0:07

This is Larry Lessig. This

0:09

is episode 5 of

0:11

season 7 of the podcast

0:14

Another Way, another conversation

0:16

with my friend Ben Hepburn,

0:18

who I went to

0:20

high school with way back

0:22

in the day in

0:24

the Kentucky part of Pennsylvania,

0:26

a place called Williamsport.

0:28

We actually lived in the

0:30

suburb of Loyalsock and

0:32

attended Loyalsock Township Senior High

0:34

School, graduated in 1979. But

0:38

as I've explained, I've started

0:40

a conversation with Ben to

0:42

see if Ben and I,

0:44

who have very different political

0:46

views, or at least we

0:48

manifest them differently in the

0:50

people we vote for, could

0:52

find common ground to understand

0:54

what's actually separating us in the

0:56

middle of this Trump presidency. So

0:59

today we recorded this episode and

1:01

I was extremely happy as we

1:03

began because I had succeeded in

1:06

getting it set up with Ben

1:08

in a way that makes sure

1:10

that he was recorded at high

1:12

quality, which I had not succeeded

1:14

in doing before. But then I

1:16

discovered I was a total idiot

1:18

because I forgot to

1:20

turn on the recording of

1:23

myself. So we

1:25

only have both of

1:27

us. recorded from

1:29

the event starting at about, well,

1:31

about 15 minutes before the

1:33

end of the podcast. And

1:36

I only have his side of

1:38

the recording for the first chunk

1:40

of the podcast. And

1:42

rather than forcing everybody back into

1:44

the conversation, I'm going to

1:46

recreate the questions that I believe

1:48

led into his answers. And

1:51

I'm going to create them in

1:53

a way that make his

1:55

answers sound as good as

1:57

they possibly can, because it's my

1:59

screw -up that led to

2:01

us being here. So

2:05

I apologize. I've promised throughout

2:07

this whole season to get the

2:09

text correct, and still, even

2:11

when I thought I had seen

2:13

it, I failed. But

2:16

okay, the topic of

2:18

this podcast for this

2:21

episode is going to

2:23

start talking about what

2:25

I think of as

2:28

the due process issues and

2:30

so I prepared this

2:32

part of the podcast and

2:34

Have notes from that

2:36

and that's what I'll be

2:38

teeing up in order

2:41

to raise the question So

2:43

here we go So

2:45

welcome Ben, it's great to

2:47

talk to you again,

2:49

I want to talk about

2:51

what It feels to

2:54

me like the most obvious

2:56

example of the sort

2:58

of thing that I can't

3:00

believe we actually could

3:02

possibly in any sense disagree

3:05

about. And so if we

3:07

do have a disagreement, I want to

3:09

find out what that could be, but I

3:11

want to map this out so you

3:13

can see exactly why. I don't think there

3:15

could be any disagreement. But to set

3:17

this up, I just want to set up

3:19

a hypothetical here. I mean, you sell

3:21

meat from your farm. So

3:23

imagine you were talking to some

3:25

distributor that you had, and you

3:27

said to the distributor, look, I

3:29

think the prices that you're buying

3:32

might meet for are too low.

3:34

So unless you raise the prices

3:36

by 10%, I'm going to go

3:39

somewhere else. So

3:41

that's one. example of a threat

3:43

in the context of economic

3:45

transaction that we all understand is

3:47

completely legitimate. There's no reason

3:49

why the seller of something can't

3:51

say, look, if you don't

3:53

actually meet my price, I'm going

3:56

to go sell my product

3:58

somewhere else. But imagine

4:00

a second scenario where the

4:02

seller doesn't say, I'm going

4:04

to take my meet somewhere

4:06

else if you don't raise

4:08

your price. Instead, he says,

4:11

You know, if you don't raise

4:13

your price, you're going to find

4:15

the tires on your distributor trucks.

4:17

All of a sudden have holes

4:20

in them because they will have

4:22

been slashed. I'm not saying I

4:24

know who will slash them. I'm

4:26

just saying I'm pretty sure they're

4:28

going to be slashed. Now

4:30

obviously the point about the second

4:32

example is that the threat there is

4:34

illegitimate. Nobody has the right to

4:37

slash another person's tire. So using an

4:39

illegitimate threat, an illegal threat in

4:41

order to get what you want in

4:43

your deal with your distributor is

4:45

called extortion. So the

4:47

difference between a legitimate deal and

4:49

extortion is the framework I want

4:51

to use in order to talk

4:53

about the issues that are particularly

4:55

troubling to me now about what's

4:57

going on in this. current administration.

4:59

So let's think about two contexts.

5:02

One, the law

5:04

firm. So the

5:06

president has threatened a

5:08

number of law

5:10

firms and threatened to

5:12

withhold their access

5:14

to government buildings, threatened

5:17

to punish companies that

5:19

continue to deal with

5:21

those law firms, threatened

5:23

to with draw security

5:25

clearances from those law

5:27

firms. When you ask,

5:29

what is it that unites all the

5:32

law firms he is threatening, the

5:34

only thing that unites them

5:36

is that there are lawyers

5:39

in those law firms who

5:41

had litigated against Donald Trump.

5:44

So Covington in Burling had a

5:46

threat from the president that the

5:48

security clearances for the lawyers in

5:50

the firm were going to be

5:52

withdrawn because they helped Jack Smith,

5:55

the prosecutor in the J6 prosecutions, and

5:57

also because Peter Koski

6:00

had worked for the

6:02

firm. He had litigated

6:04

the election obstruction and

6:06

classified documents cases against

6:08

the president. or

6:10

Paul Weiss had a threat made against

6:12

them because they had employed Robert Mueller. Robert

6:15

Mueller obviously had produced the

6:17

Mueller report, which was investigating

6:19

the allegations that there was

6:21

some connection between the president

6:23

and Russia during the first

6:25

election. The law firm

6:27

was also involved with

6:30

cases involving the J6

6:32

lawsuits and employed a

6:34

lawyer named Mark Pomeranz,

6:37

who had litigated cases in

6:39

New York against the president

6:41

for the felonies that he

6:43

was convicted of for fraud

6:46

in the context of his

6:48

business transactions. Or the

6:50

law firm of Perkins Cuy, who

6:52

had represented Hillary Clinton in

6:54

ways that the president

6:56

didn't like, also worked with

6:58

George Soros, often a

7:00

target for the president's

7:02

ire. Or General Bloch,

7:04

who had employed Andrew Wiseman, who's

7:06

frequently on MSNBC now, but

7:08

before had worked with Robert Mueller

7:11

in the Mueller investigations, or

7:13

Wilmer Hale, who had

7:15

also worked in the Mueller

7:17

investigation. What unites these

7:19

is that they have lawyers

7:22

who had litigated against

7:24

the president. The president, in

7:26

revenge for these lawyers

7:28

litigating against him, had

7:30

threatened to withdraw

7:32

access to government buildings,

7:35

security clearances, completely

7:37

illegitimately. You can't, under

7:39

the law, in

7:41

retaliation for legal representation

7:43

against you, threaten to withhold

7:45

these access to government

7:48

facilities. That's just plainly illegal

7:50

under the First Amendment.

7:52

So in this sense, it's

7:54

exactly like threatening to slash

7:57

the tires of the distributor

7:59

when you're trying to negotiate

8:01

better prices for your meat.

