S1: The following program may contain explicit language, the. It’s Wednesday, November 11th, 20 20 from Slate, it’s the gist. I’m Mike Pesca. Is it a coup? Well, if it is, it’s the craziest, kookiest coup coup that ever said Boo.
S2: America is an aircraft carrier. This is the Mini Cooper of coups. We never thought he would leave with a merci beaucoup, but a coup. A coup.
S1: He was president spreading his bile for years, four seasons means done. You know, that was that was a coup high coup. Well, it might seem Trump and his minions surprisingly apt description, giving Mike Pompeo silhouette. It might seem like all those guys are saying hi cuz they’re just signaling to the big guy that they’re open to this. Right. I say what they’re doing is they’re just trying not to break kayfabe before he does. It’s a wrestling term. It means staying in character essentially at all costs. What are the costs, their psychological costs and literal costs. Trump can accept defeat. He’s constructed something of an alternative reality, but he also isn’t entirely stupid or daft. You might think he is, but come on, you, I’m sure, have given credit over the years to his reptilian cunning. This falls into that category.
S3: Losing would just deny him attention, and he has forever been able to monetize attention. Attention is a commodity to him and he never wants to squander that. So he prattles on and tweets a bit. He pursues doomed, failed lawsuits and nervous Republicans placate him, but with words, not deeds. They’re advancing their own interests on the cheap. They’re kind of playing the middle, hoping that they don’t turn off Republicans who might still be loyal to him, but also hoping they don’t support him so much. He actually, you know, runs again in twenty, twenty four. All of this, of course, cheapens the country. Of course it does, but no more so than firing the FBI director, siding with Putin, Helsinki, firing so many inspector generals, retweeting racists, being racist, threatening the media, violating the Hatch Act. I’m just trying to play out the string here for the next 71 days. I think I can name things for seventy one days. Let’s say pepper spraying protesters, attacking judges, abusing the pardon power. OK, I will stop and so will Trump. Maybe not by the time electors are set according to the safe harbor provision of December 8th or the week after that. Actually, it’s six days when the Electoral College actually votes. At some time he will have to physically remove himself or be removed from the White House. The White House has no power of law. The president, not the presidency, resides in the White House because to have a coup, you have to have coup operation of the military and coordination of coup conspirators. The last one was strange. I’ll give you that. But what I’m saying is, is that a coup takes far, far, far too much hard work and careful planning for this president to commit to a coup. I haven’t said this as much as I used to say it, but I’m going to say it again. It’s true. Serious people doing their jobs will save this country. Those serious people are now the Democratic lawyers, the state voting officials and members of the judiciary, also the media who’s chronicling this nonsense. And that’s what it is. It is nonsense, genre farce, not high stakes drama. Oh, and of course, the last group, the most important group of serious people doing their jobs. The voters, most of the voters, they do not want a coup. They do not want Trump. They will not have a coup. They do not have to worry about a coup. Well, worrying does keep us kind of sharp, but there is no coup. No coup. He’s through on the show today. Who is responsible for the Biden Harris victory? I can’t list all 77 million people. So why don’t we just use some demographic shorthand and then get all upset about it? Stupid and non-productive, I agree, but lots of activists disagree with me. But first, remember that list I was engaged in, of all the norm, breaking things Trump has done? Well, talk within that list. Maybe you heard one that will probably rev up in the next few weeks, pardons, a.k.a. clemency or commutations for a president who has already used them in venal and irresponsible ways. The temptation will surely be to keep handing them out like candy, maybe Skittles, maybe Toblerone, depending on who is paying. Legal professor and former prosecutor Mark Osler up next to look at Trump and the nearly unchecked power to party and.
S1: Donald Trump is an extreme norm breaker and to norms that I’d like to highlight might converge to cause a problem for people who believe in things like fairness and the rule of law. One, he has shown a propensity to enrich himself and his businesses while in office. And two, he treats the pardon power of the president as one would, I don’t know, use of Air Force One. He uses it pretty liberally and ways that go beyond what any other president has ever done. And by the way, other presidents have used it pretty wantonly as well. I want to talk about what might happen in the next few months of the Trump presidency. Joining me is Mark Osler, who’s a professor of law at the University of St. Thomas Law School in Minnesota. He’s a former federal prosecutor and he’s something of an expert of sentencing and corrections. And he’s won important cases before the Supreme Court based on those matters. Thank you for joining me, Professor Ostler. It’s my pleasure. So let’s talk about pardons and clemency. As I understand it, in the Constitution, there’s not too much difference between the power that the president has and that the power of a king of England would have in just unilaterally granting a pardon. But you’re there. You’re the constitutional expert, am I right?
