we really appreciate you
taking some of your time to be with Being Frank. We streamed from Hudson River Radio dot com and historic Stony Point, New York, where the mailman because he always delivers, mister Neil Richter is our engineer. You know. That's our so called home base. But remember you can download us wherever and whenever you listen to your favorite podcasts. That includes Iheartradios, Spotify, Apple
Speaker, and all the others. You can find the links on our Hudson River Radio Facebook page, and please think about becoming a subscriber and leaving us a comment or two. We also have our own website Hudson River Radio dot com. And if you go to the site and click on the Being franklink, you'll see me. I'm there with all the other great programs. You'll be able to listen to any of our podcasts at any time. And if
you like your program, please considering sharing it with family and friends. Being Frank brings our audience a new topical program every week, beginning on Thursdays. But listen at your convenience. Remember every program as archives, so you can listen to any Being Frank virtually anytime that you want. It's the intelligent thing to do. And we're going, as we say in the industry, live to tape here on the twenty fourth of August. Let me double check,
yes, I've got to date right. That's a good start, at least it is for me, as ply discussed on this podcast. I consider the First Amendment sacred and in my mind, the foundation for and thereby the most important of all our constitutional amendments. For without our ability to freely speak our minds, the very concept of liberty collapses. But there are those who seek to pervert this cherished tenant. They would use it as a shield for their
lies and deceit, peeling away all the layers. This is the heart of the case against former President Donald J. Trump. Mister Trump and his lawyers claim that he has a right to his opinion that the twenty twenty election was stolen from him, and despite the amount of evidence disproving those claims, as protected free speech, he cannot be prevented from believing what he believes thereby expressing it. Is this a valid defense. It will be one of our intelligent
conversations tonight. We'll also discuss the recent GOP debate, the candidates, the winners and the losers, and the role the media plays with it all, and to do so as a frequent contributor, my colleague at Fordham and an expert media and the First Amendment, doctor Paul Levinson. Paul, thank you once again for joining us here and we can always count on you well. I'm always delighted to talk to your Frank again. We appreciated, Paul.
Your opinion counts and I think we need to hear I think we need to hear it tonight. First, and this is not the first time we've discussed the First Amendment, lots of ones there, but it is that important and it keeps coming up in various ways, but I think people, once again, I don't know if they totally grasp the concept. And one of the things that's frequently used is to simplify what the First Amendment comes down to is that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater if there's no fire. But
that's a fairly broad statement. Can you can you boil it down even further what exactly does that mean in practical terms? And then again as that applies to our general conversation of free speech, the use of it by former President Trump and his lawyers to say, look, well, we have a right to our opinion, etc. But put it all together against starting with you can't yell fire in a crowded theater if there's no fire, break that down
a little further for us. Well, the reason why that was stated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Junior, way way back over a hundred years ago, and the Shank versus the United States case was if you shout fire and there is no fire in a crowded theater and then people run out of the theater, they could wind up hurting themselves or at the very least they would be deprived of the movie that they had paid money to see, so they would
be robbed of their experience by that false statement. Now I never thought, as you know, that that was the best example anyway of what the First Amendment does not protect, because as far as people stampeding and trampling themselves, I think it would be a much better idea than worrying about whether the First Amendment applies or not to just build theaters that have exits that people can run
out of in a safe way. If God forbid there is a fire, and that you know, then I think you don't even have to talk about if you have some malicious person saying there's a fire there when it isn't. But there have been from the very beginning many things that the First Amendment does
not protect. The most common is protection if you say or write something that defames someone else, and if you know what you're saying or writing is false, and you know it's going to do them damage, and you publish it or speak it or disseminated anyway, then you could be hauled into a civil court. You're not going to wind up in jail, but you could be fined millions of dollars, which is what happens when you are found guilty in
a civil suit. That was always the case. I'm totally in favor that I think people should be punished if they lie in public with the intent of defaming someone, hurting their career, damaging their reputation. But there's also far more serious thing that you can't do even though there is a First Amendment,
and that's communication that is intended to lead to commission of a crime. Now you can make a general statement saying, you know what, I think banks are very detrimental to our society, and uh, you know, I would be happy if everyone just ran into a bank and you know, demanded to get back all their money and even stole the money if necessary. Someone could make, you know, as insane as that statement is, that's the person's
opinion that is protected under the First Amendment. But if someone was either writing or talking about a plan to go into a specific bank, and here's how you're going to do it, and you should show up at you know, nine am, you know, two weeks from now on a Thursday Friday morning, and what I'm going to do is distribute to you plans so you can see what the bank looks like on the inside where the vaults are, and before we go there, we'll get the weapons, which we'll use if anybody
gets in our way, et cetera, et cetera. And obviously we've all seen this in many many movies and television shows. Hopefully no one listening to this has actually been planning something like that, because if they were, that would be a crime. That communication would not be protected by the First Amendment,
because it's communication that's intended to commit a crime robbing a bank. How does this relate to Trump, Well, as we've been talking about since that dark day, you know, back in January twenty one, Trump not only lied, and there's a lot of evidence that he knew that he lost.