8:04

Instead of fighting, some of the law

8:06

firms have actually settled, figuring it

8:08

was cheaper or it was less threatening

8:10

to their law firm's existence if

8:12

they just settled. President

8:15

Trump is now going around bragging

8:17

about the fact that he has

8:19

amassed more than $100 million in

8:21

free legal services from these law firms,

8:23

some of the very best law

8:25

firms in America, in

8:27

order to settle the threats that

8:29

he made against them. With

8:31

this legal fund, he's going to

8:33

be able to prosecute cases

8:36

that he in particular finds compelling

8:38

for him. That's the story

8:40

with law firms. And then

8:42

a story very close to home is

8:44

the universities. So as

8:46

is well reported, their president

8:48

has made threats against universities, threatened

8:51

to stop funding for universities,

8:53

withhold funding for universities. The first

8:55

of these was Columbia, where

8:57

he threatened to withhold $400 million,

8:59

canceled those payments. They've not

9:01

gotten that money back yet. And

9:04

that money was being

9:06

withheld, it was said

9:08

initially, because these

9:10

law firms weren't doing

9:13

enough to fight anti

9:15

-Semitism. Now,

9:18

the basis, the foundation, the thin,

9:20

thin foundation for this argument

9:22

against the universities is a provision

9:25

of federal law called Title

9:27

VI. requires that the recipients

9:29

of federal money in the context

9:31

of education must take steps to

9:33

make sure that the students are

9:35

not being discriminated against. So discriminated

9:38

against on the basis of race

9:40

or sex or religion. And

9:42

the claim of the Trump administration is

9:44

that these universities, Columbia Harvard,

9:46

other universities didn't do enough

9:48

to protect Jewish students on

9:51

campus. And therefore, that manifested

9:53

a violation of Title VI,

9:55

and that was the basis

9:57

for the president threatening to

10:00

withhold, in Harvard's case, multiple

10:02

billions of dollars, up

10:05

to six billion dollars

10:07

because of this alleged

10:09

wrong of not protecting

10:11

Jewish students adequately. we

10:15

should admit, and Harvard did

10:17

admit in response to this

10:19

threat from the president, that

10:21

there's plenty of work. to be

10:23

done, to make sure that antisemitism

10:25

doesn't live on the campus of

10:27

Harvard. It's

10:30

important to have a diverse,

10:32

equitable, and inclusive environment at

10:34

Harvard. And if you feel

10:36

like you can't participate at Harvard because you're

10:38

Jewish, then Harvard

10:40

has failed in achieving

10:42

that DEI -appropriate environment. So

10:45

there's no doubt that that's an

10:47

important objective. And Harvard expressly said

10:49

that there was plenty of work

10:51

to be done. to improve those

10:53

conditions. But here's the key. In

10:55

order to withhold or withdraw

10:58

money from Harvard under the

11:00

law of Title VI, the

11:02

government would need to begin

11:04

a process that would have many

11:06

steps to evaluate whether the

11:08

charges made against Harvard were in

11:10

fact true. And the

11:12

government would have a chance to present

11:15

its arguments, and Harvard would have a

11:17

chance to rebut. those arguments. And

11:19

in that exchange, there would be

11:21

a determination whether, in fact, Harvard

11:23

had violated any rules under Title

11:25

VI. And the procedures are quite

11:27

elaborate. But at the end, there

11:29

would be a fact finder who

11:31

would make a determination. And if

11:33

it went against Harvard, Harvard had

11:35

a chance to appeal that determination.

11:37

And if, in the end, it

11:39

was found that Harvard had, in

11:42

fact, violated their obligations under Title

11:44

VI, then the law gives the

11:46

government the ability to withdraw funds

11:48

the government gave Harvard but limited

11:50

to the program where that violation

11:52

had been found to exist. So

11:54

that means limited to... context, so

11:56

in the context of Harvard, if there

11:58

was a claim of anti -Semitism, it

12:00

would have been in the context

12:02

of undergraduate education, perhaps where there had

12:04

been protests and maybe there wasn't

12:06

sufficient protection for Jewish students in the

12:08

middle of those protests, whatever. I

12:10

don't know the details of the charge

12:12

this year, but the point is

12:14

the withdrawal of funding would be limited

12:16

to that particular program. But

12:19

the billions of dollars that

12:21

Trump is threatening to withdraw

12:23

here don't come from the

12:26

undergraduate program, the

12:28

billions of dollars of money

12:30

that would be spent at

12:32

hospitals or money that had

12:34

been spent or contracted to

12:36

be spent for research, for

12:38

work that the government had asked

12:40

Harvard to do for it. And

12:43

this stopping of payment

12:45

for the work that was

12:47

being done would be

12:49

just breaching the contracts in

12:51

order to pressure Harvard

12:53

to take the steps which

12:55

the president wanted Harvard

12:57

to take. And so

12:59

Friday a week ago, the

13:01

president or the administration sent Harvard

13:03

a list of demands. And

13:06

some of those demands, you

13:08

could say, were aiming at

13:10

creating a more inclusive environment

13:12

for Jews, a

13:14

more diverse, equitable, and

13:17

inclusive environment for Jews. But

13:19

many of them had nothing

13:21

to do. with protecting Jews

13:23

on campus. They

13:25

instead had to do with

13:28

the president's politically correct view

13:30

about, or his own political

13:32

correctness about exactly how university

13:34

life should should occur. So

13:36

he wanted to make sure

13:39

that there was no special

13:41

steps taken in light of

13:43

anybody's ethnic or racial or

13:45

gender in the context of

13:47

Harvard. So clubs that would

13:49

be clubs for African -Americans to

13:52

get together and study African

13:54

-American history, those would be

13:56

inappropriate. He wanted to review

13:58

the admissions process. He wanted

14:00

to include an opportunity to

14:02

review hiring decisions of Harvard.

14:05

Basically, he wanted to insert

14:07

himself or his administration into

14:09

the full range of Harvard's

14:11

governance, all because he

14:13

said we were not sufficiently

14:15

protective of Jews. Okay, so

14:17

this too is an illegal

14:20

extortion because the threats made

14:22

and the threats to stop

14:24

funding, which happened at Columbia,

14:26

it's not yet happened directly

14:28

at Harvard, even though there

14:30

has been a threat against

14:32

it, are illegitimate

14:34

threats. There's no legal basis

14:36

for stopping funding until

14:38

a finding of guilt under

14:41

the Title VI process. And

14:43

even then, the amount you

14:45

could withdraw has nothing to do

14:48

with the billions that's being

14:50

threatened here. You can't stop money

14:52

going to a hospital because

14:54

undergraduates were not sufficiently sensitive to

14:56

the concerns of Jewish students

14:58

at Harvard. And then

15:00

when Harvard had the backbone,

15:02

and as a Harvard professor,

15:04

I was so grateful that

15:06

the president of Harvard was

15:08

as principled and strong as

15:10

he was. When Harvard had the

15:12

backbone to stand up and say, hell no. We're

15:15

not going to cave to these

15:17

illegal unconstitutional demands of the president.

15:20

Then the president piled on. And

15:22

the president started saying he was

15:24

going to ban foreign students from

15:26

coming to Harvard. And

15:28

he was going to

15:30

cancel the nonprofit status, what's

15:32

called the C3 status

15:34

of Harvard. Now, that

15:37

would only happen if

15:39

the IRS canceled the C3

15:41

status of Harvard. and

15:43

the IRS would

15:45

typically only cancel C3

15:48

status. Again, after it

15:50

had made a complaint, there

15:52

had been an adjudication of that

15:54

complaint claiming that Harvard had not

15:56

lived up to the rules that

15:59

give one the right to claim

16:01

charitable status under C3 of the

16:03

tax code. The

16:07

ruling went against Harvard a chance

16:09

to appeal that, to adjudicate that.

16:11

So the threat to withdraw C3

16:13

funding was, again, an illegitimate threat

16:15

because he had no power. Indeed,

16:17

as I described later in this

16:19

podcast, that

16:22

power to withdraw under

16:24

the IRS regulations cannot be

16:26

invoked by the president,

16:28

the statute expressly says the

16:30

president cannot direct the

16:32

IRS to an investigation of

16:34

a particular tax holder. So

16:37

this, again, is an illegal

16:39

act by the president for

16:42

the purpose of leveraging his

16:44

power, raw power, to force

16:46

Harvard and Columbia and every

16:48

other university he is threatening

16:50

to do things that they

16:53

otherwise would not be able

16:55

to be forced to do

16:57

if the president used only

16:59

legal power, in both cases,

17:01

with the law firms and

17:04

with the universities. It's a

17:06

game of extortion that trades

17:08

on the denial of due

17:10

process, which he's giving both

17:12

lawyers and these universities, and

17:15

instead using his extraordinary control

17:17

over the people who work

17:19

for him to just stop

17:21

payments as the threat that

17:23

forces them to give in.

17:27

You can't possibly believe that. You

17:29

can't possibly believe this is okay.

