Trump tries to DELETE his CONFESSION... it was TOO LATE

There was a clip on the White House's. social media accounts that was abruptly. taken down and deleted. But, you know. what they say about the internet, and so. without further ado, I present to you. the contents of a clip that I have to. guess will be quite present over the. next few months as we head toward. midterms. >> Don't send any money. for daycare because the United States. can't take care of daycare. That has to be up to a state. We can't take care of daycare. We're a. big country. We have 50 states. We have. all these other people who are fighting.

wars. We We can't take care of daycare. You got to let a state take care of. daycare, and they should pay for it, too. They should pay. They have to raise. their taxes. But, they should pay for. it, and we could lower our taxes a. little bit to them to make up for But, we It's not possible for us to take care. of daycare. Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual. things, they can do it on a state basis. You can't do it on a federal. We have to. take care of one thing, military. protection. We have to guard the. country. But, all these little things,

all these little scams that have taken. place, all the You have to You have to. let states take care of them, Russell, and you have to do it. >> I mean, my god, somebody get this guy on. the campaign trail. Talk about a winning. message. No daycare, no healthcare, just. wars. That is the only priority of the. federal government. We have to spend. less money on on things that impact. regular Americans so that we can dump. every single dollar into war. Brought to you, of course, by the no new.

wars president. But, the most egregious. part of all of this is that of all. people, Donald Trump knows better. because as grocery prices rise and. utility bills rise and gas costs rise, remember that Trump exploited that very. phenomenon of high cost to win the 2024. election. And by the way, even outright. admitted it. This is him from just after. winning the November 2024 election. >> Likewise, an old-fashioned term that we. use, groceries. I used it on the uh. campaign. It's such an old-fashioned. term, but a beautiful term, groceries.

It sort of says a bag with different. things in it. Groceries went through the. roof. And I campaigned on that. I talked. about the word groceries for a lot. >> In other words, he was well aware. And. yet, since he's actually taken power, think about what he and his party have. actually done to solve those issues that. they ran on. The Republicans have gutted. Medicaid for 17 million Americans. They've gutted ACA subsidies for 24. million Americans. They've gutted food. assistance for millions of Americans. They've enabled a trade war that has. spiked the cost of everything. They've. green-lit a war that sent the cost of.

oil surging. And now, they're actually. seeking approval for another 200 billion. dollars to fund a war that, by the way, Trump swore up and down he would never. let happen. >> I'm not going to start a war. I'm going. to stop wars. No more wars. No more disruptions. We. will have prosperity and we will have. peace. Under Trump, we will have no more. wars, no more disruptions, and we will. have prosperity and peace for all. I am. the candidate of peace. I am peace.

>> So, not only did he break that promise. with no rationale ever given, but he's. broken literally every promise that went. along with it. He swore that he would be. a an America First president, right? And. all that's happened since he's actually. taken over is that Americans' lives have. become more expensive and that the. programs Americans rely on have become. more out of reach. And yet, all the. while, he stands up there behind the. podium and lectures all of us for. deigning to have believed that the. government could actually help regular. Americans. He stands there and says, you.

know, now that he's already gotten your. vote, that the only priority of the. federal government is war. Not Medicare, not Medicaid, not daycare, not any. issues that you contend with on a daily. basis, issues that actually impact your. life, your well-being, but war. That's. it. We work every day, pay all. of our taxes, so that we can be little. cogs in Trump's war machine. So, look, my message to all Americans. left, right, and center is that we don't.

have to stand for this. We have elected. Democrats across the country just in. these last special elections and. off-year elections who are actually. walking the walk when it comes to. focusing on regular people. You're about. to hear my interview in just a moment. with Zohran Mamdani. He talks about. making fast and free buses a reality in. New York. In Virginia, Abigail. Spanberger and the Democratic. legislature just passed a spate of bills. focused on prescription drugs, preventative health care, affordable. housing, free tax filing. And those are. just two examples in two jurisdictions.

of two Democrats who've been in office. for 5 minutes. So, Trump may have said all the right. things on the campaign trail, but. Democrats are showing that they're. actually willing to deliver, something. that Trump and Republicans are not. That's the difference. One party did PR, they did marketing, all to consolidate. power for themselves and then turn. around and make it clear they've sold. you a bill of goods. The other party, however, is actually showing up. So, remember that with midterms right around. the corner. And by the way, don't just. take my word for it, take Trump's.