S4: You are. And it’s really a remarkable thing, given that the framers wanted to divest the government of the power of kings, but they left this one thing in there that the king had. And it’s interesting, though, because part of their calculation is, as Hamilton put it, it’s a benign prerogative. That is, that it’s not easily a tool of tyrants and that you’re not putting people in prison. You’re laying people out. It’s slanted towards mercy rather than retribution.
S1: Yeah, but of course, Hamilton was so smart. I was wondering and I’m wondering if he himself saw the flaws of that argument, which is that if you give mercy to evil doers, if you give mercy to people who are seeking to oppress or persecute others, it’s not really mercy, is it?
S4: No. Although, you know, I mean, let’s talk about one of the more reprehensible pardons that that Trump granted, which is Joe Arpaio. I mean, here you’ve got a racist sheriff who was reviled properly by the Latin community for things that he did, the way he ran his jail, what he had officers do in that community, in that county. President Trump of a part. I was outraged. So we’re a lot of other people. But there’s a way in which you can see that as it’s an eighty five year old guy who is not going to have to go to prison. It is something that has a benign quality to it, even when it’s poorly used.
S3: And then what about the Oregon militiamen he gave a pardon to?
S4: Yeah. Now that one is troubling in what it signals that the kind of lawlessness that they were engaged in or the service members who had been charged and convicted with various abuses of civilians during war, that by granting them clemency, he’s saying a signal to what America is willing to tolerate. That’s a dangerous thing, no doubt about.
S3: Yeah, and the aggrieved parties in that case weren’t just prisoners of war or civilians overseas. They were there, other members of the military, other members of the units of some of those officers who believe that there was a right way and a wrong way. And these officers had transgressed and clearly committed wrongs and they proved as much. And then the president intervenes and give the pardon.
S4: Yeah. And that was a case where the president deferred to Fox News rather than the military chiefs.
S3: Yeah. So it is troubling that the president has this power, as we know, about norms, not laws. The president can pretty much do whatever he wants. And the only option that society has is to punish him politically. And you could say he lost. But as you noted in one of your writings, none of these issues even came up during the campaign.
S5: Yeah, and that’s that’s the thing that’s so sad is that if he pardons himself, it’s going to be on the front page. We’re all going to be talking about it. Van Jones will be on Al-Jazeera and CNN, but nobody asked him before the election. Will you pardon yourself? Why didn’t it come up in a debate? You know, it’s one of those things that we don’t think about it until there’s a crisis and there’s a crisis because we don’t think about it. That’s one of the political tragedies that we’ve kept going for a long time is a clear under the law.
S1: He can pardon himself.
S4: You know, it’s never happened before. So I don’t say it’s clear under the law. I mean, here’s the thing. He can pardon himself. All he has to do is write out a pardon warrant, name himself and say what the crimes are. Range of crimes might be the rubber hits the road, though, when he’s charged with something in federal court. I mean, the pardon, of course, doesn’t cover state charges. And he resigns as a defense and says. You can’t charge me. I’ve been pardoned for that act, and then we end up having to resolve for the first time that question of can the president pardon himself? I can tell you one thing, that when if that case got to the Supreme Court and it would one things they’ll do is go back and look at the Distin records we have of the constitutional convention. And one of the things that came up there was do we need to build in an exception for treason? And they chose not to, even though our discussion was what if the president and his his aides are treasonous? And even after that discussion, they didn’t put the limitation in and that probably argues in favor of the president being able to get away with pardoning himself.
S1: Yeah. And by the way, this wasn’t just a this wasn’t just a academic concern. Aaron Burr pretty clearly committed treason.
S4: Right. I mean, we’ve we’ve had that happen before, you know, not with the self pardon. But, yeah, it’s interesting how often we’re going back to talking about the late seventeen hundreds in the early eighteen hundreds in recent days.
S1: Yeah. OK, so here’s my concern. What is to stop President Trump from flat out selling pardons? Maybe you wouldn’t be so stupid as to advertise it on eBay, but for him to essentially take money and it wouldn’t be hard to prove that he got remuneration or financial benefit from pardons. If he has free reign to grant pardons, why not just sell them?