17:31

You can't look at that and

17:33

say that type of behavior by

17:35

the most powerful man in the

17:37

free world is okay. That's not

17:39

what the American tradition stands for,

17:41

can you? I have

17:43

not heard all the things

17:46

that you described to me. Of

17:48

course, I'm not, you know, I know

17:50

you're well versed in the law part

17:52

of it and, you know, the the

17:55

lawyers and all that stuff. I'm

17:58

not, I will

18:00

say this Larry right off the

18:02

top that you know I wrote

18:04

an article here just recently about

18:06

mental health and I encouraged people

18:08

to turn off the TV and

18:10

the news channels and to try

18:12

to keep your sanity and I

18:14

have followed my instructions. I really

18:17

for the last month have not

18:19

you know studied it as much as

18:21

I was doing it so I could be prepared

18:23

for you. So I will tell

18:25

you that I'm at it. If this was in the

18:27

news, I have turned the

18:29

news off rather abruptly lately. So I

18:31

don't have that information as far as

18:33

what you're telling me about the lawyers

18:35

and stuff. I have followed the Harvard

18:37

because of, you know, our

18:39

relationship trying to figure that out.

18:41

I have heard, you know,

18:43

those things that he's done. Now,

18:46

I'm not aware of the laws

18:48

that you've just said about that, of

18:50

course. I hope it's fair to

18:52

say that the common guy like myself

18:54

is probably not going to be

18:56

versed in that. I don't know

18:59

if that's a cop out or not,

19:01

but I'm not aware of those laws

19:03

like you certainly would be, right? Yeah,

19:06

I don't know. I completely

19:08

understand that, you know, Ordinary

19:10

people are not going to know

19:12

every detail of Title VI regulating how

19:14

the federal government spends its money

19:16

and how universities have to comply with

19:18

principles of non -discrimination. I get that,

19:20

but it's the more basic point,

19:22

which is why I set it up

19:24

the way I set it up. The

19:27

idea that the president

19:29

would use illegitimate threats

19:31

to force private institutions

19:33

to open themselves up

19:35

to federal control, That's

19:38

the real challenge, where

19:40

he would use his power

19:42

to punish people who

19:44

had the temerity to litigate

19:46

against him. And

19:48

of course, remember, in the New

19:51

York case, litigate successfully against him.

19:53

A jury found him guilty of

19:55

those crimes. So that's the basic

19:57

idea of due process, which it's

19:59

hard to believe we could have

20:01

anyone, or at least anyone we knew

20:03

who would disagree with that. I

20:06

certainly agree with it. I agree with

20:08

you. I sat there and I scratched my

20:11

head sometimes, like you said, when I'm

20:13

listening to some of the things that they're

20:15

telling us and what I do here. Just

20:17

like that nonprofit, I did

20:19

hear about taking that away. And

20:22

I think the guys like

20:24

me, the common everyday guy

20:26

is going, we

20:29

really don't know what's going on.

20:31

We elected these officials, not just,

20:34

Trump, but everybody else that we've

20:36

elected. And we're putting our

20:38

hopes and dreams and our, you know,

20:41

our responsibilities or whatever in them. And

20:44

hopefully that they, you know, can take

20:46

care of this. And if, if, you know,

20:48

if Mr. Trump or Donald Trump or

20:50

presidents doing something wrong, then we're hoping that,

20:52

you know, the people that are

20:54

around him are able to correct that. But

20:57

the other thing, Larry, I am

20:59

offended that it even should go this

21:01

way, but I also see the

21:03

protests. I hear,

21:05

you know, testimonials about people

21:07

not feeling safe on

21:09

campus and that really bothers

21:12

me as well. I've,

21:14

you know, I watch a

21:16

lot of different things on social

21:19

media and there have been

21:21

confrontations. There's been violence, antifa,

21:23

whatever antifa really is, you

21:25

know, but I don't

21:27

like the mask. If you're going

21:29

to protest, you shouldn't have a

21:31

face covering over your face. That

21:34

just is a red flag

21:36

to begin with. So I understand

21:38

what you're saying. I can

21:40

certainly agree with you on many

21:42

of the issues. And

21:44

you're right. I think Trump

21:46

is threatening and doing a

21:48

lot of things. And I

21:50

think for the common guy, And

21:52

I talked to people all the time,

21:54

Larry. I was just went down to

21:56

my neighbor's house and he brought out

21:58

the computer and he was talking to

22:00

me, uh, you know, on the farm

22:02

aid and, you know, all the things

22:04

that, that concern him. And he's not

22:06

even a farmer, but, um, I

22:09

think the common guy girl.

22:12

I think we're just fed up with

22:14

the corruption through everything, whether it's

22:16

whether you're on Trump's side, whether you're

22:18

a conservative or whether you're, you

22:20

know, liberal or whatever. I think these

22:22

guys are just fed up. And

22:25

for lack of anything else

22:27

to say, you

22:29

know, we see, we think there's corruption

22:31

there and maybe there is or maybe there

22:34

isn't. But then like

22:36

what, what was the figure

22:38

that they threw out there

22:40

that Harvard has Insecure,

22:42

was it 52 billion? Yeah. Yeah. That's right.

22:44

$52 billion in endowment. Yeah. The endowment

22:46

is what Harvard has. And you know, you

22:48

look at that and you go, you

22:50

have 52 billion. This is a common guy,

22:52

you know, you have $52 billion and

22:55

you need more aid and you're charging kids

22:57

to go to school. And this is

22:59

just like the, you know, off the top.

23:01

This is the toppings where you're going.

23:03

What in the hell's the problem there? I

23:05

mean, you know, I wish

23:07

I had, you know, I wish I had a bank

23:09

account. Yeah,

23:11

of course, $52 billion. But

23:14

the money that we're talking

23:16

about is not money just given

23:18

to Harvard to subsidize Harvard

23:20

the way Elon Musk's company gets

23:22

money given to the government

23:24

to subsidize the production of electric

23:26

cars. This is

23:28

money that was to purchase

23:31

services from Harvard. So it's

23:33

money that was going to

23:35

support hospitals, which is obviously

23:37

providing services to people who

23:39

need those services. It's money

23:41

to buy research, which Harvard

23:43

has been providing with contracts

23:45

with the government forever. So

23:48

these are services contracts, which

23:50

Harvard had entered into with

23:52

the government, and that the

23:54

government now is withholding without

23:56

any legal basis, because again,

23:58

there has been no finding

24:00

of wrongdoing. under Title

24:02

VI. It's just a threat, again,

24:05

the threat like the threat

24:07

to slash the tires. Yeah,

24:10

I do get that. I'm

24:12

right with you. But

24:14

here's the side that I think a

24:16

lot of people are coming from. And

24:20

I don't think it's

24:22

about Donald Trump picking who

24:24

you have on your

24:26

faculty. I think it's

24:28

more about What people

24:30

see is that we have

24:32

to accept Everything and then

24:35

on top of that we

24:37

have this quota and you

24:39

know like I the example

24:41

I would use would be

24:43

the the senator Crockett who

24:45

Publicly said I went in

24:47

for my first law job

24:49

and The guy asked her

24:51

why you should hire me

24:53

and she said because I'm

24:55

black And that

24:57

rubs people the wrong way,

24:59

not because you were qualified, not

25:01

because you have, you know,

25:03

the number one in the university

25:06

or whatever, it's because of

25:08

race and color. And that should

25:10

not be the factor. And

25:12

I look at it, Larry, and

25:14

I agree with you, Donald

25:16

Trump should not be telling you

25:18

who you hire, but

25:20

I believe that they're trying

25:22

to say, you gotta stop

25:24

hiring because... we're trying to

25:26

make everything so equal, right?