because I'm sure you'll be hearing his. own comments in ads across the country. followed by the phrase, "I'm insert. Democrat and I approve this message.". You're watching the No Lie Podcast. Next. up are my interviews with New York City. Mayor Zohran Mamdani and law professor. Leah Litman. No Lie is brought to you by. Shopify. Starting something new isn't. just hard, it's scary. So much work goes. into this thing. and it can be hard to make that leap of. faith. Trust me, I know. When I started. this podcast, I wasn't even sure what I. was doing. What if nobody listens? What. if I can't offer something worth.

listening to? Now I'm glad that I. believed in myself and launched this. podcast despite all the fears and. hesitations, but let's be clear, it. certainly helps when you have a partner. like Shopify on your side to help. Shopify is the commerce platform behind. millions of businesses around the world. and 10% of all e-commerce in the United. States from my website. briantylercohen.com to brands just. getting started. Get started with your. own design studio. With hundreds of. ready-to-use templates, Shopify helps. you build a beautiful online store that. matches your brand style. Accelerate. your efficiency, whether you're.

uploading products or trying to improve. existing ones. Shopify is packed with. helpful AI tools that write product. descriptions, page headlines, and even. enhance your product photography. Get the word out like you have an entire. marketing team behind you. Easily create. email and social media campaigns. wherever your customers are scrolling or. strolling. And best yet, Shopify is your. commerce expert with world-class. expertise in everything from managing. inventory to international shipping to. processing returns and beyond. And what. if people haven't heard about my brand? Shopify helps you find your customers.

with easy-to-run email and social media. campaigns. It's time to turn those. what-ifs into with Shopify today. Sign. up for your $1 per month trial today at. shopify.com/btc. Go to shopify.com/btc. That's shopify.com/btc. No Lie is brought to you by Huel. So, are you someone who has 30 minutes to. cook or 30 seconds? Because I 100% fall. into the latter category. If it's not. literally ready for me to eat, I usually. just skip the entire meal. Not super.

healthy, but then again, I work in. politics, so the whole healthy lifestyle. ship is probably sailed. But my loss is. Huel's gain because without it, I. probably would be in a calorie deficit. Right now, I'm drinking Huel's. ready-to-drink vanilla flavor. My favorite is strawberry banana, but I. finished those 5 minutes after I got. them. But vanilla is awesome. There's. also uh uh chocolate, um uh chocolate. peanut butter, cookies and cream. All excellent flavors. And these things. have everything I need. First off, again, they taste great, so that's a.

huge plus. But beyond that, we're. talking 35 g of protein, 27 essential. vitamins and minerals, no artificial. sweeteners, colors, or flavors, and it's. gluten-free. Meaning for under $5, you've got a complete meal that you can. literally grab and go. Personally, I add. creatine to mine, which um blends. perfectly with just a quick shake, so I. get everything I need after the gym. And. best of all, it legit fills me up, so. I'm not immediately searching for snacks. and junk food right afterwards. For a. limited time, get Huel today with an. exclusive offer of 15% off with the code.

BTC at huel.com/btc. That's huel.com/btc, code BTC at checkout. New customers. only. I'm joined now by the mayor of New. York City, Zohran Mamdani. Thanks so. much for joining me. >> It's a pleasure to be back. >> So, I want to get your reaction first. and foremost to some breaking news right. now, and that is that the Republican. Party is now weighing healthcare cuts to. pay for this increasingly expensive war. or incursion or excursion or or military.

operation, whatever they're calling it. today, in Iran. Uh we know that they're. trying to push through $200 billion for. a war that Donald Trump campaigned on. never getting into. Can I have your. reaction to to to the massive amount of. money um and the massive amount of. sacrifice that it would take to actually. get this funding passed? >> I think we're seeing the fact that in. the face of Americans facing a historic. affordability crisis, that we have the. pursuit of something that has already. cost $23 billion. thus far. The kind of money that could.

transform working-class Americans'. lives, whether through investments in. Medicare or teachers or even elimination. of student debt for tens of thousands of. Americans, and all of that being thrown. aside for the pursuit of yet another. regime change war. And it's a war that. should be opposed on every single. ground, not just procedural, but also. moral, but also political. And also, a. war that should be opposed on the. grounds of the fact that it is being. financed by the very money that could.