So he not only lied and continues to lie about the results of the twenty twenty election, but he actually worked to get the results of that election disgarded so that he Donald Trump, who did not win the election, would be
recognized as the winner of an election. That's a crime. He was trying to subvert the election laws in our country, and that's a crime even without the insurrection at the Capitol on January six, twenty twenty one, So that sadly for our democracy, is a stark example of what the First Amendment does
not protect. And I'll just conclude this by saying I often have said in the past, you know casually that I'm pretty much an absolutist when it comes to the First Amendment, by which I mean to say people should be entitled
to say the most hateful things they want. But ever since Trump, I've stopped saying I'm an absolutist because he has violated the First Amendment in so many different ways, in ways that you know the First Amendment does not protect, and he's made a mockery of the First Amendment that now I would never say I'm an absolutist regarding the First Amendment. I'm a very strong, like you,
fervent believer and supporter in the First Amendment. But I'm equally strong about wanting to bring people who use the First Amendment as a cover to commit criminal activities and use the First Amendment as a cover to subvert our democracy. I'm a very strong believer also in those people being brought to justice. Well, let me play the devil's advocate because I like to. It's part of what intelligent conversation is about what he's certainly in his lawyers and supporters believe at least
as a gray area. Okay, And you hear it, and I think we've discussed it before, and you hear it in many of the interviews with people, particularly the people who support former President Trump. Well, in my opinion, okay, I feel I thought, and we know, the burden of proof in a particular case like this is with the state and with the government. They have to prove that there was intent, and Trump continually goes back. And this is also when I want your opinion on political speech,
especially during political times. It's almost as if they're given a free license to lie, certainly at least to exaggerate. That's part of the political jargon whatever. And it's up to us to wade through and say who's lying who's not, because let's face it, it seems at some point most politicians certainly at least exaggerate their accomplishments, and most people would say, well, they should.
That's the idea of politics, that's the idea of campaigning. So here, now again you have the gray area where Trump is saying, you don't understand I believe that I was given evidence by others to make me believe that, and how can you tell me to believe what I can believe and what I can't believe? Those are your facts, they're not necessarily my facts. So here they set up this gray area of him saying, well, his intent was he felt he was doing the right thing, that he was robbed
from the election, and he quote unquote legitimately believes that. We may think otherwise, but again, within the burden of proof, can we prove that he was intentionally misleading and therefore of violating the First Amendment? What do you think of that gray area, Paul, I don't really think it's that great. I still think this is a black and white situation, because, first of all, it doesn't matter what Trump believed or didn't believe. He's entitled
to believe that the Earth is flat. He's entitled to believe that he won the election. That's not why he's currently in Atlanta and he's going to go in and be arraigned, and he's already been indicted. Of all the cases against Trump, this is the most clear cut case. He's not being indicted
because he believed that he won the election. He's being indicted and being arraigned and arrested, and he'll be brought to trial for the grave offense in which, fortunately we have a tape recording of the telephone kind of station in which Trump is telling the people in Georgia who are responsible for tallying and certifying the votes in an election that look, you know, you got to find me
x number of votes because that's what I need to win the election. And it doesn't matter that he was entitled to believe that he won the election. What matters is he is pressuring a state official to commit a crime digging up votes, printing up votes. I don't know how he expected them to find the votes, but however it was, it doesn't matter. That's where the
criminal activity happened. And that's why that case is even more clear cut than the federal case against Trump for inciting the right because in the capital and the attack on the Capitol, I think Trump is guilty of that too, but I think that it's a little harder to prove, because you know, he could there maybe he was just giving his opinion, you know, wouldn't it be nice, But here in trying to fix the election, and the worst