25:29

And I could say the same

25:31

thing to you as far as

25:33

if you're gonna go in the

25:35

hospital and have somebody operate on

25:38

your heart, right? You

25:40

want the best guy there,

25:42

not the person that is,

25:44

well, you know, is

25:46

there because, well, we had to

25:48

have this person on board. And

25:50

I think that, this is just

25:52

me saying, Larry, common guys, we're

25:55

looking at it and we're saying, and

25:57

I don't know what kind

25:59

of doctor Richard Levine was or

26:02

Rachel Levine was, but I'm

26:04

saying we could have picked someone

26:06

that would have caused a

26:08

lot less controversy that was probably

26:10

just as good or better,

26:12

but we had to have someone

26:14

in there that was trans,

26:16

for example. I

26:20

don't, that's what I think

26:22

everyone is fighting against. And

26:24

in my opinion, I don't know. I

26:26

mean, I certainly understand the, the, the

26:28

implications of, of, of the law and

26:31

don't tell me what to do and

26:33

all that stuff. But we're

26:35

trying to make everybody happy and

26:37

we're trying to put people in

26:39

there that I think have no

26:41

business being in there, whether, and

26:43

it doesn't matter if you're a,

26:45

if you're a farmer and we're

26:47

going to make you the head

26:49

of, you know, the agriculture committee. What

26:52

kind of farmer are you? I mean, are

26:54

you a good farmer? Or you go, oh, no,

26:56

I just have 10 chickens. Well,

26:58

that's not much of a farmer,

27:00

right? And, and that's what I'm,

27:02

I think that's what people are so upset

27:05

about. And that's why I don't think there's

27:07

the lash back because, you know, it just

27:09

seems like we're trying to get so many

27:11

things done in such a short period of

27:13

time, you know, four years isn't very long.

27:15

And now it's down to whatever, three and

27:17

a half. You

27:19

know, so I, I, I appreciate

27:21

the fact that he's, that Donald Trump

27:23

is trying to do this. And

27:25

I think you're exactly right. I think

27:27

he oversteps sometimes. I think he's

27:29

trying to get too much accomplished in

27:31

a short period of time because

27:33

you know Larry as a lawyer, those

27:36

wheels grind awfully slow. Right.

27:38

And they, and they do. I mean, it's

27:40

just, it's unfortunate, you know.

27:43

Okay. But yeah, he stirred things

27:45

up, but you know, Has

27:47

he stirred them up in a way

27:49

that we should be happy about? I

27:52

mean, you just mentioned the one thing

27:54

that we have a really important common

27:56

ground on, which is our hatred of

27:58

the corruption of the system. So here's

28:00

one story, and you tell me what

28:02

you think about this story. You

28:05

know, we've talked before about the tariffs in

28:07

last episode, and of course that was just

28:09

as he was launching the tariffs, and then

28:11

he pulled them back for 90 days, and

28:13

that whole dance was after he had launched

28:15

them before and pulled them back, and it's

28:17

back and forth and back and forth. But

28:20

one of the things he's been celebrating is

28:22

the idea that when he's launched these tariffs, he

28:25

was going to inspire people to

28:27

come and negotiate with him about those

28:29

tariffs. Okay. So Vietnam has

28:31

been trying to negotiate with the

28:33

president to get the tariffs set up

28:35

so that they're not burdened by

28:38

these tariffs the way China is. And

28:40

so they released a press release

28:43

bragging about their negotiations with the

28:45

president and the hopefulness that they

28:47

have that they're going to reach

28:49

some kind of a deal. And

28:51

so the first item in the

28:53

press release was something about the

28:55

numbers that they were dealing with

28:57

and second is targeted areas where

28:59

they were going to be able

29:01

to exempt themselves from these tariffs.

29:03

But the third item on their

29:05

list was the fact that they

29:07

were close to closing a deal

29:09

for a $1 .5 billion Trump

29:11

resort that was going to open

29:13

in Vietnam. And I'm

29:15

like, what the hell? You're

29:17

negotiating a trade deal

29:20

for the United States of

29:22

America. And somehow in

29:24

the middle of that deal, you're

29:26

including a private deal for your

29:28

own resort empire. That's just banana republic

29:30

governance. It's not governance under a

29:32

rule of law. Right. No, I

29:34

understand that, Larry. And I think in

29:37

life myself, I've... I'm sure you

29:39

have too. You've said something like,

29:41

we're not going to do this

29:43

anymore. And then all of a sudden,

29:45

but what about, what about this?

29:47

Or what about that? And I'm

29:49

like, well, yeah, I guess I

29:51

said we're not doing that, but that

29:53

is not really what I, you

29:55

know, think or conclude.

29:58

And I'm like, I didn't, you

30:00

know, for me personally, Larry,

30:02

and I know you're raising kids

30:04

now, my kids are raised, but

30:06

you know, I had this thing

30:08

called the 24 hour rule and

30:10

That was allowed to allow me

30:12

to think for 24 hours to

30:14

give them an answer. So if

30:16

they said, dad, can we go

30:19

to so -and -so's place tonight? you

30:21

know, tonight, we need to go there tonight

30:23

and I go, well, did you give me 24

30:25

hours? And they say, no. And then, you

30:27

know, once we established that 24 hour rule, you

30:30

know, I said, did you give me 24 hours?

30:32

And they say, no. I said, well, then the

30:34

answer is no. And then when they did give

30:36

me 24 hours and I was able to think

30:38

about it, you know, can I go to so

30:40

-and -so's house Friday night? And I go, okay, you

30:42

can, but understand that I have to pick you

30:44

up at 730 at that house because you have

30:46

a soccer game at 830. And

30:48

they're like, oh, well, I don't

30:50

know if I want to go

30:52

now. I said, oh, you know,

30:54

so I understand what you're saying.

30:56

Yes, Larry, I get it. I

30:58

think I think that the whole

31:00

that we've dug ourselves in over

31:02

across this, you know, whether it's

31:04

immigration, whether whatever it is, whatever

31:06

the issues are, it just seems

31:08

like it's overwhelming. And I'll

31:11

tell you, I, I certainly understand that

31:13

from a standpoint right now here at

31:15

the farm. I've got, you know,

31:17

I've got my layers. I've got meat

31:19

chickens that I'm starting to raise, you

31:21

know, because we'll process that. I've got,

31:23

you know, It's spreading fertilizer. I'm

31:25

going to be spreading manure. I got

31:27

sheep to shear. I mean, you know,

31:29

and it just becomes overwhelming to me

31:31

sometimes. And this is just this little

31:33

farm, you know, 30 sheep, you know,

31:35

10, 15 cows. And, you know, we

31:38

have 70, you know, meat birds and

31:40

all that stuff. So it gets overwhelming.

31:42

So I understand that. I hope I

31:44

hope that people can at least look

31:46

at some of this stuff and say,

31:48

well, it's Donald Trump is at least

31:50

trying. may not be doing

31:52

it right and may not, like you said, holding

31:55

the hostage or doing all that,

31:57

I get it. And

31:59

the only thing I can say

32:01

is I agree with you, but I

32:03

also appreciate the fact that things

32:06

are kind of being stirred up and

32:08

I hope in the right way. I

32:11

don't agree with everything, Larry, just we've

32:13

talked and I think you understand me

32:15

a little bit. But

32:17

to sit here and go,

32:20

You know, you've included this and you've

32:22

included that and you know, that's

32:25

wrong and I get it. Yeah, but

32:27

you we agree. This is wrong,

32:29

right? This is just wrong 100 %

32:31

Well, you know when there's temptation out

32:33

there temptations a powerful thing whether

32:35

it's you know, right or wrong You

32:37

know, I wouldn't leave I wouldn't

32:39

leave a $20 bill on my desk

32:41

at school and say hey, don't

32:43

there's $20 here. Don't take it And

32:46

I wouldn't leave it there because the temptation

32:48

sometimes gets so great and that's just 20

32:50

bucks and you're talking, you know, millions and

32:52

I get it. I, I,

32:54

the corruption is just terrible. And

32:56

yeah, I'm, I'm, I'm in a

32:59

loss for words. You're right. That,

33:01

that to me is, is corruption. And

33:03

I will add, I will add this

33:05

Larry though. And I do, I am out

33:07

in this community for some reason. I

33:10

don't know why, but I set on, you

33:12

know, several boards and I. just threw

33:14

my name in the hat for school board

33:16

to run on the school board. But

33:18

people are talking to me and, you know,

33:20

you, you walk to one person and

33:22

they say, well, it looks like, you know,

33:24

these tariffs are working. They're getting things

33:26

done. And some, not all of them, they'll

33:28

say, but some of them seem to

33:30

be working. They're, they're talking. And

33:32

then the next person you talk to

33:34

and, oh, I, you know, my, my

33:36

401k and this Trump is such an

33:38

idiot. And, you know, and

33:40

you just. I'm just trying to take

33:42

information in, you know, as I, as

33:44

I walk around. And like I said,

33:46

last night, a guy came out, I

33:48

was down in his house and come

33:50

out with his computer and was showing

33:52

me articles, you know, on the, on,

33:55

you know, agriculture and the farms and

33:57

why these farmers are getting so much

33:59

money. And, and, you know, the stuff

34:01

that I know, I try to explain

34:03

to him, but it is, it is

34:05

baffling to the common man we've gotten.

