Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics. Well, we discussed the top political headlines with some of today's best minds.
We're on vacation, but that doesn't mean we don't have a great show for you today. Peter Sham Sherry and Michael Grew of the podcast five four stop by to tell us what they are seeing from the Supreme Court this session. But first we'll talk to author and historian Mary Ziegler about the coming year reproductive rights.
Welcome back to Fast Politics, Mary Ziggler, Thanks for having me.
One of the things that I think is so interesting is the first Trump administration. They tried to do a lot of stuff and they had no legal framework, but it didn't much matter because they couldn't you know, they just kept losing in court, right because they had no legal framework. They were unable to make the sale on a lot of these policies and they never really got
up to the Supreme Court. Now, over the last four years, I feel like Trump world has found all of these different ways to sell some of their ideas and they're kind of these Victorian era laws that were never taken off the books.
Is that right?
That's right? I mean so I think there was obviously a moment when people in the anti abortion movement believed that they could get policies at the federal level like the ones they were getting at the state level, especially for Republicans controlled the Congress, right and you know, a write to conception acts, fifteen week bans, and I think increasingly people in the anti abortion movement realized that voters would hate that, and that as a result, Republican politicians
and competitive districts are not likely to go with that route. So these laws became really compelling because one they didn't require lawmakers to do anything, and two they sort of allowed lawmakers to pass the buck and say, we're not actually passing these laws, We're just allowing prosecutors who are nominally independent, that discretion to force the law, right.
To enforce a law that hasn't been enforced in one hundred years.
Yeah, So it became this sort of if you think sometimes about how Trump will talk about Tom Bondi, it's often I'm not going to tell her what to do. She'll be making these decisions independently. And anti abortion groups followed that up by saying, it's just the rule of law. Of course, it's not just the rule of law, because the interpretation of these zombie laws is often not actually what courts have ever thought they mean. It's making new stuff up, and two it's enforcing laws no one actually
remembered existed in ways they're ever enforced. So it's definitely not just rule of law or prosecutorial discretion. But that's the kind of argument we're going to hear, right, right.
Right, So explain to us a little bit about some of these zombie laws.
Let's start with Comstock.
Yeah, Clemstock's the most important. It was in eighteen seventy three obscenity law, and abortion made its way into this law because the people who framed it saw abortion and contraception and other drugs that were sort of ambiguous in terms of how they worked, like period regulators, as the sort of thing that made it easier for people to
have illicit sex because they worry about getting pregnant. So even though the statue was really about obsession with sex, it didn't have anything to do with fetal protection, abortion still made its way into the statute, along with any other item for indecent or immoral use, whatever that means.
So anti abortion groups have basically cherry picked the abortion language out of this statue to say, this is a ban on mailing any abortion related drug or paraphernalia that is federal right, and not just mailing it, receiving it, ordering it online. That would apply to anybody in any state, even a state with a balid initiative that passed, even
a blue state. So if courts buy this argument, and it would have and if the Trump administration enforces the lawnay, it would have incredibly sweeping effects because it would affect everyone across the country.
Okay, so what it would do.
I want you to talk from a minute about these Victorian obscenity laws. Since you are both a legal historian and a legal historian, can you give us a little backstory on sort of how they came to be.
Yeah, well, there was a lot of anxiety that these conservative Christian activists at the time had about sex and the city literally, so they were this was the moment where there's a lot of urbanization and immigration and a fear that young men were being kind of corrupted, that children were being corrupted, and that women were being corrupted because they were choosing to leave the home, leave their rightful roles as mothers and wives, and so the idea
was you could purify the country by controlling not just when people had sex, but what people actually read it and thought. So the Comstock Act part of that push. It was an overtly Christian movement too. This was at a time when many of the figures who were behind this law were also trying to write an amendment to the Constitution stating that the US was a Christian huntry
with a Christian constitution. But it was also a really important moment in a creation of a surveillance state, because if you think about it, this was the federal government getting into everybody's sex lives at a time when there was no internet, no data collection, and so it really spawned this massive network of snitches and bounty hunters and catfishers who used this law to go after people, along with other people who just used the law to get
revengish on people they didn't like. So it was sort of authorizing a lot of really nasty starting behavior. So we would expect to see that come back if the laws used again.
Yeah, so I have a theory about these Victorian laws. If you think about Jim Crow, which is not Victoria is later than the Victorian era.
But I think it.