possible meaning of the word fix, not fix something that's broken, but fix something I do something in an illegal way, and we have him on tape urging that that I think is a clear cut, not gray area which Trump clearly broke the law. He deserves to be indicted. He deserves to be brought up on trial. He deserves to be found guilty and spend some time
in prison. Well, it's a little bit about fraud, fraud in the media, and what comes to mind, because I think it's it's all kind of related, and they're all seemed to be, at least in my mind. Snake oil salesman, if you will, in flashing around his one on on Sunday mornings, or any number of evangelical creatures of any assorted faith, et cetera, selling things, and one of them sells holy water that for fifty dollars they'll get special water that they can either drink or sprinkle or whatever,
and it'll bring them great wealth. And you could see it every week. For most rational people. You raise an eyebrow at least and say, you're not serious, are you? Yet? He's made millions millions by people who will buy that product. To me, seems to be obviously false advertising. Ie fraud. Where where does that land within free speech? Defrauding the public? Is there something that could be done about that? In other words,
it seems like again within the realm of free speech and belief. Well, he believes that that it can and he convinced there's others to believe that it can work. So can it be stopped? Should it be stopped? Well, I'm gladu raised that point because that is another area in which the First Amendment does not permit an organization from, say, selling a product and
falsely claiming that the product does such and such when it doesn't. So if, for example, somebody is out shopping for a new car and they're told that this new Chevy you know, can go it has like you know, it's a gasoline car. You know, it's not a hybrid or electric vehicle, and uh, you know, it can go x number of miles on a gallon. And it turns out that the number of miles is maybe half
that amount. The f he see, the Federal Trade Commission would crack down on that automobile company or it might be a dealership or whatever and say no, you're not allowed to do this. We're going to find you. You can't falsely advertise something that's going to defraud the public. So that's a very clear cut example. The problem though, in applying that to politics is yeah, it's not as clear as well. The most you're going to get out of a car, you know, is maybe thirty or thirty five miles per
gallon. And if you're advertising that this, you know, all gas engine is going to give you seventy miles per gallon. That's just a clear, mathematical lie. The problem is we don't have such clear cut boundaries and politics, and so I think the First Amendment, I mean, ethnically, it's always wrong to lie and exaggerate, but I think we have to accept the fact that I know we're going to be talking about this, you know, in a few minutes last night's debate. Uh, it's it's it's okay for
this vivid character to every word out of his mouth was a lie. But that's and we will indeed, and and and it's funny because I saw the new ads are out and Biden has his and how he's improved the country, and of course Trump now has come out with his first I actually saw it today or yesterday A couple of times and within it again raising an eyebrow. Border security. Yes, I built the wall well like thirty two miles of it, so it's not entirely falls but it's certainly an exaggeration. And from
again, you are a much more the expert than I am. But it seems like political speech, especially at this time here is is even more so protected by the First Amendment. They were allowed to certainly at least exaggerate, if not completely lie. And they all do, as I said, in fairness to a degree. But obviously why we're here with former President Trump is because he does it to the nth degree. He seems to be the best
at it. And again the latest commercial that was just one example, and he put out some other things that were, you know, just blatantly false, but it doesn't seem to be able to be stopped. Yeah, but I do think we have to be careful in politics. And I'll give you an example. I guess it was in the two thousand and twelve election when Romney had not yet gotten the GOP nomination, but he was beginning to campaign for the GOP nomination, and he was asked a question about the citizens United
Supreme Court decision. Would said that the government cannot prohibit cooperations from donating money to campaigns, and Romney was asked what he thought about that, and Romney sort of left and said, well, what do you mean? Corporations are people, you know, so if people can you know, give money, why I can't corporations? And you know, all all of my progressive friends went crazy. What a stupid thing to do is to say he shouldn't be