S4: Yeah, and that’s that’s really troubling. I mean, there’s an editorial in The New York Times right now by Jack Goldsmith that says that Congress should legislate on that and say that giving a pardon in exchange for a bribe is illegal. The closest we’ve come to broaching that before is with really with Ford and Nixon, because there was that accusation that it wasn’t for money, but that Ford accepted the deal, communicated, I think, by Al Haig that if he was willing to give Nixon to pardon, Nixon would step down and Gerald Ford would become president. That’s more than money, isn’t it? And one of the issues is that let’s say that you’ve got that happening. Let’s say it is a straight up bribe. Somebody pays the president two hundred thousand dollars and gets a gets a pardon. One of the legal issues that comes up is who has standing to challenge that. I’m not sure how that gets to court, frankly.
S1: Right. So what are the laws that you would charge a president with, perhaps retroactively if they did this? And there is that denial of fair services law that they have tried prosecutions on. Could you talk about that? And do you think that would stand up as the law that selling a pardon would violate?
S4: Yeah, yeah. I mean, that would be one way they could approach it. And, of course, the bribery statute straight up, if you are the same way, if a president is selling an ambassadorship or what Rod Blagojevich was convicted of, which was basically selling a Senate seat, well, there’s no doubt that giving that something of value for a bribe is illegal already. And certainly just because the government had the power to nominate somebody that Senate seat, the fact that the president has the power inherently to grant clemency doesn’t mean that it’s somehow immune to bribery statutes.
S4: And put a button on, by the way, put a button on that Blagojevich story, how that one and he ended up getting getting the commutation from President Trump and he had the wisdom to appear on Celebrity Apprentice before he went to prison.
S1: Even if you can prove that some sort of bribery occurred. And I do think President Trump, were he to engage in this, would be slippery enough and not obvious enough that he could both get a benefit and it would be hard to prove bribery.
S3: Is there anything that would undo the pardon?
S4: Yeah, and that’s that’s where the issue becomes who has standing to raise it. I don’t know how it becomes undone, what the process is for doing that. You know, in terms of of the point you just made, I disagree a little bit. I think that Donald Trump puts everything out there in the open pretty much. And what he tries to hide doesn’t get hidden for very long because everybody in the administration writes a book. If there are bribes, at least in the next couple of months, I think we’d find out about that within a year. But then the question becomes, if you said, what do you do about it?
S1: And there’s no established pathway to address that, I would just not be surprised if a series of high net worth individuals in a federal prison, I don’t know how many they are, but if a series of them were pardoned, then maybe there would be no paper trail. But eventually business will be done between them and the Trump Organization. That would be totally unsurprising to me.
S4: Well, look, this brings us back to Marc Rich. Bill Clinton grants a pardon to someone who’s a fugitive from justice, hiding out in Switzerland for a pretty egregious crimes and his ex-wife gives a big donation. To the Clinton Library and then, boom, he gets a pardon. That’s that smells a lot like bribery, doesn’t it? And yet, even though people identified it as such, the way it played out was that, know, Congress had an investigation. They called witnesses, but there was there was really no remedy, a formal pathway to address it or investigate it beyond the vulnerability of the pardon power.
S1: And what we are seeing about what we’re talking about the entire system and you’ve written about this, too, doesn’t seem functional even when it’s not being abused in such heinous ways. It’s not exactly a well oiled machine where we’re using where the president is using the power of pardon for good. And to the degree that at least you advocate it should be used.
S4: Yeah. Yeah. And it’s been true for the past three decades that just organically and through a series of hidden decisions, the advisory system right now, it’s embedded in the Department of Justice. It’s got seven sequential levels of review. And much of that is by generalists. I mean, just think about a pipe and there are seven valves in that pipe and have water go through the pipe. You have to affirmatively turn against a spring. Each one of those valves open for the water to go through. Oh, not much water is going to get through that. And that’s pretty much the system that we have. So you had President Obama really committed to using clemency. He decided in twenty fourteen, OK, we’ve got all these people who are in for for crack and other things where the law has changed. Let’s get at them with clemency. And frankly, myself and others have been urging him to do so. But he didn’t reform the system. And because of that, it’s like you can peddle a broken down bike really hard and get it to move, but it’s not going to move very well. And that’s basically what happened, is that they put all hands on deck and issued the order that they had to make this work. And even at that, they left so much on the table, so many people who should have gotten it through that initiative, who didn’t and frankly left it for Donald Trump to take credit in the first step back for releasing many of those same people.