Speaks to this idea America was able to craft some of the really the worst, most racist, most heinous legislation in the period from the Victorian era, I mean even before that, but some of the legislation that was passing this country would so incredibly heinous that it was the model for the Nuremberg Laws.
So can you talk about that a little bit, Yeah.
I mean the Comstock Act became a model for a lot of things. It was a model to begin with for state Comstock acts. So one of the kind of morifying things about this story is that I don't even think states know what Comstock acts they have. They're often even more invasive than the regular old Constock Act. Like a lot of them prohibit possession and use of birth control, for example, and no one has really thought about it because they haven't been enforced, but some of them are
still sitting there on the books. And the Comstock Act also became a model for a lot of later invasive law enforcement techniques that we see used to entrap a lot of other people, people for example, who are queer. So the Comstock Act became a blueprint for a lot of things that we don't like the look of Another thing that's really important about the Comstock Act was that it wasn't used just to censor sex and reproduction. There's also used to sensor speech. As you can imagine, it
was really hard to enforce the Comstock Act. Like of course people were doing all the things the Comstock Act city, you couldn't do all the time without getting caught. So a lot of the people who were invested in it, like Anthony Comstock, tended to go after their political critics and not just for you know, what they were doing, but what they were saying for criticizing the Comstock Act.
So it's a reminder that this is obviously has a lot of present day residents that civil liberties and free speech are not sort of hived off from reproductive rights in any kind of meaningful way. They tend to travel together, and that was definitely true in the Comstock Hera too.
One of the things when you look at these old laws, and I'm hoping we can talk now about the Alien Insurrection Act, so a lot of these laws are like grouped together by time, you know. So the Alien Insurrection Act starts in the War of eighteen twelve, right around then is the first time it's used.
It's used to.
Go after the British, but it has that same kind of speech thing. Can you talk about the speech thing? In that law? They have alien enemies that are from the countries that are supposedly the countries at war with so the British and War of eighteen twelve, or Germans during World War one and two, or Japanese during World War two, which was the thesis for those internment camps. But there is also another section in the Alien Enemies Act of people who are journalists.
Basically, yeah, I mean, so there's provisions of the Insurrection Act that allow the president to deploy troops even if states don't request them. I mean, it makes sense. Parts of it make more sense if states actually are being invaded and they can't use their own troops, they ask
the president for help. That makes sense. But they're parts of the law that allow the president to deploy troops against the states wishes when there are things like unlawful obstructions, combinations, assemblages, or rebellion that make it impossible to enforce federal law. And of course part of the fear is that the term assemblages, right or could be something that could be
used just against protesters or journalists. Right, absolutely, yeah, especially so there's some fear that this could be used in ways that it hasn't been used before. It's also not clear who gets to decide. The Supreme Court seems to think that the president alone really is the one that gets to decide, even though courts have sort of later suggested that they can review whether the military did something lawful after the fact. That might not be much of a check.
That's like the understatement of the year.
What happens, So let's just talk for another minute about zombie laws. So what's going to happen? Firdsting's first Alien Insurrection Act I think is going to get the most play because as much as Trump wants to use Comstock, Trump is not an anti choice Zalad the way a lot.
Of people in the party are.
So I think a more likely scenario as we start with alien enemies, so he's going to have to declare war with Mexico.
Right, potentially, I mean it could come up even with protests, right, I mean, I think one of the more likely ways. He's hinted it. Lots of different ways he might try to invoke this, he scented that he could use it to assist in this kind of mass deportation program he has in mind. He scented that he could use it not in response to that, but in response to protests that might greet that or other things he's doing, because the more common applications of the Insurrection Act have been
in response to protests. Right, So, the most recent invocation of it was in nineteen ninety two when there were riots in la following the beating of Rodney King. And it wasn't the scenario where the President just imposed this stuff. It was the state of California asked for help. Usually it's when they're protests or riots, not just you know,
people who are here un instrumented. So it depends on how aggressive Trump wants to be and whether he wants to sort of be in it expanding radically a category that we've seen in the past, or applying the law in an even more novel way.
What would the pushback look like to that.
I think there are different forms of pushback depending on what the order is. There may be pushback from within the military. That's not something that you know, we would see unfolding in the courts. But that would be one form of pushback. We know that when Trump was invoking the Insurrection Actor the Pose Committist Act in his first administration, there were moments when some people within the military were hesitant.