34:07

And, and the. One of the things

34:09

that, you know, you and I probably

34:11

agree on is the corruption, but

34:13

I think government should be smaller.

34:15

But, you know, listening to what

34:17

people say about, you know, the

34:19

Democratic Party and liberals, they want

34:21

it bigger and conservatives want it

34:23

smaller. And, you

34:25

know, that dumb founds me to the

34:27

point where I don't want any more

34:29

government in, you know. Yeah, I mean,

34:32

I don't know whether government should be

34:34

bigger or government should be smaller, but

34:36

I do believe government should work. It

34:38

should like deliver the services that's supposed

34:40

to deliver. So, you know, we talked

34:42

about Social Security and like the shutting

34:44

down of Social Security offices, the shutting

34:46

down the telephone services so that people

34:48

have to go online. And of course,

34:50

you know, if you're 82 years old,

34:52

it's not as easy for you to

34:54

go online to Check

34:57

up why did you why you

34:59

didn't get your benefits and and

35:01

even those websites are going down

35:03

because they're cutting the services. So

35:05

this is not about making government

35:07

smaller or bigger. It's just about

35:09

making government work and social security

35:11

of all the programs should be

35:13

the program that works the most.

35:15

These are people who are entitled

35:17

to get the payments they were

35:19

promised for the money they put

35:21

in or you know think about

35:23

This just drives me crazy. You

35:26

know, the IRS collects

35:28

our taxes. The IRS adopted

35:31

in the Biden administration

35:33

something people have been fighting

35:35

for for literally 20

35:37

years, which was a system

35:39

to enable people to pay their

35:41

taxes easily online. You just

35:43

go and the government knows everything it needs to

35:45

know about you and sort of the vast majority

35:48

of taxpayers, they could just pay their taxes for

35:50

free online. Well, the Trump

35:52

administration has declared that this is going to be

35:54

closed down. Why? Well, because

35:56

certain companies like Intuit who

35:58

are in the business of

36:00

providing tax services for money,

36:03

forcing people to pay them

36:05

for tax services, and they

36:07

offer what they say is a free

36:09

tax service, but it turns out that

36:11

has so many hooks in it to

36:13

force people to pay for things that,

36:15

for many people, it's not actually a

36:17

free tax service. Anyway, they succeeded in

36:20

lobbying the government, to lobbying the Trump

36:22

administration, to get them to shut down

36:24

the government service, to turn on the

36:26

private service so that the private service

36:28

makes money and the taxpayer loses. And

36:30

the government loses because it turns out

36:32

it's easier for the government to collect

36:34

this information directly than to have to

36:36

get it indirectly through the stupidity of

36:39

filing these forms. Now, there too, who

36:41

could support this? idea that the government

36:43

is going to make it more difficult

36:45

for people to pay their taxes just

36:47

so it could make it easier for

36:49

companies to be making money, getting us

36:51

to pay our taxes. Well,

36:53

I was just going to say, and what we've talked

36:55

about before with this news media, you know, you hear how

36:58

they're cutting, we're taking social

37:00

security from you. That's not what

37:02

they're doing. They're cutting these, and

37:04

it's going to affect hopefully social

37:06

security and keep more money in

37:08

there. But the news

37:10

and other people see he's taking

37:12

social security from us. That's not

37:14

what's really happening, right? I mean,

37:16

I guess that there could be

37:18

mix ups but at this point

37:21

they're trying to say get rid

37:23

of the inefficiency Right and save

37:25

money for the social security Never

37:27

once did they say we're gonna

37:29

we're gonna make your payment less

37:31

But that's what people harp on

37:33

and you know, I get it

37:36

But you and I have talked about

37:38

this before. The news and the news

37:40

media try to cause this stink or

37:42

stir or whatever it is, and it

37:44

just divides us even further. And that's

37:46

what they're trying to do is divide

37:49

us further. Look, yes, you're right.

37:51

We've talked about how the business model

37:53

of media is to turn us into ignorant

37:55

people who hate each other. And

37:57

so they're going to spread information that's

37:59

going to make it seem as if

38:01

each side is just crazy and wrong.

38:04

And that's true certainly about the stuff

38:06

that's being reported about Trump right now

38:08

just as much as it's true about

38:11

anything. But some things we can just

38:13

see, we can stand above it and

38:15

that's why we have these conversations to

38:17

cut through what these news media is

38:19

telling us. And I would think that

38:21

we should be able to agree that

38:23

if we've got a government program that's

38:26

actually making it easier for people to

38:28

do what they have to do, namely

38:30

file their taxes, easier for the government,

38:32

easier for the taxpayer, then the

38:34

government shouldn't be screwing that program up or

38:36

shutting it down just so that we increase

38:38

the profit to a private corporation who wants

38:40

to force us to pay them for the thing

38:42

the government was going to allow us to

38:44

do for free. Yes.

38:47

And again, Larry, you're exactly right. And

38:49

you set back and you say, okay,

38:51

but if we eliminate the IRS, then

38:53

we eliminate all those jobs. Now what

38:55

are we going to do with those

38:57

people? Right. And you start, it

39:00

becomes a, it becomes that situation

39:02

where, you know, say 60 years

39:04

ago or even whatever, you know,

39:06

a hundred years ago, how everybody

39:08

was working on a farm and

39:10

we didn't have enough labor and

39:12

we invented, you know, machines and

39:14

all that. But we had

39:16

plenty to do. Everybody had plenty to do.

39:18

Well, when you create one machine that

39:20

eliminates 10 men, now what do you do

39:22

with the other nine? And

39:24

it's been, it's been an ongoing thing that

39:26

I think that has happened, like, like

39:29

what you're just describing there with the IRS.

39:31

If we get rid of the IRS,

39:33

we get rid of all these jobs,

39:36

which I'm for, right? At the same

39:38

time, I'm for some, but like, like

39:40

you said, they know what we owe. just

39:43

take the money and be done with it.

39:45

Why do we have to file this and go

39:47

through this stuff? I mean, you know, and,

39:49

and so I, I truly try to make, I

39:51

don't want a tax return. I want it

39:53

to be zero. I want to work with my

39:55

money. I don't want them giving me my

39:57

money back. But, you know, normally

39:59

I get a small refund every year because

40:01

of the farm or whatever. And I just

40:03

assume keep the money and be done with

40:05

it as opposed to when I got it.

40:07

Like you said, I got to do my

40:09

paperwork. I got to take it to my

40:11

accountant, you know, and then they give

40:13

me a bill at the end of the end the day. And

40:17

it's like, it's just, to me, it's

40:19

just absolutely ridiculous, just like you. But

40:21

then again, I step back and I

40:23

go, what are we going to do

40:25

with these people that don't have a

40:27

job? Yeah, I'm not sure what you

40:29

mean by this. So it's just a

40:31

website. So what do you mean there's

40:33

going to be lost jobs if the

40:35

program to make it so you could

40:37

pay taxes? for free online with the

40:40

government was kept well if you do

40:42

okay all the tax return all my

40:44

accountants you know IRS people you know

40:46

there's going to be a lot of

40:48

lost jobs I think yeah but we're

40:50

talking you know mainly about ordinary taxpayers

40:52

who aren't going to be using accountants

40:54

Right, right. No, I understand. You

40:56

know, all the businesses, I mean, your

40:58

farm is a business, you take deductions,

41:00

you must actually have to file with

41:02

an accountant because those deductions are not

41:04

the sort of thing that this online

41:06

system would have covered. Right, right. I

41:09

do understand that. I was just saying

41:11

even across the board, now I know

41:13

it's a business and, you know, so

41:15

on, but I mean, I still file

41:17

my personal taxes with my accountant and

41:19

so on, but Again, I get that,

41:21

but I guess I was just using

41:23

that as an example of if we

41:25

wipe these things out, then

41:27

we, you know, then there's less jobs, so

41:29

to speak. And I know you have to

41:31

really be careful in balancing all that, you

41:33

know, even like, for example,

41:36

you know, you at Harvard,

41:38

I'm sure you could maybe perhaps

41:40

combine some classes and get rid of

41:42

some teachers, but then is it

41:44

more effective or is it less effective?