make it easier to keep calling this. city, this country home. And yet, there. is a blindness to that fact, all while. we're being told that this is this is. not what we're seeing with our own eyes. >> Why do you presume that foreign. administration and a political party. that spent so much of their political. capital campaigning on this idea that. they would not do this, that they, you. know, kind of jumped head first into. doing exactly the behavior that they. condemned? >> You know, I can't speak to what would. make someone to get to that decision. I.

can just tell you that it's one that. when I speak to New Yorkers across the. city, no matter political party, that. people oppose. Like I'm I may be a young. mayor, but I'm old enough to have. remembered the disastrous consequences. of regime change wars. And that's. exactly what we're seeing in this. And. the pursuit of this war is one that is. not just using money that could be used. elsewhere. It's also driving up prices. across the city and across this country. And that's making it harder for. working-class Americans to live their. day-to-day lives and meet their.

day-to-day needs. >> So, I want to talk about New York. specifically now. On the campaign trail, you had a a a lot of promises that uh. campaign promises that you were. especially focused on. Um free buses, freezing the rent, universal child care. Can you give a little update? And I know. that we're, you know, I I know that. you've just passed your 100-day mark in. office. Uh can you give an update as to. where some of those um campaign promises. stand? >> Absolutely. So, first and foremost of. those three, the most expansive and. expensive was that of universal child.

care. And on day eight of our. administration, we joined hands with. Governor Hochul to announce that we were. putting our city on the road map to. achieving exactly that. 1.2 billion. dollars in state funding and support so. that we could start to deliver free. child care for 2-year-olds across the. city starting this fall. So, this fall. we're delivering that free child care. for 2-year-olds to 2,000 kids, next year. 12,000 kids, by the end of four years, by the end of the first term, we will be. delivering universal child care for. every 2-year-old in New York City. And. we're doing this while also fixing the.

previous system for 3-year-olds, which. hadn't been able to keep up demand. meeting demand for New Yorkers across. the five boroughs. And so, we're. creating about a thousand more seats in. that program as well. And all of this is. tackling what after housing is the. number one crisis that New Yorkers are. facing in trying to stay in the city. because the cost of child care is at. least $20,000 a year. And that's frankly. insurmountable whether you're making 50k. a year, 100k a year, even 200k a year, you're going to feel that kind of cost.

Then when it comes to making buses. faster free, it continues to be our. focus. We have just recently made policy. decisions that will speed up the bus. routes that over 130,000 New Yorkers use. on a daily basis. And that's our North. Star is how to take what at times are. buses that are crawling slower than New. Yorker walks when they're late to making. them the envy of the country. Working. with the state to make them free, we're. in the process of this budget. negotiation right now. We saw in both. the assembly and the Senate at the New.

York State Legislature a vision come. forward where they want to start to make. routes free, which we're incredibly. heartened by. We're hopeful that by the. end of this budget process we'll see the. first results of that with a pilot. program across the city. And then with. the rent freeze, I continue to believe. that New Yorkers do deserve a rent. freeze at a time when we're seeing. profits increase for landlords, we're. seeing the fact that the median. household income for tenants last year. was just $60,000 in these. rent-stabilized units. Ultimately, the. final decision is with the Rent. Guidelines Board. They are considering.

all of the evidence. They're going to. make their final determination this. summer. And I've been encouraging New. Yorkers to be a part of that. consideration. Go out to the hearings. they'll have in June. They can find more. info for that at nyc.gov/rgb. in the weeks to come. >> Now, in order to pay for some of these. priorities, you on the campaign trail. promi- proposed a 2% citywide income tax. on those individuals who are earning. over a million dollars. Is that still in. play? And can you talk about the the. broader aim alongside Senator Bernie.