It's unclear if that'll happen again. There could be legal channallenges too, whether or not again, and sort of unclear whether those legal challenges will actually affect the behavior of people on the ground being given these orders or not. And it's also unclear what courts will say, because it seems as if the president has a lot of discretion under the Insurrection Act, even according to what courts have said in the past, not unlimited. But I don't know
what court challenges would look like. So there's a lot of uncertainty, to be honest, because we haven't seen the Insurrection actually invoked by anyone since nineteen ninety two, which is the longest period in our history that we've gone without it being invoked, and we haven't really seen it invooked in some ways in the past that Trump has hinted he might want to again, we don't know if he's going to follow through. He's ex lots of possibilities,
he doesn't actually follow through on. But if he did, and some of these were unprecedented, we also don't know if there were court challenges, if that would change you know again, I don't think it would, but it's hard to say because it would be unprecedented.
Right, I mean, that's the thing. It's like a lot of this stuff, it's hard to imagine. I mean, will you talk us through what this sort of landscape looks like in the courts for a minute.
It's complicated too. The Supreme Court is obviously very conservative. It already has three members selected by Donald Trump. It's likely to wind up with a majority selected by Donald Trump by the end of the substation.
Forever and ever until we die.
The one thing that's not going to be as game changing about that is the most likely justices to be replaced by Trump are Justices Thomas and Alito, who are actually more conservative than the people Trump already picked. So it may not really change the Court's partisan complexion that much.
Even if Trump finds people who are just as conservative as Thomas or Aledo, or even more conservative than Thomas or Alito, it won't necessarily so, I mean, the only way the US Supreme Court becomes radically different is if there's an unplanned retirement by someone like Sonya Soto Mayor or even John Roberts, who are both in their early seventies, that's not super likely because they're not particularly old, they're not likely to want to retire of their own volition.
The federal courts in general are still quite conservative, although less so than when Joe Biden took office, because Biden, like Trump before him, put a record number of people on the federal courts. But in the next four years the pendulum is obviously get to swing very dramatically in the other direction because Trump is going to again rush to fill the federal courts that were already very conservative.
So these challenges are going to increasingly be going before judges that Trump put on the court, who are likely to be predisposed to agree with him on whatever the questions are.
There's a very conservative circuit that kicks a lot of stuff up to the Supreme Court, right.
So the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oh and just to be clear, do you mean the Alien Insedition the Insurrection Act?
Wait say it again.
It's well, so there's the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were about the press. That's what I'm thinking about well, okay, well, so I was talking about the Insurrection Act, which is also useful for protests, but we can talk about the Alien and Sedition Acts. Yeah, let's talk about that for a minute. Those were the acts that were used to start the internment camps in the Japanese. Trump wants to
deport people using what's called the Alien Enemies Act. Yes, the Alien which was yeah, so I wasn't sure what you meant. That was why I was confused. So there's actually an Insurrection Act too, So that was what I was saying.
Yes, Yes, that's the one he tried to use last time. Yeah, and you might use that too.
So the Alien Enemies Act was passed in seventeen ninety and it allows presidents to apprehend and remove people who are foreign nationals when the US is at war. The only time it's ever been used has been after Congress has actually formally declared war, so in eighteen twelve and World War one and two. Trump has been hinting that he wants to use it to make it easier to
deport people, because it would allow him to bypass immigration courts. Usually, if you're deporting people, they have certain due process interests. Before those deporportations take place, some of them might have been trying to invoke the asylum. If he's allowed to invoke the Alien Enemies Act instead, he could remove a lot of people much more easily because the law gives presidents pretty broad authority to remove non citizens if they're
not minors at a time of declared war. It's a little different from the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were passed at the same time and largely kind of criminalized political dissent. Most of those either were repealed by Congress or expired, but the Alien Enemies Act, which came from that same kind of dictatorial impulse, survived and is available theoretically for a president to use.
Wouldn't Congress have to declare war before he could do it or not?
Well, yeah, it's never been used before in the way that Trump is proposing. But the text and history of the law will make it very hard to justify what Trump's trying to do. So it generally says you need an invasion or predatory incursion. That's the language by a foreign nation or government. And here, you know, Congress obviously hasn't declared war on anybody. There hasn't been an evasion
invasion against US territory in a really long time. And even if Trump tries to say, you know, drug cartels are declaring a war, they're not actually national governments, so they don't seem to be the criteria of the law. It's also so there's no real precedent for using this the law this way historically, there doesn't appear to be a textual justification for doing it.