41:46

And and so on, or do we

41:48

hire more, you know, I get it. And, you

41:51

know, that's one of the things

41:53

why I got on the school, I'm

41:55

running from the school board, they just

41:57

hired a assistant superintendent for two and

41:59

a half years before our, our superintendent

42:01

retires. I'm like, we

42:03

don't need an assistant right

42:05

now. And this job

42:07

is going to cost the taxpayers

42:09

$750 ,000 for this. And, you

42:11

know, I want that job.

42:13

How about it? And I,

42:15

you know, I was at the meetings and

42:18

I asked them to table that and,

42:20

and, you know, fact fine. And they just

42:22

totally ignored me and another guy. And

42:24

now, I mean, they, they, they got their

42:26

butts handed to them because now they

42:28

realized that what they didn't do. And this

42:30

was not an administration. This was a

42:32

school board, um, you know, thing they did.

42:34

But anyhow, you know, I

42:36

look at some of that stuff too and

42:38

go, okay, you know, just like. I'm

42:41

sure when you walk into do yourself checkout,

42:43

right? You're one man, there should be somebody

42:45

here doing this. But we

42:47

have a, you know, a checkout counter and

42:49

look, you know, it's certainly true. I mean,

42:51

this technology is going to change a lot.

42:53

AI is going to change a lot. It's

42:55

going to have a profound effect on employment.

42:57

You know, indeed among lawyers, look, I make

42:59

lawyers for a living, but I think AI

43:01

is going to eliminate 70 percent of lawyers.

43:03

And I think that would be a good

43:06

thing because I think that would lower the

43:08

cost of law, spread the rule of law

43:10

more broadly. And we should celebrate that. That's

43:12

a good that technology is going to do,

43:14

even though it's costing lots of jobs. Yeah.

43:17

It's also going to get rid of a

43:19

lot of jokes, Larry, because you know, the

43:21

lawyers are, they take the brunt of a

43:23

lot of jokes on some of this stuff. That's

43:27

the thing, lawyers are good for jokes. Well,

43:31

you know, there is a

43:33

lot of lawyer jokes, uh,

43:36

not in heaven, but in. according

43:40

to the jokes. But no,

43:42

I certainly agree with you.

43:44

I mean, you know, I'm

43:46

not against some of this

43:49

stuff. But you know, Larry,

43:51

I keep thinking about our conversations

43:53

and I keep thinking you and I

43:55

are very close in the way

43:57

we think and different things like that.

43:59

And I think it's because maybe

44:01

we're just I'm just educated enough. You're

44:03

more than educated in what you

44:06

do. I'm just educated enough to understand

44:08

and be able to agree and

44:10

be able to think logically and so

44:12

on. But I

44:14

think in general, there's

44:17

a lot of, I'm not going to listen to

44:19

it. I'm not going to talk about it. So

44:21

Robin just went down to her son's house and they

44:23

are not allowed to talk about politics down there.

44:26

And Robin is not a

44:29

staunch conservative. I mean,

44:31

she voted for Barack

44:33

Obama when, you know, he ran for

44:35

president. So I mean, she's, she's willing to

44:37

look at and say, well, I like

44:39

this or I like that. And there's just,

44:41

she's not allowed to talk any politics

44:43

down there at all. And this is her

44:46

son and daughter in law, you know,

44:48

and I just, I just shake my head

44:50

because that's not the way to do

44:52

it. You used to talk and, you know,

44:54

figure out why you like this or

44:56

why you don't like that. But I think

44:58

that's the thing between two, let's say

45:00

relatively intelligent guys that we're willing to talk

45:02

and I disagree with you and you

45:04

might disagree with me, but I also, I

45:06

listen to Jordan Peterson sometimes and you

45:08

know, his, his comment was that you have

45:10

to be willing to offend someone to

45:12

talk about something that you disagree about. And,

45:15

and you can offend them, but that doesn't

45:17

mean you can't continue to talk to them

45:19

or continue to like them. It's just like

45:21

you put each guy on the spot and,

45:23

and you go from there. So it's, that's

45:25

where I'm coming from. And, you know, I've

45:27

had a lot of people that

45:30

are just, you know, one way or the other. And

45:33

I actually, one of our county

45:35

commissioners who's a Democrat, I said,

45:37

I really don't understand some of

45:39

the Democrat Republican stuff. I said,

45:41

could you tell me what the

45:43

difference between a Democrat and Republican

45:45

corner is? I mean, is there

45:48

something there that you could explain

45:50

to me why, why we have

45:52

to be a Republican or Democrat

45:54

to be a corner? And

45:57

you know, and you know what he said? And

45:59

he's he's a he's a good guy. He's

46:01

this really good guy. He goes, he said, I

46:03

asked that same question. And the answer was one

46:05

of them spends more money on the funeral, but

46:07

I'm not sure what's wrong. And,

46:10

you know, and it's it's kind of

46:12

comical, but it really says a lot to

46:14

me that, you know, we do these

46:16

things for some reason. I don't know why.

46:19

And, you know, because obviously I

46:21

threw my hat in the ring

46:23

for school board and. I

46:26

said, I just don't understand the differences

46:28

that why if you're set on a school

46:30

board, other than being maybe more conservative,

46:32

you know, not want to spend money, and

46:34

maybe the Democratic wants to spend more

46:36

money, I don't know what the real difference.

46:38

It's about education for your children, and

46:40

that's the bottom line. I don't know why

46:42

it would be any different between a

46:44

Republican or an independent or a Democrat. Am

46:46

I wrong? Yeah, there

46:48

should be no difference. You should

46:50

be talking about the issues. You shouldn't be

46:52

able to hide behind your party identity. Exactly. Like

46:55

you should say, what's important? What's important about

46:57

education? And so let's fight about that. Right. Let's

46:59

not fight about whether we should have Democrats

47:01

or Republicans there. Right. And one of the things

47:03

that I've noticed people have actually come up

47:05

to me instead of, well, I noticed you're not

47:07

being sponsored by the Republican Party. I said,

47:09

look, I'm just in it for education. I'm not

47:11

in it. I have no, absolutely

47:13

no gender. I'm

47:16

not getting in because I want to

47:18

get this person off or I want to

47:20

get this person in I'm just here

47:22

for the you know the agenda and That's

47:24

it. So, you know people take notice

47:26

of some of those things. I don't know

47:28

if it'll make a difference or not

47:31

in the long run, but we'll see and

47:33

I hope that's right. I hope that's

47:35

right Okay, I'm gonna ask you about what

47:37

we're gonna talk about one more thing.

47:39

Okay, so the you've seen I'm sure all

47:41

these stories about the fights about immigration

47:43

Yes The first time we had a 9

47:46

-0 decision of the Supreme Court where the

47:48

court said that for this guy Garcia, who

47:50

was in the United States protected

47:53

by a court order saying he

47:55

was allowed to be in the

47:57

United States, picked up and sent

47:59

to Venezuelan prison without any hearing,

48:01

without any opportunity for him to

48:03

say, here's why I shouldn't be

48:05

kicked out of your country. And

48:07

the same thing with these Venezuelans

48:10

who are now being

48:12

held because the court has issued

48:14

an injunction saying they can't take them

48:16

to Venezuela until they give them a

48:18

hearing. In both cases, this

48:20

is about their right to

48:22

have ordinary process, a chance to

48:24

say, here's why you don't

48:26

have the power to take me

48:28

and send me away. The

48:31

most fundamental of rights in our system

48:33

do process. But the president's fighting it.