Sanders to to move forward with. a wealth tax for those who are making. over a certain threshold of of money? >> You know, we're talking about a city. that is at one level the wealthiest city. in the wealthiest country in the history. of the world and at another level is a. place where one in four New Yorkers are. living in poverty. And this. this income inequality that has become. endemic to life in our city is not. fixed, it's not natural, it's a result. in many ways of political choices at the. city, state, and national levels. And I.

continue to believe that taxing the. wealthiest New Yorkers, the most. profitable corporations that little bit. more to ensure that working-class New. Yorkers can afford to live in this city. is something that is necessary and it. continues to be part of our advocacy. with the state. And we've also said. that, you know, we are open to a number. of different ways that we could tax. wealth in this city and in this state. because we want to ensure that a. financial crisis that working-class. people had nothing to do with is not one.

that they're then asked to bear the. burden of responding to. >> In terms of some type of. wealth tax, the the critics will come. forward and say and and threaten really. capital flight that that they're going. to leave New York and go somewhere else. What is the response to that? And I say. that not just as as the mayor of or I. ask that not just as the to to not just. the mayor of New York, but frankly other. um high-income blue cities and states. that are trying to contend or reconcile.

with, okay, how do we both raise revenue. so that we can implement policies that. garner the support of the vast vast vast. majority of constituents. while also taking into account the fact. that there are these threats that are. leveled by by by high-earners who, you. know, threaten to go to red states, for. example, that that offer them havens. where they're not going to get taxed. >> I think the first thing is to come back. to the facts. You know, when I was in. the state assembly, we were advocating. to raise personal income taxes and. corporate taxes at the time to meet the.

needs of of working-class New Yorkers. We were told that millionaires were. going to flee. That was in 2021. We. raised about $4 billion in additional. revenue that year. And what we found is. that now we have more millionaires than. we did back at that point. And these are. the kinds of facts that too often are. missing from the conversation. I'm sure. you remember when I was running for. mayor, many people said that they would. be leaving on day one, if not even day. zero. And what we have seen instead is. that that kind of a proposed flight has. not actually taken place. It's not to.

say we shouldn't take it seriously, but. it's to say that when these kinds of. threats are being put forward, we have. to ask, what is the evidence that's. actually standing up behind them? Or is. this just the kind of fear-mongering. that often meets any kind of ambitious. vision for working-class people? And. that's where I think it has to get back. to because we're talking about a city. where it costs three bucks to get on the. bus or ride the train. And that's out of. reach for one in five New Yorkers. It's. the same city where some people are. buying condos for $260 million. So, clearly, what our current approach.

is is not working. We have to make this. a place where we're making it easier to. stay as opposed to easier to leave. >> And it turns out those those those cushy. Park Avenue apartments overlooking. overlooking Central Park are probably. not too easy to replicate if they want. to go down down south or to the Midwest. or wherever. Um, you know, while you're. making so much progress on implementing. these campaign promises, what would be. the ultimate goal? Like these are all. put goals that you put forward for. yourself and and in large part are.

accomplishing them right now, but I. presume that you look at this as the. on-ramp, not the the final destination. And so, you know, once you've built up. this political capital and trust with. voters because you're keeping you're. keeping true to your promises, what. would a bigger vision for New York. beyond. free buses, freezing the rent, and. universal child care, which is not to. put any of those things down because. they're massive impacts, but but what. what is what is that what is the next. iteration of. your leadership look like?

>> I think it's that working class people. can feel. our policies in their lives, right? That. they can feel the benefit of this. political agenda in the lives and the. struggles that they're living on a. day-to-day basis. And what I mean by. that is that too often. you know, it feels as if you're trying. to translate something into someone's. life to make it clear how this why this. matters or what this means to them. When we're talking to New Yorkers about, you know, the cost of getting on the bus. or child care or the rent, people.

understand that intuitively because. those are the very costs that are giving. them anxiety about whether they can make. it to the next month or the month after. that. And so for me, the longer-term. goal here is that a working person has. an easier life to live in this city and. that they can see clearly how city. government is making an impact in it. And you know, when I ran and even when I. was inaugurated, I spoke about having. run as a democratic socialist and now. looking to govern as a democratic. socialist. And to me, democratic. socialism, it is a belief in the fact.

that democracy has to be extended from. just the ballot box into the rest of. people's lives where they can feel like. they are actors in what they're actually. doing as opposed to things just happen. to them. And that's what we're looking. for is every single place that people. are being pushed by a cost of living. crisis that it feels as if oxygen is. being taken out of their bodies and. their lives, how can we bring that back. to them? >> Have you had interactions with other. democratic. mayors, yes, but like other democratic.