S1: Yeah. So what’s that? Tell us if Donald Trump I mean, this is what his defenders will always say. He doesn’t care about norms. He’ll just charge right through and they’ll say do the right thing. In this case, it seemed like he did he did a thing that Barack Obama couldn’t do because of his adherence to norms that weren’t actually improving the bottom line.
S4: Yeah, yeah. And, you know, part of that was driven by the dynamic within the White House, as was true with the Obama administration, Jared Kushner or everything else, was a positive force for criminal justice reform. His own father was in prison. I think that left a mark and it really incentivized him to address this. And he pushed the president to sign this legislation. They’ve been rolling around for a while in Congress and get it done. But, yeah, there was a high point. You know, December twenty eighteen was was great for criminal justice reform. Frankly, nothing happened after that. And that’s part of the problem.
S1: But are we ever going to really be able to pardon or grant clemency our way out of the fundamental underlying problem, which is that we have these many draconian laws, especially regarding drugs, and a lot of these crack users shouldn’t have been in jail in the first place.
S4: Yeah, I mean, no, of course not. I mean, clemency is just one part of what has to be a whole suite of reforms that that interlock. But it is a powerful symbolic gesture to grant clemency. And one thing that it does is take the Obama grants of clemency. The president doesn’t communicate in a direct or really an indirect way with line prosecutors. The people like I was in Detroit who actually try cases and seek sentences. But when they’re granting clemency on a large scale to a particular category of offenders, then then, yeah, it is going to have an impact at that level. And in that way, it’s important. Now, it’s not a substitute for drastically rethinking our narcotics laws, drastically rethinking the way we use incarceration, but it is an important part of the messaging. And for those people who get clemency, of course, it is of paramount importance.
S1: So this next question I’m going to ask is not a legal one, it’s a political one. But it does seem to me that one of the reasons that there are seven valves is that there is extreme downside risk to getting clemency wrong. And politicians are nervous about that. You let someone out of jail, he or she reoffends. Do you think that Donald Trump, let’s be optimistic about this thing that he did not only let a couple thousand people out of prison, but do you think maybe he changed the calculation a little bit, that he demonised? I mean, he kept touting what he did. You could argue that, oh, that shows that Americans have an appetite for mercy or you could argue that, you know, in a cult of personality, he just wants credit for anything. Or maybe you could argue it’s like a Nixon to China deal where only someone seen as very law and order could ever dare give clemency. But that is my question. Is there any optimism to be had about the lesson? Can we think that what Trump did maybe change is our perception of the politics around clemency?
S4: Yeah, I think that’s absolutely fair. And Trump was following as much as leading, though, and it’s important to recognize this, that criminal justice reform had become a left right collaboration before the first step back and that some of the people that really pushed for it had been in that fight for a while. Like Senator Mike Lee, the Redit conservatives you can find on so many issues. Right. But Rand Paul leader Rand Paul. But there’s there’s a number of others. Even Chuck Grassley was convinced that you have had a libertarian streak that is very strong, that values freedom, and that meets where progressives are in the sense of seeing government being overbearing towards minority communities and others. And it’s been a remarkable collaboration between the left and the right and making that happen. And Trump was following that lead as much as leading. Of course, when the president signs on, yeah, that sends a big signal and it definitely opens up opportunities for President elect Biden when he gets in that that wall has been broken down. It’s not that progressives are for criminal justice reform and conservatives are against it. It’s complicated. And because that’s where he wants to be. Biden, by all reports, wants to be in that area of collaboration where he can say, I’m reaching across the aisle. Well, here’s where you can do it, because it’s already been going on for years and hopefully he’ll jump at that chance.
S1: OK, so that’s a note of optimism. I want to ask you maybe I want to maybe a little bit of note of pessimism and think I just read a Washington Post article about dozens of norm violations that the president has engaged in. But given our history with the pardon power, given how presidents give it because of whim or because of politics or any consideration they want with President Trump to engage in that sort of wanton granting of pardons, would that actually be a violation of norms?
S4: You know, I wish I could say, oh, yes, definitely. But after what Clinton did, after what we saw, what Scooter Libby his commutation by President Bush and frankly, by what Trump’s been doing for four years already, that it’s not breaking new ground, unfortunately. And that’s why the clemency power has to be reclaimed as a principal power of the president. I mean, the thing that’s hidden here is that in the pipeline through the official process where the people are supposed to use to get clemency, there’s over 13000 people waiting, most of whom have been waiting for years to have a ruling on their petition. And they’re just getting ignored. And that’s the deeper tragedy here.