48:35

like in saying that no, he should

48:37

be allowed to pick people up off

48:39

the street, take them to another country,

48:41

and once they're there, there's nothing he

48:43

can do about it. So

48:45

I just wonder whether we at least

48:47

can agree that there ought to be a

48:49

commitment to the protection of the most

48:51

basic of these ideas, which is the idea

48:54

that you get due process if the

48:56

government's going to do something dramatic with you,

48:58

like lock you up or send you

49:00

away or put you or take your property

49:02

or anything like that. I

49:04

certainly think there should be,

49:07

Larry. I

49:09

also, in the back of my mind,

49:11

think about all the guys that were

49:13

locked up here in the United States

49:15

that were innocent, you

49:17

know, now being proven because of

49:19

DNA, you know, for example, especially

49:22

in certain rape cases, you know,

49:24

this man raped me and now

49:26

they have DNA that, you know,

49:28

positively, you know, does

49:30

and it identifies this guy is not

49:32

and he's been in there for

49:34

20 years you know those kinds of

49:36

things to that I say there's

49:38

always mistakes that they're going to happen

49:40

and but what you're asking me

49:42

about is so someone that is in

49:45

this ms -13 or whatever these gang

49:47

members are and and and proof

49:49

do they really have rights is he

49:51

is he like for example the

49:53

one guy you're talking about Marilyn was

49:55

he an illegal alien was he

49:57

allowed to be here and you know

49:59

Again, the news, on

50:01

one station it tells you, he

50:03

calls him a Maryland man, the next

50:05

is a, you know, an immigrant,

50:07

and next is a illegal alien, and

50:09

then I've seen information come out

50:11

that he was, that he abused his

50:13

wife. You

50:16

know, he was wearing the

50:18

gang colors that these guys

50:20

wear, and you know, I

50:23

got kicked out of a nut. I

50:25

didn't get kicked out. I got asked to

50:27

leave because I had a white t -shirt

50:29

on one evening. I

50:31

was at Benji's uptown and they said,

50:33

you can't be in here with that white

50:35

t -shirt on. I'm like, what are you

50:37

talking about? That's a gang thing right

50:39

now. I'm like, oh, I

50:41

didn't know that. I always thought you were

50:43

a gang. Right. I didn't know I was a

50:45

hoodlum. But I had

50:47

a different t -shirt in the truck, so

50:49

I just went out and put it

50:51

on, you know, so it wasn't no

50:53

big deal. But I had no idea,

50:56

but you go, yeah, that's a gang

50:58

thing. So, I mean, the colors really

51:00

do mean something. I mean, and I

51:02

know this guy was, you know, wearing

51:04

this, whatever, I think they said Chicago

51:06

Bulls hat and shirt and whatever. But

51:09

again, it continues to divide.

51:11

And you're right. If I always

51:13

think, if I was in

51:15

that position, wouldn't I want to

51:17

be able to plead my case.

51:19

But then again, I'm

51:22

not in a gang

51:24

and I'm not here illegally.

51:26

I'm fortunate that I was born in

51:28

the United States and I have all

51:30

that. So yeah, I've never been put

51:32

in those positions that it hasn't been

51:34

somewhat corrected, so to speak. You know

51:36

what I mean? Yeah. Right.

51:39

And so there are a lot

51:41

of questions one could ask about

51:43

whether, in fact, he should be

51:45

sent out of the country or

51:47

sent out of the country to

51:49

the worst prison in the world. You

51:52

know, wearing a bull's hat.

51:54

Most people wearing bull's hats are

51:56

not... But the point, the

51:58

legal point, this is really simple,

52:00

obvious, like it is the

52:03

most basic point. The due

52:05

process clause does not say citizens

52:07

get due process. It says all persons.

52:09

get -to -process. So as long as

52:11

we're willing to concede that a gang

52:13

member is a person, which, you

52:15

know, I think we should, then

52:17

the law is perfectly clear, which is

52:20

why nine justices of the Supreme Court,

52:22

very different justices, were willing to say,

52:24

you can't just pick somebody up and

52:26

send them to the worst prison in

52:28

the world without giving them a chance

52:30

to say, it's just a fricking bull's

52:32

hat. It's not, or like

52:34

you, it's just a white t -shirt.

52:36

It's not a gang insignia. And

52:38

if you don't get to give them

52:41

a chance to say that, then

52:43

you haven't given them due process. And

52:45

so the point is like, this

52:47

is like the most basic commitment in

52:49

a free society to rule of

52:51

law, due process. And I would think

52:53

we should be able to say,

52:55

hell no, the president of the United

52:57

States should not be denying this

52:59

most basic right of a free society.

53:02

I certainly understand that, Larry.

53:04

I mean, yeah, I

53:06

think. Again, I'll go back to

53:09

this common guy. I think we

53:11

just have been so fed up

53:13

with things the way they're going.

53:15

And that's still no excuse to

53:17

not give someone, like you said,

53:19

due process. But I just saw

53:21

and I, please forgive me. I

53:23

don't, I watch it real quick.

53:25

Some guy just robbed somebody. He's

53:27

been arrested seven times this year

53:29

alone. And some of

53:31

this Crimes were significant enough to keep

53:34

him behind bars, say, and give

53:36

him a trial. But he's been released.

53:38

And he just stole somebody's phone,

53:40

pocketbook, whatever. And they were actually able

53:42

to trace him. But it's,

53:44

again, one side of the

53:46

media is saying, oh, this

53:48

isn't a bad. This has nothing to

53:50

do with gang related. But I'm just

53:52

saying that this guy has had his

53:55

due process. And he's been left out

53:57

and left out and left out. And

53:59

now, He commits

54:01

another crime. And then, of course,

54:03

one side is saying it was

54:05

in Chicago. Is Chicago safe? And

54:07

the mayor goes, it's completely safe. Instead

54:09

of saying, well, listen, we

54:12

have some problems. We have some things

54:14

we still need to correct. But

54:16

he doubles down on it being safe.

54:18

Well, obviously, it's not safe. And

54:20

again, I don't understand why these, like,

54:23

I can agree, I like Donald Trump,

54:25

but I also, some of the things he's

54:27

doing I don't agree with. But

54:30

people can't seem to do that. I

54:32

mean, you gotta at least admit that some

54:34

of these guys are bad dudes that you're

54:37

getting rid of. Yeah, no,

54:39

they are. Yeah. Very bad. But the point

54:41

you're making, I think, is really the most

54:43

important point, which is we ought to be

54:45

able to not think in black and white.

54:47

We should be able to say, It's

54:49

more complicated. I like this guy, but

54:52

I don't like these things. And

54:54

I think people ought to

54:56

have due process rights, but I

54:58

also think we ought to

55:01

make sure that criminals are in

55:03

jail and totally agree with

55:05

that. And no doubt, these many

55:07

cities and states are overwhelmed

55:09

and they're not prosecuting effectively. But

55:11

when you started by saying all these

55:13

people who've been convicted of crimes that

55:15

are then proven innocent by DNA, those

55:18

are people who got due process, right?

55:20

So even if you get due process,

55:22

the system is gonna screw up. But

55:25

that's a double reason why you should

55:27

at least get due process before you

55:29

throw somebody into the worst prison in

55:31

world. I agree with you, but it

55:33

gets so frustrating because, I mean, you

55:35

and I have probably never been touched

55:38

with the, you know, like a death

55:40

of a loved one that's been tortured,

55:42

you know, like the stuff that you

55:44

see. And you go, holy,

55:46

I have no time now. You know, you

55:48

know what it's like. I have no time

55:50

for this. I have no time for that

55:52

because this has happened to me. This is,

55:54

this is something that's happened to me directly,

55:56

whether it, whatever it might be, you

55:59

know, um, my dad, for example, I

56:01

give this quick example. He was a very,

56:03

he's a very healthy man. It's whole

56:05

life. But of course, when you turn a

56:07

certain age, they want you to start

56:09

getting the flu shot and so on and

56:11

so forth. Well, I don't think my

56:13

dad got a flu shot his whole life.