politicians writ large about how to. transpose some of the successes that. you've had in both your your policy and. your messaging. to to other folks around the country? >> Well, you know, I've I've been lucky. enough to meet a number of mayors and. and other Democratic politicians um when. they've either come to New York City or. it's been on the phone and I've shared. whatever the lessons are um that from. what we've learned over these last about. 3 months. I'll be frank with you. I'm. still looking to learn at this time as.

opposed to lecture to anyone else. And. so, one of the things that's been such a. joy, frankly, is my political mentor is. Bernie Sanders and just being able to be. in regular touch with him as to what you. know, what are the ways we should be. tackling this crisis. And what I've so. appreciated about him is the fact that. he's not just a senator or the. presidential candidate that many of us. think of him as. He's also a former. mayor of Burlington. And so, oftentimes. it's some of the very, you know, emphasis that he lends to me is. we have to also focus on the day-to-day.

things. So, if you're asking me about, you know, universal child care, you. know, freezing the rent, making buses. fast and free, I have to do those things. and fill the potholes in the city. So. that, you know, every cuz every time you. feel a bump, if you're riding a bike, if. you're driving a car, that's a feeling. that city government doesn't care about. me. And so, we're we're we're we're. trying to make that clear in everything. that we do on a day-to-day. >> You had just responded a couple of days. ago with the number of potholes that you. filled. Can you quickly tell me what. that number is? >> We are getting to a place, I think at.

this time. cuz we gave a number a few days ago. That number has now gone up. So, so I'm. going to have to get back to you. I. think we're getting. >> Roughly in the ballpark of. >> Roughly in the ballpark. I mean, we're coming close to 100,000. potholes being fixed by the time that. we've been in office. >> How How does it get to the point where. in in the 5 minutes that you've been in. office, you're able to fill 100,000. Where was Where was the previous. administration in doing a lot of the.

work that you're doing on a daily basis. right now? And I don't mean this as a. I'm not I don't mean this as a knock. I. mean, how can you. or I mean, I I guess it is I guess it is. kind of a knock, but like how do you get. to the point where there are there there. is so much work left undone or or. unattended to to the point where you can. say, you know, in the first in in 100. days in office you've filled 100,000. potholes and counting. >> You know, I can't I can't speak to what the. previous administration was up to when. it came to some of these things, you.

know, um sometimes they were abroad, right? Sometimes they they weren't here. >> Yeah. >> Um but I think it it comes back to the. fact that. I view these things as evidence of the. kind of work we're trying to do. Filling. a pothole is not a small thing. It's not. an unimportant thing. If you can't fill. a pothole, how are you going to deliver. universal child care? Right? These are. two parts of the same kind of connected. set of politics. You have to be able to. do both of these things for someone to. trust that city government can deliver.

for them. And the other beautiful thing. here I'll tell you is that. I am leading a city government of of 100. 300,000 municipal workers who work so. hard every single day. And when we're. talking about these potholes, we're. talking about DOT workers who are out. there. And they are putting everything. they have into this. And frankly, for. far too long they haven't been. recognized. And and that's also been one. of the most exciting things here is to. shine a little bit of a light on what it. looks like to to be a part of a city.

workforce that is doing incredible work, keeping the city running, and committed. to the welfare of people called the city. home. >> You know, you had mentioned that your. mentor is Bernie Sanders. What's the one. piece of advice that Bernie had given to. you that that you still think about or. or that had the biggest impact on you? >> I think in many ways Bernie is the. inspiration for this slogan that we've. taken up, which I've now belatedly. realized has a connection to PAW Patrol, uh which is which is that there's no.

there's no problem too big, no task too. small. Because what Bernie has emphasized to me. is. this this idea of sewer socialism that. has sometimes it's felt as if been lost. to time. It this idea that you deliver. this expansive vision of politics. through fixes to the most granular. problems in people's lives is one that. has to be at the heart of the way in. which we're approaching every single. issue. And we have to remember that.

there's a reason why people have lost. faith in government. It's because they. see examples of government's failure on. a regular basis. And if you want to get. their faith back, you don't convince. them in in a debate or you give a great. speech, you convince them by taking care. of the thing that they would point to as. a reason as to why they don't believe. And whether it's sewer socialism or. maybe we're trying to now dub it pot. pothole practice, we're we're looking at. to take on every single thing that we. can. >> You know, hear hearing you talk about. making actual democratic or left-wing or.