But that doesn't mean Trump won't do it.
Yeah, number one and number two, I think what Trump would try to argue would essentially be to say, hey, you know, the courts shouldn't be intervene in what is a military decision of the president. That there should be a lot of discretion in to national security matters decided by the president. So I think that's the risk that courts just our hands off, even though both history and text of the law seem to point in the direction of Trump not being able to do this.
Yeah, Mary, thank you for joining us. I hope you'll come back.
Okay, of course, my pleasure.
Peter shab Sherri and Micha Olier are two of the hosts of the podcast five.
Four Welcome Back Too Fast Politics. We have two of the three members of the five to four podcast, which is one of my absolute favorite podcasts in the entire world.
Probably you know.
What, fuck it, it's the best part. Don't listen to this, just listen to that. Okay, that will.
Make you smarter. I will only do terrible things. And I know no, I'm just kidding. I'm very smart to NATA. Yeah, welcome, Michael, Welcome, Peter.
Thank you, Balin, thanks for having us.
I wanted you guys so much because of all the terrible things that are coming, and many of them have a bizarre zombie legal framework discuss.
Sure, Okay, So I mean, I guess the way I've been thinking about this is like, what do the different worst case scenarios look like, and what are the potential roadblocks between here and those worst case scenarios are. That's actually like, it's not a very encouraging exercise, so.
Like, oh yeah, so let's do it please.
One example I've been thinking of is like, so Trump deshot tries to deport twenty million people. There are countries that could take twenty million people in the next two three, four years, So there will inevitably be camps. There will be images of the camps the conditions will be bad. There will be lawful, permittent residents and even citizens who end up in the camps because they're centralized orre you catabise.
Yes, likely journalists will be later in the camps, and the earlier camps will just be people who they think, look Maxican.
That's correct. This will lead to widescale protests, especially in cities, which, as we saw during the BLM movement, might lead to Trump trying to deploy the US military on US soil to control protests. Right, and so you think about that, that's sort of a worst case scenario, is the US military being used to quell domestic unrest? And how we get there? And then you so, what are the roadblocks to this? Well, it cost a lot of money. Congress
is already appropriating a lot of money to the border. Well, there are laws that prevent the president from deploying the military on US soil. Well, the Supreme Court said that he has immunity, so that law doesn't. And you can just go down the line and be like, well, actually, the guardrails between here and there are very few, and a lot of times relying on like Amy Cony Barrett or John Thune you know, some random Republican senator or
something like that, and it's just scary. But it's also very uncertain because we don't know what Trump's actually can get a try, and we don't know how far he's willing to go, and so a lot of it just feels like being tied to a train track and you know, just watching the train come in.
Peter taunts.
I agree with all of that. I also think that if you're taking the cynical approach, which I do, what Trump wants out of the Judiciary, for example, is for it to function essentially as a legitimizing operation for him. Right he was very irritated in his first term by the resistance he got from the Supreme Court. I think it's safe to say that he does not particularly I don't want to say stand behind, but he's not particularly a fan of his initial choices to the Court, especially
Kavanaugh and Barrett. A big part of that is because they did not stand behind him during the Stop the Steal endeavor. I think what he wants out of the Judiciary this time around is for it to be loyal to him, just like he wants the rest of the Republican Party to be loyal to him. I think that's what we should expect out of his nominees and appointees
to the judiciary. And I think that it's important to understand that, like the judges throughout the federal courts, the conservative judges throughout the federal courts are now part of a political movement that is essentially just the Donald Trump Show, and what gets you ahead in that political movement is
loyalty to Donald Trump. So it's very hard to predict exactly how much friction is going to exist between the judiciary and Trump, but I would say it's a safe bet that it's going to be less than last time. And that's what has me worried, And I think the exact contours of it are very hard to predict. But I'm not looking forward to learning exactly what the dynamic is between the judiciary and Trump this time around.
Yeah, I just want to sort of pull back for a minute.
It seems like the big difference between Trump one point zero and Trump two point zero is that Trump two point zero has the sort of somebody at the Heritage Foundation cooked up a few ideas of like racism that's worked in previous centuries and have decided that they are going.
To use that as a legal framework. Do you think that's correct.