allowed to say that. But actually I think he was making a good point. I mean, the First Amendment does forbid the government from interfering with any kind of lawful communication, and it doesn't say that you have to be just an individual person to contribute to a campaign. So why shouldn't a corporation, which after all, is made up of people, why shouldn't they be able
to contribute. Now a lot of people I know disagree with me. They think that I'm some kind of horrible conservative to say that, But I still wouldn't ever say that. I'm glad. But the point is that example is why I think we have to be very careful about about saying a politician can't lie or even exaggerate, because often politicians are trying to make points and often unfortunately, what we think is a lie, it turns out not to be a lie, just a different interpretation. Now, now let me say,
look, our history, our political American history is filled with lives. One of the thing that one of the things that Daniel Ellsberg, who who sadly passed away but at a ripe old age, you know, just recently a couple of months ago, pointed out, you know, back in the Pentagon papers, is that Lyndon Johnson lie right to the American people and said,
the North Vietnamese attacked our you know, destroyers ship. It became the Gulf of Punkin resolutions that's really triggered the Vietnam warwere and tens of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousand, millions of Vietnamese were killed. That's fine, that's right. So you know that's an ipso facto'll lie lying about a fact, and you know there are exceptions to everything, and that would be something that for a government to lie like that, And and I think that that's why
Elsberg wanted to get the Pentagon papers out there. Lyndon Johnson passed away pretty much at the same time, so as the Pentagon Papers came out, so there was no way he could be brought to justice. But but you know, the politics, unfortunately, is always close to lying and exaggerating, because politicians are not interested in telling the truth as clearly as possible. They're interested
in convincing people that they're doing the good and right thing. And therefore politics is a haven for propaganda, which means it's rife with distortion and exaggeration. Perfectly, and we'll take a break pull, but it's a perfect lead into our next part of our discussion, which is the role the media plays in it in all of this, and how these political candidates use the media.
Quite frankly, we can talk a little bit about the debate, the winners, the losers, the making of the president if we remember that very seminal book about image and how important literally the physical image of the president was and how modern candidates have taken that and they use the media and shape their own image within it. I think is an important and a good discussion to have
when but we'll take a break first and we'll be right back. I'm your host, Frank lebov Le Bono'd be great if I could say my own name properly. Will go from there, you're watching Being Frank. We're the Only way to be Is Frank. My guest tonight is Fordham University Professor expert in media matters. In the First Amendment, Doctor Paul Levinson moved back with so much more. Right after these brief commercial messages don't go anywhere yet, Hudson
River Radio dot com. Bring a dash of green into your life. Check out the Many Shades of Green with Maxine Margat, Reuben and Malcolm Burman. Get informed about environmental issues and current events that affect us all. Pick a shade of green and raise your eco consciousness with the Many Shades of Green available on Apple Podcasts, iHeart, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. You ought to be in movies, well, at least you should watch movies.
The silver Screen Podcast talks about all aspects of film and entertainment, current films, old films, how movies are made, and interviews with moviemakers, authors and musicians too. Check out The Silver Screen Podcast at Hudson River Radio dot com or wherever you get your podcasts, and go watch a movie Hudson River Radio dot com. We're back with Being Frank. We're the Only way to
be is Frank. We're having another intelligent conversation, of course, with my guest, my colleague at Fordham University and expert in media in the First Amendment, doctor Paul Levinson. We'll continue our discussion about the First Amendment, politics, the debates and everything. Remember Neil Richter as our engineer, and he reminded to me to tell everybody I'm fumbling all over myself because in jet lag, who's gone for a couple of weeks. I'll brag a little bit.