S1: Mark Osler is a former federal prosecutor, is now a professor of law at the University of St. Thomas Law School in Minnesota. I want to thank you for joining me and thank you for I’m sure it put your teeth on edge that I confused clemency commutation of pardon repeatedly throughout this interview. So I want to thank you for not correcting me 30 times.
S4: Not not a problem. And that is something that, you know, is it rolls out. I think we all learn more clearly what all those things mean over the next couple months. Thank you so much. Thank you.
S3: And now the spiel I want to thank the black women who voted for Joe Biden, which is to say almost all black women. I also want to extend my thanks and praise to the Latina women who voted for Joe Biden and the non college educated men who voted for Joe Biden and the seven four two NBA Hall of Famers who voted for Joe Biden. That’d be Shaquille O’Neal. He’s voting for the first time ever. Why? Wait, wait, wait, buddy. Also, I am assuming maybe Shaq voted for Trump. Everyone all these Joe Biden, Kamala Harris voters, I say deserve the credit, all the credit. Do I feel ingroup shame that my demographic white men voted for Biden Harris at lower levels than everyone else, in fact, at lower levels than they did Trump? No, not really. The white men who voted for Trump made poor decisions or have bad values or are stupid, but they’re not me. The black men who also voted for Trump also made bad decisions. I don’t think they shamed the black men who made the right call in the exit polls of New York, Georgia and California. And by the way, not the bad exit polls, the good one that the AP did with the University of Chicago, over 100000 voters. You know, those polls showed that Trump earned 12 percent of the vote of black men. So 83 percent of black men who voted for Biden Harris, they should be complimented on their wise choice and the 12 percent interesting phenomenon. I’d read an article on it, but I do not endorse that. Let’s look at Texas. 39 percent of Latino men voted for Trump. All right. This is tricky. Now, we got to make a broad statement about a demographic. What do we say about Latino men? Thirty nine percent voted for Trump. Well, like all voters, I’m sure they have different priorities and different reasons. I think the ones who reason their way into a Biden vote rather than a Trump vote were better at reasoning with a fifty nine to thirty nine, Biden to Trump split. What do we say to the half million male Latino Texans who voted for Biden? I say good try. How shall we describe the contribution? Fair to middling, but trending more towards fair. It is kind of a ridiculous exercise, right? Let’s generalize about an ethnic group. In doing so, let’s mischaracterize the vote of thousands and thousands of people who don’t fit in with most of the ethnic group. Let’s render a judgment on the collective virtuousness of demographic categories. And of course, when it comes to one slice of the country, we or people invited on TV pretty much tripped over themselves to engage in collective kudo’s with a variety of analogies ranging from the spinal to the chiropractic. All right, strap in.
S6: I mean, just plain black people, especially black women, are the backbone of this party, including the black women who are often too often overlooked, but so often prove they are the backbone of our democracy. Black women have been the backbone of our party at every level. I’m proud of black women once again being the backbone of one Democratic Party.
S7: Ninety one percent black, one percent black women have always been the backbone of the Democratic Party.
S6: I don’t think we have been recognized for being the backbone of this country.
S3: You don’t you didn’t hear the preceding 35 seconds of that montage. So let me be perfectly clear. If you want to take a demographic group that voted best and most wisely, it is, in fact, African-American women. When I meet an African-American woman and politics or Trump comes up, I’m pretty sure they’ll have excellent opinions, meaning opinions that align with mine. They’ll also probably have common sense and decency, though not always, because based on those better than usual exit polls, better than the ones that the networks pay for the AP exit polls, six percent of black women did not support Trump. So that means if all Americans think like the ones who actually vote, think there are literally millions of Trump supporters within the black female community. And are they the backbone of the party? I don’t know what that means. I get the metaphor. It’s supposed to evoke support and holding you up, but with Joe Biden’s victory have collapsed without black women. Yes. In fact, he would have lost if every black woman had stayed home, but it would have collapsed if every Latino woman stayed home. Yeah, they broke two to one for Biden in states like Pennsylvania, where their five percent of the electorate, that’s more than his margin of victory than Nevada, than Arizona. There even a larger percentage of the electorate. Well, what about college educated women? Again, there’d be no Biden victory without them in Pennsylvania, though, Biden only one college educated white women, 59 to 39. So not the overwhelming result he had with white women. You know, college educated white women are 14 percent of the electorate more than the difference between defeat and victory, even overall. White woman college. And Noncollege, who are under the age of 45, same thing, if all of them stayed home, Trump would have won. The point is that all parts of the coalition were necessary for Trump to lose. No one was more important than another. Well, though, black women were more uniform in their support of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
S1: By the way, if you’re talking about sheer number of votes and that’s how elections work, right? It’s not about the purity of which demographic group, it’s who votes for you the most. There are more white women with college degrees who voted for Joe Biden than black women overall. So if black women are the backbone, what do you use for the demographic that played a greater role in the victory then?