There's definitely some truth to it. I mean, I think that what we're seeing now is the result of a conservative political movement that has spent what's almost a decade now being a little bit more proactive, thinking that a lot of barriers that they previously thought existed are now
being shattered or can be shattered. I think Trump has sort of brought to the forefront of their minds a lot of political possibility, and one of those possibilities is, well, we can peel back major elements of the New Deal, we can peel back major elements of these civil rights movement, these things that we thought were sort of done deals, Maybe we can fight over them. And they are now putting in an effort to, for example, attack birthright citizenship
right and we'll see how far that gets them. But they believe that it's on the table.
Yeah. I wanted to talk about birthright citizenship when you started this whole line of thought, because it's worth emphasizing that this is like one part of the settlement of the Civil War, the reconciling of that, you know, very costly conflict the breeding of African Americans into full citizenship status. So attacking it is very much like trying to unwind quite literally the settlement of that.
Yeah, and also just the sort of it's a blow against the civil rights movement, yes.
Go on, but also that it is one of the most unambiguous provisions in the Constitution and has very settled meaning in constitutional law or since it's been around, you know, both in like writings and in practice, and so so the idea that they could attack that is you know, I think in basketball they would call that like a heat check, right, like they're feeling very good right now and seeing just how much they can get away with. And that's scary in it of itself.
Yes, now, as I'm the only person, I keep saying this because it's annoying to me. But since I'm the only person who ever looked at their priors with this election and was like, how did I go wrong? Whereas everyone else just was like how did other people go wrong? I think I'm too optimistic when I think about what Republicans could cook up and also what the American voters
might reject. So I want to couch this in my own optimism and what that means, but it does seem like not specifically the Koch brothers, but the Koch Brothers esque wing of the party has decided that this wrecking ball can fulfill a lot of their fantasies, the wrecking ball being Trump. But if we remember anything from Trump one point zero, it's that my man cannot do much because he gets very distracted.
Yeah, that's the reality of Trump, and I think it's probably the only reason for optimism is are they so incompetent that they're not going to be able to really pull any of this off. Obviously we will see chaos in the Trump White House. We will see incompetence in various forms. But when your primary objective is to destroy, competence doesn't always matter that much. And I also think that the first Trump term was really defined by a tug of war between the Trump wing and the establishment.
Part of that was just because he had to bring establishment elements into the fold because there weren't enough loyalists in twenty sixteen, twenty seventeen. That's no longer the case. Right now, the Trump wing of the party has effectively won and they are in control politically, and I would imagine that that means that we're going to see a little less friction within the Trump White House, within the administration itself, and a little more of people ready to
say how high when he says jump. So we'll see exactly what plays out. It's again one of those things that's just really hard to predict because these people are all absolute nut jobs politically and also in their personal lives. Right they cannot all sit in a room together and hash something out out. Something will go wrong. We just don't know what's going to go wrong yet.
Yes, for sure. Do you have another thought here, Michael?
There's so much going wrong in our country right now. I think it's a mistake to, you know, be like X, Y or Z are like the big problem. But like one issue that is very real is that Congress has been somewhat dysfunctional for decades, and that dysfunction leaks out into other branches. And the longer it festers, right, the longer this sort of infection grows, the bigger our reforms
have to be. The harder the lift is to fix it. Right, there is a point in time when you probably could have gotten away with some modest gerrymandering and filipbuster reform and things like that, and the federal government could have just limped on moderately functional. Now it's like you got to reform the Supreme Court. You might have to rethink the entire administrative state at how that works, which affects,
you know, everything in this country. And the next four years are going to be an opportunity cost where things are just going to get worse. The government's capacity is going to degrade, and it's going to give us more to do when we do get powered back.
Yeah, if we get pack.
If we get bout that.
Yeah, I mean I shouldn't talk like that because obviously there are going to be elections, they'll be midterms, they'll be presidentials, and we have to protect norms and institutions.
Speaking of protecting norms and institutions, I.
Want to go back to Congress actually for a second, because I think, Michael you had a really good point about Congress. So the last Congress, Mike Johnson had this very slim majority. It was one of the stupidest Congresses ever. I know it was stupid because even Jake Sherman from punch Ball said he couldn't believe how stupid it had gotten. Right, So,
like clearly, very very very stupid. He has less of majority now, so legislatively and in the last session they couldn't even name post offices, so legislatively, nothing is going to happen.
Do you think that's correct?
And does it necessarily even matter if Trump is going to just do eos.
My guess would be that they're not going to be able to muster the votes for big social legislation. I think they're going to be able to smuggle in a lot of stuff into budgetary bills.