56:15

And then he, They talked him into

56:17

getting this flu shot. Well, one of the

56:19

side effects is Gillian Barone syndrome where

56:21

you, your body attacks your body, your immune

56:23

system attacks. And, you know, this

56:26

happened 15 years ago. So it was,

56:28

and it's a known side effect. It's, it's,

56:30

everybody knows it. It's, it's listed as

56:32

one of the side effects, but my dad

56:34

should have probably never taken it. Thank

56:36

God, you know, the doctor said he has

56:38

no other illnesses. Otherwise he's going

56:40

to die. I can tell you that he looked me right

56:42

in the eye and said, he's going to die. If

56:44

he has, you know, if he had any kind of diseases,

56:47

heart disease, anything like that, he's going to die. But

56:50

your dad doesn't have that. He's been perfectly

56:52

healthy. And he has, you know, he beat

56:54

it. And this was, you know, 16 years

56:56

ago, he's still, you know, working on the

56:58

farm at 91. But

57:00

my point is that, you know, you,

57:03

you do these things and they, and

57:05

there's still no guarantees, right?

57:07

And, you know, they were convinced that

57:09

you need, you need a flu shot. And

57:12

he spent 100 days in the

57:14

hospital and is pulled out of it.

57:16

They told him he wouldn't walk

57:18

again, he's walking and all that. But

57:21

at any rate, you look at,

57:23

yeah, absolutely. And you look at that

57:25

and there is no guarantees. And

57:27

I get it. I

57:29

really do. I just think that people

57:31

are so fed up with the things that

57:33

are going on, Larry, that maybe they're

57:35

overlooking some of the, like you said, due

57:37

process. You know what? I think

57:39

some of them are just saying, screw that. I've had

57:41

enough of this crap, you know? And

57:44

I do. And I can certainly understand

57:46

where they're coming from. I can certainly

57:48

understand why people, oh, you know, Donald

57:50

Trump this and so on, I can,

57:52

you know. I see it and

57:54

I'm even what do you think

57:57

about this? I know I think

57:59

we probably have in close to

58:01

time but you know these what

58:03

six or seven ladies just went

58:05

up and flew this rocket the

58:07

Bezos and they came down and

58:09

they were just just wonderful they're

58:11

astronauts now and you know to

58:13

me they spent a tremendous amount

58:15

of money to go on an

58:17

11 minute ride right enough money

58:20

For some people to say, if

58:22

I had that, I would live

58:24

comfortably my whole life. Oh my

58:26

gosh, 10 lives. Yeah. Yeah. Of

58:28

course. Right. And then

58:30

they sat there and then people criticize him and they

58:32

get offended. Yeah. And I'm

58:34

like, are you kidding me? Right. It's,

58:36

you know, and like I say to

58:38

my kids sometimes, just keep your mouth

58:40

shut. You know, just don't even worry

58:42

about it. You can't, you can't, you

58:44

know. You can't fight stupid or whatever,

58:46

but like for example, I was watching

58:48

Gail King who's one of our news

58:51

reporters and how many millions is she

58:53

making to be to report news and

58:55

then she comes down and says that.

58:57

And I mean, she's offending everybody to

58:59

a degree, right? You should be

59:01

offended that you have that kind of money

59:03

to go on a 11 minute ride, you

59:05

know, but that's, that's me. Yeah,

59:07

I agree with you on that. Absolutely. Right.

59:10

These rocket men, it's just

59:12

really extraordinary. Oh, yeah. And

59:14

then, and then for her, for,

59:16

for example, the thing that bothered me,

59:18

they're trying to figure out how

59:21

to put trash in space. I'm like,

59:23

are you kidding me? You know,

59:25

why would you say something like that

59:27

just to, oh my God.

59:29

I mean, I, Larry, I think the

59:31

thing that I heard was they wanted

59:33

to build cities in space because it'd

59:35

be, you know, less. pressure, you

59:37

know, blah, blah, blah. Right. I

59:39

get that. That's an awesome idea

59:41

to do a factory so that we

59:43

don't have to worry about, you

59:45

know, whatever gravity and the

59:47

things that you would have to fight

59:50

with here on earth and then ship

59:52

the products back in. All right. Maybe

59:54

that's off the wall, but you're thinking. But

59:57

to sit there and go, yeah, we're trying

59:59

to figure out how to make our planet

1:00:01

cleaner by taking trash to space and all

1:00:03

that. I'm like, wow, that's, I'm not sure

1:00:05

I understand, you know. No, I don't understand

1:00:07

that. I never understand these, these space guys.

1:00:09

I'll tell you the, let me end with

1:00:11

this. My favorite, one of my favorite stories

1:00:13

about my wife. Um, so way

1:00:15

back in like the beginning of the,

1:00:17

you know, I guess it was 2003

1:00:19

or 2004, I was in Stanford teaching.

1:00:22

And my wife and I had just gotten

1:00:24

married. And I'd gotten to know Peter

1:00:27

Thiel a little bit. And Peter

1:00:29

Thiel invited me to dinner. And

1:00:31

at the dinner was going to be

1:00:33

Larry Page. And this was just

1:00:35

before Google went public. So Larry Page

1:00:37

was about to become a billionaire. And

1:00:40

so in Silicon Valley, that's

1:00:42

a very significant thing. So

1:00:44

we had this dinner at

1:00:46

Peter Thiel's fancy condo. And

1:00:49

Peter Thiel says, so

1:00:51

I want everybody to go around

1:00:53

and describe what you think the

1:00:55

most important problem that we should

1:00:57

be addressing is. And

1:01:00

he says, let's start with you, Larry.

1:01:02

And so Larry Page. So Larry Page

1:01:04

starts and Page says, I

1:01:06

think the most important problem

1:01:08

is getting to Mars. We

1:01:10

have to, as a civilization, get

1:01:12

to Mars. This is what we need

1:01:15

to do. And of course, everybody around the

1:01:17

table, Silicon Valley wannabes,

1:01:19

I'm like sucking up.

1:01:21

Oh, Larry, that's so

1:01:23

smart. And my wife

1:01:25

says, That has got to

1:01:27

be the dumbest idea I have ever heard.

1:01:29

And the whole room just stopped and

1:01:31

stared at her and said, do you know

1:01:33

who that is? And she says, there

1:01:35

are so many problems on this earth that

1:01:37

we can be addressing that we could

1:01:39

really do something about. The idea we should

1:01:41

be going to Mars is just crazy. And

1:01:44

Peter said, OK, let's talk about

1:01:46

something else now. Right. Oh,

1:01:48

I like your wife already. Oh,

1:01:51

my goodness. Isn't that

1:01:54

amazing? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Great

1:01:56

talking to you, friend. Until

1:01:59

the next time. All right, Larry. That

1:02:07

was our fifth episode.

1:02:10

Reconstructed, I think faithfully, I don't

1:02:12

know, Ben might have second

1:02:14

thoughts. after hearing it if he

1:02:16

listens to it. But

1:02:18

I think I certainly faithfully recounted

1:02:20

exactly what we talked about in the

1:02:22

position I was making, the

1:02:24

points I was making, and I

1:02:27

apologize to you, the listener. This is

1:02:29

just embarrassing. I've been doing this

1:02:31

for 150 years and still can't get

1:02:33

it right. But here we are.

1:02:35

Next time, I promise. Not only will

1:02:37

Ben sound as good as Ben

1:02:39

sounded this time, but I will remember

1:02:41

to push the record button. Thanks

1:02:43

for listening. This is

1:02:45

a podcast of Another Way.

1:02:48

These podcasts are produced by Equal

1:02:50

Citizens. They're actually produced by

1:02:52

the magical Josh Elstrow of Elstrow

1:02:54

Productions, which if this actually

1:02:56

comes out and it sounds okay,

1:02:58

it's because he's done an

1:03:01

extraordinary job editing this mess. But

1:03:04

you can find us on

1:03:06

the web at EqualCitizens .us And

1:03:08

if you do equalcitizens .us

1:03:10

slash another way, you'll find these

1:03:12

podcasts. You'll find a place

1:03:14

to give us feedback and

1:03:16

ideas and other conversations you

1:03:19

think we should have in

1:03:21

trying to facilitate this dialogue between

1:03:23

people who otherwise are trained

1:03:25

by their media to hate

1:03:27

the other side. Haven't

1:03:29

found much hate so far here in

1:03:31

this conversation with Ben. But if you knew

1:03:33

Ben, you'd see why that would be

1:03:35

impossible. Stay tuned. Thanks

1:03:37

for listening. This is Larry Lessig.