or pro-democracy governments work, um. you know, bears some resemblance to to. the abundance conversation that sprouted. up in the last year. And there were some. critics that looked at looked at. abundance as a as a way to to kind of. shoehorn through neoliberal policies. because if you're if you're focusing on. abundance policies or making democratic. governance work, then then that is kind. of a a way to just smooth over bigger. thinking um fixes to this stuff. But can. you can you speak on on that issue more.

broadly, whether you think abundance. policies are mutually exclusive with big. bold sweeping governance that that makes. the city work? >> I don't think so. I don't I don't think. that there's an innate tension in some. of the proposals that have been put. forward. I think the things that are so. appealing to me about what I've read. when it comes to kind of an abundance. theory is the focus on efficiency and. the understanding that to have public. goods, you have to have public. excellence. And so for me, it's taking.

the best of what that puts forward when. it looks at the ways in which a lot of. proceduralism has rendered some of our. most ambitious ideas impractical and. then fixing the procedures so that we. can actually deliver those ideas. Sometimes when a procedure is broken. and we don't get the impact that we'd. intended, people take that as a. reflection on the idea itself. I think. that the ideas are the ones we have to. actually deliver. And what I'm seeing in. in so much of what we're approaching in. city government is that there is a way.

to do this work if you're as serious as. you are about the intent. as you are about the outcome of it. >> We'll leave it there. May Momdani, thank. you so much for the time. I appreciate. it. >> Thank you. Thank you. It's a pleasure to. be back. >> I'm joined now by law professor at. University of Michigan and co-host of. the Strict Scrutiny podcast, Leah. Litman. Thanks so much for joining me. >> Thanks for having me. >> So we've just heard arguments in Trump. versus Barbara, which is the uh the. birthright citizenship case of the. Supreme Court. So from what I had heard. so far, it was a pretty rough go for the.

Trump team, but I want to get your. opinion as a Supreme Court expert. How. do you think this went for Trump versus. how it went for uh the other party? >> I think it's clear that the court is. going to rule correctly that the. executive order purporting to deny. people birthright citizenship is. unconstitutional. I don't think it's clear that the ruling. is going to be unanimous and that itself. is a travesty just because the text of. the 14th Amendment is super clear, the. history is super clear, and so even. though Donald Trump is about to get this. huge loss, he will have succeeded in.

polarizing this issue and unsettling it. in some respects. And in doing so, is. about to give the Supreme Court this. huge gift of making them look. independent and credible when they. reject his unhinged, deranged theory. >> What did you make of the fact that he. decided to appear at the arguments in. person. >> You know, I really didn't know what to. make of it. I'm sure the justices were. not amused by it because it probably.

made it seem like more of a spectacle, but they deserve him. You know, they. partially created him and they have. given him a lot of what he wants. So, it's hard to know exactly why he picked. this case. He had threatened to attend. the oral argument in the tariffs case, but then didn't follow through with it. He did follow through with this one. A. part of me wondered if he was setting us. up for an April Fools' joke, but I don't. know why he chose this one in. particular. >> Do you think there's any merit to this. idea that he went kind of as this as. this foreboding presence? I mean, you.

had used the word threatened to go for. his tariff case, but I I I actually did. kind of look at this as. through that lens. Like, he was there to. remind the Supreme Court justices who. they owe their jobs to and and, you. know, him being there might kind of. chill them into into. being more acquiescent to him than they. would otherwise be if he wasn't present. Do you do you buy that at all? >> It's possible he deluded himself into. thinking that, but there's just no way. his actual presence was going to be that.

level of intimidation to the justices. because, you know, they have a host of. security and protection in a way that. lower federal court judges do not. And. so, in some ways, you know, the threats. he makes on Truth Social and the. statements he gives in press conferences. riling up his base against him, that's. way more concerning than him just. showing up at an oral argument. >> Did you read into the fact that he. decided to leave after the solicitor.

general made his made his arguments and. didn't stay for the other side to to. rebut what. what had been said? >> It certainly made me wonder. I don't. know that I got a read on exactly why. You know, it's very possible he got. bored. These oral arguments are very dry. and technical. It's also possible that. he picked up on the fact that the. argument wasn't going well for the. lawyer for the federal government. Um, you know, hard to know which of the two. or maybe a third. >> Well, the the thing that struck me is.