You know.
That was why the example I used was mass deportation, because that's one where they can just remark a lot of money for the border and let Trump go wild. And that's my concern. That's where I think the biggest concerns should be, is that things are going to be bad with deportations, with rounding people up in large numbers. I don't know that it's for sure going to happen, but I'm very scared of it.
I would also say that a lot of the conservative project can be done through the executive branch in conjunction with the judiciary. So if you're talking about stripping the administrative state down to its bones, that's something that they don't need Congress for. In fact, Congress is a thorn in their side, and the entire point of the conservative project is to box Congress out of the process. So what you do is challenge Congress's authority to exert influence
over administrative agencies and then drag that into court. So I'm concerned about that. I am concerned about what they can accomplish, not just through executive orders but just by sort of your standard operating procedure control over the administrative state. Right, many conservatives believe in a very centralized mode of control in that regard, and it's pretty disconcerting.
And this is the Ross Vaught story, right.
Rots Vought moved into omb one of the architects of Project twenty twenty five, and he is a person who in Trump one point zero was like, let's just not write the check.
There are a lot of people like that who ten years ago, even within GOP ranks, would have been dismissed as cranks, who are now getting a lot of attention. And I think will be a big story in the years to come because you're I think you're right, Molly, legislation is not really going to happen They're not going to pass anything major other than I would imagine another round.
Of tax cuts for rich people, as one would hope, because that was why they were put there.
Right right. I think there are a lot of things that can happen with the administrative state. I don't want to get into a place where I'm just trying to guess, but part of the conservative project for many, many years has been to sort of rip out the civil servants that compose the administrative state and replace replace them with hacks, replace them with conservative patronage jobs. That's something you could
see happening in the coming years. I wouldn't be surprised if you see core challenges and sort of a little bit of back and forth over what exactly is allowed and what isn't. But they're going to want They're gonna want to do that.
There.
You know, Trump's been talking about firing Jerome Powell. There's there's a lot of things they want to do.
Yeah.
I would like to point out one of Trump's biggest donors.
The one guard rail any of us have.
Is that one of his biggest donors, named a hedge funder from Chicago whose name now escapes me, was a deal book and was like, Trump, you don't get to fire the head of the fad. That's good And I was like, oh good, I felt much better.
You is that who is that that Ken Griffin or is that someone else Griffin?
It's Ken Griffin.
Ken Griffin A deal book said we really would be disappointed if.
Donald Trump fired Jerome Powell.
Which is as good as a guardrail as far as I can tell.
Yeah, it's always a disconcerting thing when we're hoping to rely on the largess of right wing billionaires to save us. But I guess those are the breaks in some respects.
Yeah, that's where we are. It's pretty dark.
Yeah. The foot side of that, though, is you know, I think the billionaires they want economic stability. I think they benefit from economic stability. Another thing that I think Trump has a lot of leeway with is tariffs, which can bring a lot of instability and also create a lot of opportunity for graft, which is very much Trunk's thing.
He can give special exceptions to companies on the tariffs and give them a competitive advantage in exchange for some sort of payoff, which is this is what he wants to do. He wants to personally profit off his position. So this is like a quintessential Trump thing. So I assume we are going to get some tariffs and that's going to be hard on the American economy. We're all going to feel that pain.
When you look at the inauguration pay for play. That's what's going on there too, Right. Tech companies are like, he's going to pick the winners and losers. We want to be winners, that's right.
Yeah, I mean not just tech companies.
ABC News, Yes, yes.
You know you're seeing the sort of broad concern that he is going to lean on actors within the private sector in various regards, and those actors want to get in his good graces and also get in on the grift wherever they can. I mean, the sort of his billionaire donors are sort of in two different camps. One is the Ken Griffin types. You know, he's the head of Citadel, which is like this big market maker and hedge fund and they probably want market stability. But the
Silicon Valley side doesn't necessarily want stability. They might want chaos because they want to be able to rip out enough regulations that they can commit massive securities fraud. And you know monetize every single aspect of human existence. So there's there's a lot going on in the trunk camp.
I laugh to keep from crying.
Yes our tagline, Yes, I hope you guys will please come back soon, absolutely whenever you want to.
So happy, too, happy too.
That's it for.
This episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday to hear the best minds and politics make sense of all this chaos. If you enjoy this podcast, please send it to a friend and keep the conversation going.
Thanks for listening.