I was visiting in Sicily, so we just got back. It's great to be back and saddle again. As they say, it'll take me probably this whole show to pronounced my own name right. But if you'll bear with me, we've got some great conversation. Remember we here every week, unless I'm away for a week or two. We try to get you a fresh topic every week. It's streams on all major podcasting platforms. It's archives, so
there's no excuse to not check out. Being Frank. Okay, I want to talk a little bit about image in the media and how important it has become. That really became crystallized in the early days of television with the Kennedy Nixon debates, and I think we've discussed it in the past where it's very interesting. The radio audience, people who could not see the debate actually Nixon as the winner, but those who watched the first debates on television clearly went
for Kennedy because he looked better. Nixon looked sinister, and again we discussed it hadn't shaved, he was dark, and his appearance became, as I said, more sinister, and he lost votes that way. So obviously it became, especially with a visual medium like television, that it's important to not only sound good, but to look good and have an important presentation. And now with the multiple platforms that we have, everybody used to have to go
through broadcast television. Now you have your own you can do your own TikTok videos, you could do YouTube videos, you can have your own channel, you can become an influencer, et cetera. So the idea of image has become even more important. Paul, is that a good thing or is that
a bad thing? Well, it remains to be seen. It's certainly a different thing, as you're saying, and at this point, it certainly is something that looks like it's not particularly good for democ set and you know, to go back in history, democracy in the United States begins in a world, in a society when the only medium is print newspapers and books. And by the time we get to the nineteen thirties, we have this brand new, incredible, magical medium radio And one of the reasons why FDR was elected
president four times as he was a master of radio. And as you said, the television makes its entrance and the Kennedy Nixon debates in nineteen sixty. But I have to say, looking at that debate last night, and you know, watching Fox, which pains me in any case anytime, but the that debate last night was a said, said, example of how far the television debate has fallen since the Kennedy Nixon debates, since even the you know, the the Reagan Mondale debates, even as I mentioned a little earlier,
the two thousand and twelve election, Romney versus Obama. And by the way, in that debate, Obama actually didn't even do that well in the first presidential debate. Now, of course, the debate last night was not a Republican versus Democrat. It was an all Republican debate. But I think it was a sad spectacle. And I just want to mention here I read shortly before we saw this podcast a very good article by the name of someone I haven't read his work before, John Asconis ask O n a s John J.
O n in Compact, which is an online magazine. And the gist of the article is that if you think about the fact that, at least according to Twitter or x that is Elon Musk's system, the the Tucker Carlson interview with Trump got many, many more viewers than we're watching the debate on Fox, that that last night's debate was just, you know, a pathetic example of the decline of the debate and as a format that's helpful to democracy. Now, this didn't begin. This decline didn't begin last night. It
began in the two thousand and sixteen election in the Republican debates then. But who can forget the debates, you know, and both the actual debate that the Trump and Hillary Clinton had and before that the Republican primary debates in which you know, Megan Kelly basically puts the truth to Trump. You know, you say that women are pigs, you say this and that, and Trump interrupts and says, no, you know, I only I'm not even going to mention a name because I don't want to insult her. He insults a
woman and and and gets away with that. And one would have thought that anyone who had answered a question like that would have dropped precipitously in the polls. But in twenty sixteen we got the first taste of somebody who in a debate lies, says outrageous things, insults people, and what happens he moves up in terms of voters who are supporting him, and he eventually gets the nomination, and he eventually he did lose the popular vote, but eventually won
enough electoral votes, you know, twenty elections. So I think that last night's the debate is just a further example of the deterioration of the television debate
as a worthwhile vehicle for our democracy. Well you had mentioned and by most accounts of pundits and polls afterwards, Vivic Ramaswami, the thirty six year old to a billionaire businessman, won the debate by basically uttering, I wouldn't even call them falsehood's lie after lie denying, climate denying, showing real naivete when it came to international affairs, obviously had some missenogenistic tendency, etc. And yet by presentation it seemed like it's just throwing raw meat to the base.