like I listen to these arguments. I do I. do a legal series every day with Mark. Elias. I have another series that I do. with Glenn Kirschner who's a 30-year. former federal prosecutor. So I get my. fill of of legalese and jargon. And even. despite all of that, listening to the. these Supreme Court arguments, it is a. whole different level of of technicality. and jargon. And so I can imagine for. somebody like Donald Trump who. is is in like year five of bragging. about how he how he aced a dementia test.

where the hardest question was to like. identify a farm animal. For him. for somebody like that to be in this. courtroom listening to these arguments. might might not feel like the most. welcoming argument, you know? >> Okay, so that's true. On the other hand, Neil Gorsuch was able to get the crowd. to laugh at the expense of the federal. government. And I think even Donald. Trump could probably pick up on that. even if he could not follow any of the. actual words that were being said. >> To that end, was there any moment in.

particular that you thought felt like. that could serve as, you know, if the. federal government loses, the nail in. the coffin? >> I'm not sure there was a single moment. that was a nail in the coffin as far as. this moment exposed the key weakness in. the federal government's theory just. because there are thousands of key. weaknesses, any of which is sufficient. to reject their argument. >> I do feel like the 14th Amendment to the. Constitution existing is is a pretty big. nail in the coffin in this case.

>> 14th Amendment, right? And so it seems. like, you know, the various Republican. appointees were just trotting out the. different weaknesses. You know, for. Justice Gorsuch, he's like, you know, there's that decision Wong Kim Ark, heard about it. You know, so that seems. bad for you. Um, Justice Barrett, by. contrast, relied more on the history. behind the 14th Amendment and the fact. that it was designed to overturn Dred. Scott and ensure that the descendants of. enslaved persons would be citizens. Justice Kavanaugh, by contrast, you. know, focused more on the federal. statute codifying birthright.

citizenship. So, it's just kind of a. pick your poison. >> If we do see one of the justices or. multiple justices, and I assume this is. going to probably fall in the Alito or. Thomas bucket, um, side with Trump in. this case, after they've done so, after. we've seen this court kind of bend over. backwards in blind deference to Trump in. the past, I mean, they created out of. whole cloth this provision that a. president can't be held accountable for. criminal activity uh, that they commit. They ignored section three of the 14th. Amendment that says that you can't run.

for federal office again if you've. engaged in or given aid or comfort to. those who've engaged in insurrection, which of course Trump was found to have. done. So, what does it say that we will, you know, in the event that that a. course that a Thomas or Alito decides to. side with Trump on this, what does that. say about the credibility of this court. that seems increasingly um, capable or. willing to completely discard the. Constitution in blind deference to their. political ideology?

>> It's another pretty damning indictment. of this court and the fact that any. justice would embrace this argument. which is so soundly inconsistent with. text, history, precedent, every single. possible source of authority and law you. can imagine. It's hard to come up with, you know, yet another example of how the. Supreme Court could prove itself to be. more of a clown show and yet they always.

find new ways. >> How could they hear this case? Like I'm. sitting there listening to to this and. there are there are thousands of cases. that get rejected every year, valid. cases that get rejected every year. because, you know, you only have you. only have so much time, they only have. so much you know, every everything is. limited, right? And and yet this is such. a crazy case where they're basically. just saying the 14th Amendment of the. Constitution should doesn't exist or. shouldn't exist, whatever it may be. It's it's you know, it's become a. laughing stock.

across the country right now, and yet. they got to take the case like this case. got to take the spot of some other case. that was probably much more deserving. And so, like I just don't understand why. this why they would say yes to hearing. something that is just so juvenile and. elementary. >> It's really annoying because they could. have disposed of this issue last year. when they heard the case involving. nationwide injunctions. The plaintiffs. in that case said, "Look, if you're. going to say you can't get nationwide. injunctions, you should also consider.

whether this underlying executive order. is lawful." The three Democratic. appointees said, "Yeah, it's illegal.". The Republican appointees declined to do. so. The justices also didn't have to. hear oral argument in this case. They. could have issued a six-sentence opinion. that just says, "Yep, lower court. correct, see the 14th Amendment." And. they chose to do so. And I honestly. think that one key reason is they are. buying themselves more credibility and. more favorable publicity when they draw. this out because everyone is now talking.