S3: The backbone backbone is an odd analogy. It’s certainly very complimentary in black women certainly should be complimented. The 93 percent of them who voted for Biden certainly should be complimented. But you know, the backbone. Thirty three bones of the 206 bones in the body, that 16 percent, that overstates the percentage of the Democratic vote that was provided by black women who don’t want insult at all. Perhaps what I’ve said will be taken as insulting. I hope not. It’ll probably be taken as insulting. Things always are. Eva Longoria was taken as insulting headline Los Angeles Times Eva Longoria apologizes for comments that seemingly raised black women in Biden victory on Twitter. The headline was The Implied Erasure of Black Women. You’ve got to hate implied erasure. It’s like the hinted at total destruction, right? Here’s the article actress Eva Longoria has apologized for and clarified controversial remarks she made during an MSNBC interview. US Latinas are the real heroines of the 2020 election victory of Biden and Senator Kamala Harris, Democratic activist Longoria said on the cable television show late Sunday in a fragment of a sentence that seemed to play into the notion that black women were being praised for their contributions to the Biden victory. The Daura and the Lost City of Gold Star made the statement Sunday while speaking with MSNBC host Ari Melber. OK, black women being raped. I mean, yes, the hot button notion that black women were being a race for their contributions to the Biden victory, I would say that the black women contributed to the Biden victory is simply an empirical truth. It’s not a notion. I don’t know how hot button it is. It’s just the thing that actually happened. So here is Longoria is actual quote, The women of color showed up in big ways. Of course, you saw in Georgia, while black women have done, but Latina women were the real heroines here, beating men in turnout in every state and voting for Biden Harris at an average rate of close to three to one. All right. That’s the race. The thing that’s being erased is right there in the claws now in a different clause, but the same sentence as the erasure was said to occur. This is why that L.A. Times article referred to a fragment of a sentence that seemed to play into a hot button notion. Why are you doing just could you please state facts, incentivize characterization that doesn’t get it right and is undone by quotes in your own article? What what a horrible erasure, the kind of erasure that’s right there for everyone to hear. Now, Longoria, here’s her explanation. She says she wasn’t denigrating black women. She wasn’t comparing Latina women to black women. She was comparing Latina women to Latino men. So that’s who she was implicitly criticizing, by the way. Thirty nine percent of Latino men voted for Trump. Thirty two percent of Latino women did. If you were wondering what the demarcation line for Hero, it’s right around thirty five. I don’t know if you knew that. Now, there’s no way to really tell what Longoria meant. I mean, you’d have to hear the quote. Wait, it was on TV.
S7: We can hear the quote just said about the women. The women of color showed up in big words. Of course, you saw in Georgia what what black women have done that Latina women were the real heroines here, beating men, turnout in every state and voting for Biden Harris at an average rate close to three to one.
S3: Now, if she was comparing Latina women to black women, the quote would sound something like, of course, you saw in Georgia what black women have done, but Latino women were the real heroines here. But if the quote was comparing Latina women to Latina men, it would sound like, of course, you saw in Georgia what black women have done. But Latino women were the real heroines here beating men in turnout in every state. OK, I got the clip. Let’s hear it. I would say the star of Dora and the Lost City of Gold did not engage in a race here. I would say the L.A. Times had raised about five minutes of my time with that ridiculous story. If anyone’s being a race, it’s it’s a billionaire who is the actual Dora and Dora of the lost city of gold. But you know what? Black women, it’s fine. It’s more than fine. Black women can be the backbone of the victory. And Latino women, they could be the. Hart and college educated white women, you can be the lungs and black men can be the spleen as white men, I don’t know, a vestigial limb, the appendix, maybe the flab. You need some body fat to live, but not too much of it. Better yet, white men of the cholesterol. I see myself as the good cholesterol, but it is kind of a troubling ratio. It’s all kind of stupid, I think. A little more stupid than not stupid, I would have to say. The truth is, thank God for black women. It is true that black women as a demographic are more purely Democrat than all others. But it’s also true that Democrats, now that Trump is defeated, should cease their habit of insisting on purity tests.
S1: Deborah, and thanks for listening.