Wound up once again with if you will style over substance, although the substance he was throwing was obviously believed by many. So once again we have this situation where the person talking the loudest, talking over everyone, really kind of won the debate and again being allowed and not really being challenged. He was by some of the other candidates, but certainly not the viewers seemed to really
accept what he had to say just as he said it. Yet most people of any kind of education or knowledge know it not to be true, but it didn't seem to matter. How did we get there because unfortunately, one of the impacts, one of the babyful results of social media, has been the displacement of truth as the goal of communication. And we've talked about this before as well. The most important thing in social media is no longer is
the communication true? What it's been now for years, not for four years, even longer than that, is is it shared, reposted, liked, And that's what people in social media strive for and it doesn't matter if what they're saying is true or not. And this again is a very sharp departure from broadcast media, from cable media, and from print media, where truth
was the goal. They didn't always get it right. I mean, you know, Fox from the outset, you know, basically had information that were just lies and not true, but they had some truth mixed into it. Social media and I am totally in favor of social media existing. I'm not for a moment you and I use it, and also that's right, that's right. So yes, and I think it is a tool to be used. But I think I'm glad to say I know it's true for you, and I hope people would say the same thing about me. We use it
with integrity. I mean, you know what I said from the beginning, Well, people have approached me and they said, you know, we really like your show. It's good information and it's good exchange. But you could probably get more listeners if you're a little bit more controversial controversial, And I said, I don't do controversy just for the sake of controversy, and just for the sake of ratings. That's not that important to me, truth is
more important open conversation. Even if people tend to not to agree with me, that's okay certainly if they could present their case with logic and respect. But you know, that seems to be the minority. And we've mentioned before we came on a vivec. It seems to be like Ann Coulter and and Tucker Carlson who basically say anything to make them famous, and therefore like even the Kardashians famous simply for being famous. Uh you know, and I don't
know we have how we combat that. Uh you know, it's interesting, and I could wind all I want about it and say, well, you know, forty I get forty listeners. I'd like to get four hundred thousand, and you see the people that get the four hundred thousand. But yet I just my my integrity, my conscience won't just won't let me go there,
Paul. But for others that's that's the way of as you mentioned, it's it's getting likes clicks, and that's more important, and how you get them, uh seem to be the most important thing is maybe the least important thing. I should say, I should rephrase it's it's not important to them how they get them, as long as they get them. Your thoughts,
well, I know less, I'll say, and you. I hate to do this every time this is brought up, but this is not the first time in history that lies and dangerous lies have played a major role in politics. And the arch example of that is what happened in Germany in the Weimar Republic in the nineteen thirties and Hitler and Joseph Garbbels, who had a PhD in communication from the University of Heidelberg. He earned it nineteen twenty two.
He was no dummy, and he was advising Hitler. And one of the things he said to Hitler, if you're gonna lie, make the lie as big and outrageous as possible, because what that will do is just to track more people. It's more exciting. Don't waste your time with slight wise and that's indeed what Hitler did with tragic tragic consequences. Now, I'm not saying that that Vivic Ramswami is Hitlarian, but I am saying that the reason why he was so effective last night is he just went for broke. He lied
about everything. You know, he lied about the climate crisis. I mean, we could just make a list. I don't think anything that he said was truth. And you know this is in contrast to you know, someone like Nicky Haley, who I don't agree with her on many things at all, but just use one example, and I know you feel strongly as I do about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and unlike Vivic Ramswami, who you know thinks no, we shouldn't give them any money and we shouldn't support them.
I thought it was great when Nikki Haley took him to task and said, look, you know, the Ukraine's at democracy. You know, Putin is a Nazi, and we need as the world's strongest democracy, the United States to continue supporting Ukraine. So we did have some people saying that. Unfortunately, though Nikki Hailey's position, although you and I agree with it, is not the red meat that thank goodness, it's not a majority of the
population. But let's say thirty thirty five percent, thirty eight percent the Magar Republicans, that's what they believe, and they applaud and say he had won the audience. It's obvious for those that were their live virtually hanging on every word and applauding things that many of them and literally thankfully most Americans still would find important. Yet there was a significant amount of people you could you could you could feel it in the room, and he used it to gain more
strength, and he had certainly what we might call media savvy. He used his moment and he captured his moment and that and that's obviously important even if I think, and Paul get your final thoughts on that, even if he doesn't win the nomination, and it's unlikely at this point, but we also