about the oral argument. We're going to. be talking about it again come opinion. season. And so, they're just buying. themselves more opportunities for. favorable publicity. Whereas, if they. would have disposed of it simultaneously. with saying no nationwide injunctions, or with if they would have summarily. said months ago, "Executive order is. illegal," that's not going to give them. cover for the many horrible decisions. they are going to release toward the end. of this term, whether it is a decision. that possibly ends what remains of the. Voting Rights Act, whether it is a.

decision giving Donald Trump basically. plenary authority over the federal. government and the power to fire. officials who lead almost every federal. agency, or any of the other cases where. they're, you know, going to do who knows. what. >> Although, would you say that if we do. see a split decision, if we do see, you. know, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. side with Trump, wouldn't that undermine. the the the softball like gimme that. this court was seeking by even hearing. this case? >> It will a little, but it's only going to.

drown out a little bit of the light. You. know, all of the headlines are still. going to say, "Supreme Court affirms. birthright citizenship rules against. Trump.". >> Do you think, um, taking kind of a. 30,000-ft view of this, if Democrats are. able to regain control of the House, the. Senate, and the White House, that, you. know, anything they put forward in front. of this 6-3 conservative court, where. the judges are relatively young, um, and. and this is like DC young, right? Where. where like, you know, if you're like 60.

years old, you're a baby. But, relatively, yeah, relatively young, do. you think that there that Democrats. should try and move forward with, uh, with a plan to expand the court? >> Expand the court, impose ethics rules on. the court, limit the Supreme Court's. authority to strike down laws like the. Voting Rights Act, limit the Supreme. Court's authority to strike down. regulations like the Clean Power Plan. I. mean, you need to do a lot in order to. rein in this blunderbuss of a court. >> And what would it take, just on court.

expansion alone, what would it take, uh, technically speaking, to be able to do. that? >> Majority in the House, majority in the. Senate, and a president who's willing to. sign the legislation. >> And when you say majority in the Senate, that is that is a 60 the 60 vote. threshold. >> get rid of the filibuster, then, you. know, you would just need a majority of. the senators. Otherwise, yes, you would. need a filibuster-proof majority. >> All right. Well, look, I mean, you know, from a political perspective, um, I was. looking at analysis yesterday on what. the Senate map was looking like and you.

know, this. because of how unpopular Trump is and. because of the the the swings that we're. seeing in the electorate from 2024 to. 2026, uh, suddenly the Senate is in play. in a much bigger way than we ever. thought possible given especially given. how difficult the Senate map is, but. suddenly seats in in North Carolina and. Maine and uh, Ohio and Alaska and Texas. are in play in a way that I don't think. anybody could have imagined in the. immediate aftermath of of the November. election in 2024. So, we'll see. I mean,

there is a world where the ceiling for. Democrats in the Senate becomes like 50, you know, 53, 54 uh, if they're able to. run the table. And frankly, given the. fact that we've seen 16, 17 point swings. to the left in some of these races even. in deep red districts, even in, you. know, places like Tennessee and Florida. just recently even Mar-a-Lago is now. represented by a Democrat in the state. legislature. So, so you know, that is. not an impossible task. I think. frankly, I think what's going to be more. difficult is is making sure that.

Democrats um, have the stomach to actually wield power. if and when they get it. And that seems. to be our our perpetual uh, issue, but. hopefully uh, hopefully this is a. Democratic Party uh, that we're able to. usher in after midterms that recognizes. the urgency of this moment. So, um, with. that said. >> lips. >> Um, where can uh, where can folks hear. and see more from you? >> So, I have a podcast I co-host Strict. Scrutiny. Our regular episodes drop. every Monday anywhere you get your. podcasts as well as on YouTube as well.

as bonus episodes whenever the Supreme. Court does something extra crazy. I'm. also on Blue Sky at Leah Litman and of. course you can check out my book. Lawless, How the Supreme Court Runs on. Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes at your favorite. independent bookstore um, or anywhere. you get your books. >> Awesome. I'm going to put the link to. Strict Scrutiny right here on the screen. and also in the post description. For. those who are listening on the podcast, I'm going to throw that into the show. notes. Leah, thank you so much for. taking the time. I appreciate it. >> Thanks for having me. >> To listen to the audio version of this. episode, click the link right here on. the screen and make sure to subscribe.

And of course, to see more of my video. content, that subscribe button's on the. screen as well.