said that at Trump with Trump many years ago, it's unlikely. But even if he doesn't, he's already elevated his public profile already so that he can put himself in a position again famous for being famous, And I think I believe that's one of his motivations. You know, he doesn't really necessarily want the office. He'll take the power that goes with it, but I don't
think he wants the responsibility again, just my opinion. Yet he's and I think many of them do it with the idea that well, look, I'm not going to win this, but it's certainly I've created a public profile that I can use down the road. So in a sense, and I guess it's a smart thing. They use the medium the media for what it was designed to use to get their message out, to get themselves out. Your thoughts, Well, I think that's completely right. I don't know what he
wants. Maybe he's hoping Trump will choose him to be his vice presidential running mate. Maybe he's hoping that, you know, as Lauren's Tribe and Judge Ludick have argued that whether Trump is convicted or not, the fourteenth Amendment should prevent him from running for president, and so somehow they will go and they made Republicans will choose this person who's had no experience whatsoever in politics. But then again, neither did Trump. You know, I think we're in a
very dangerous situation in our democracy. And you know, I was thinking that, you know, our country survived by and law, I mean means of people died around the world, and over million people in the United States died of COVID, but by and large or our society did survive COVID. I think our democracy is under a deadly socially pathogenic attack right now. And you
know, I'm an optimist. I think that there's still a majority of people who do value truth and prought of what needs to be done is getting everyone over eighteen out there and voting. And but I am not going to be comfortable about where the future of our country is going until this next election takes place. You know. Well, in one last thought, I and we
discussed before we came or do our taping. I saw an interview with some MAGA supporters and they yes, would you continue to support and vote for President and Trump if he's convicted in a jail? Said? We said absolutely, even if he's in a jails. Paul, for the life of me, I can't understand the logic of that, and how how do we we counter
because it's not just one or two people, it's millions of people. Harol Fhitler was in prison in the late nineteen twenties and he used that as one of the main things when he was running for election after that to basically strengthen his support. Wow, Paul, well we're at it. We're at it again. We just hopefully we just saved we just saved American democracy. Yet he goes not stupid to think that we actually could. But somebody's got into it. Paul, Right, Hey, maybe you and I should run for
office. You and I both will be ticket. I'll tell you that would be some ticket. Paul. Of course, thank you for being Frank with your intelligent conversation. Always. You know, you're always You're always welcome here. Pleasure is always Frank, appreciate it. Of course, we offer special thanks to our listeners. We take a little time to give us a voice
in their lives. And remember we offer a fresh topic every week and you can catch us wherever and whenever you get your favorite podcasts like Apple, Spotify, iHeart Radio, Speaker and more. You can also check us out on the Hudson River Radio Facebook page. Leave us a comment. We also ask you to consider sharing being Frank with others. Believe the two last little nuggets.
First, of course my quote and of course I went to the man hunter S. Thompson, and I think we'll all appreciate this considering our discussion tonight. In a closed society where everybody is guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. Paul. Again, another reason I like to have you on the shows. You make my life easy in so many ways. You're a musician as
well. I always call you the renaissance man. I was going to say, you know, take in mind, taking into consideration, keep in mind that neither of us are lawyers. But I don't know, Paul, you might you might be you two so much, but but I certainly love your music. Tell us what are we going to hear tonight? You picked out a tune for us. Well, you know, if you think about our discussion, it almost seems like we're living in an alternate reality, something that's
not quiet democracy. As a science fiction writer, as you also know because we've done a show on it, thank you, I have an alternate reality story. It's real life. What would the world be like had John, had Lena not been assassinated and the Beatles survived, but as a group of four. But I also wrote a song about love across alternate realities, And of course you know it's science fiction, but still a love song. And the name of the song is some mathon all right, we need that tonight
for our engineer, Neil Richter. I'm your host, Frank Lebono. We hope to have you join us for the next being. Frank, We're the only way to be is Frank, have some more intelligent conversation. Please join us again. We'll see you next time. Some matha. Can't you see there's no way to love work for you? Yeah, it's true. Some Mantha facts so sweets past not but we can do. You come from that hold and die that shot. That's what makes you so of healing, but
that's what puts being all to see you come from. But it ain't stop. Check they'll put you by that and in time I'll put you by that on that die. Some mad das with me. But I don't think that would be on the phone next year because you won't be in it. Some man I changes. We couldn't trip way art see, it won't be live and you really, your love just wants to live and story Shore does and
now with feeling all that, now news is worth to your love. Just as I stood up to Shore, I I can't do the time and you get to love crying. I trust three hour to some man tregious see weconcide. We can't twist and shoe what Hudson River Radio dot com