Origins of a 6’ 9” Candidate

Listen to this episode

S1: The following podcast may contain explicit content, which is, I suspect, why many of you are tuning in in the first place and.

S2: It’s Friday, January 15th, 2021, from slated to the gist, I’m Mike Pesca.

S3: Donald Trump should face actual charges of criminal incitement, will argue that he did not, as per Washington, D.C. statute, quote, intentionally or recklessly act in such a manner to cause another person to be in reasonable fear.

Advertisement

S1: They will say no reasonable person could have heard what he said and thought it was a call to arms. Now, here is the problem. The proud boys, the zip tie guy, the beat the policeman with the American flag guy, the Viking horns and animal health guy, they’re not reasonable people. In fact, here’s the lawyer for Viking animal pelt guy, Jake and Jelly, the lawyer. Talk to CNN.

S4: It was a driving force by a man. He hung his hat on his chest, his wagon, too. He loved Trump every word. He listened to him. He felt like he was answering the call of our president.

S1: I mean, can you really hang a hat? If the hat has horns, you can pierce his hat on it. That might be the better idiom. So to recap, presidents trump defense. Should it come to this or even the defense he’ll make in public in the form of argumentation is no one could possibly think that I made him do it. But the defense of the people who did it is literally. Oh, yeah, Donald Trump. He made me think I could do it.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S4: The words that were spoken by the president meant something not just to my client. They meant something to a lot of people. They listen to those words.

S5: And that’s the lawyer, Alan Watkins. He’s also, by the way, the lawyer for the McCluskey’s, the St. Louis couple Viking guys, also from St. Louis. What up St. Louis? The McClosky are, of course, the Viking couple who aimed their AR 15s at BLM protesters. And as a result, their punishment was they were invited to speak at the Republican National Convention. That was their reward. Watkins is not a bad lawyer. He made sure to broadcast through CNN that the president, Donald Trump, should pay the shaman what he is owed. And what’s that? The pardon? Why not just watch five days left? You’re saying it can’t happen? Man in an animal pelt was just in the halls of Congress on the show today. I spiel about why the shove off of the social networks is not actually a contradiction of even the most pro free speech stance. But first, a big interview with a big man, John Fetterman, lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania. He’s six nine because almost three bills, heavily tattooed, big goatee visually resembles standard depictions of the Roman God, Vulcan, more modern myths, kind of a Paul Bunyan, me Hodor type. But Fetterman governs with a commitment to the least among us, and he’s positioned himself as a champion of the working man. And he has a significant headstart in fundraising for a Senate run. John Fetterman up next.

Advertisement

S3: John Fetterman is the lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania. I could spend a long time most of this time just telling you a little bit about his background. But the sketches are born to teenage parents who later became quite successful. Fetterman was an offensive lineman in college. He became a social worker. He saw AIDS. He saw murder. He went to the Harvard School of Government. He ran for mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania. Ever heard of a town of almost 3000? He to some extent, put it on the map by dint of his personality. He called for homesteaders. He drove the number of murders down to zero. He moved into a former car dealership. From there, he ran for Senate once, didn’t have enough money to make much of a dent, but did become lieutenant governor. And now he just may well be running for Senate again. At least he’s raising a lot of money. John Fetterman, welcome to the just wow.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S6: That was the quickest way anyone’s ever introduced me. So I have to borrow that.

S3: I think that I think it’s your biography is a more interesting but also more important to your success and appeal than many other politicians. You know, every politician will get out there and say, here’s who I am. And we grew up middle class, son of dairy truck driver or whatever. But for you, your biography, I’m sure it’s true for everyone, but it says something about why you’re different from most other politicians, don’t you think?

S6: Well, I can honestly say it’s it’s the truth. And the evolution has been, as the expression goes, a long, strange trip. It started off under, you know, really where the odds were statistically kind of stacked against me. And I would go on to spend the rest of my life working to help improve the situation for those where they didn’t get lucky the way I did. So, yeah, I think that’s the arc for sure.

Advertisement

S3: What do you think a lot of people in your situation become wealthy or successful and don’t turn their back, but how they define their old community is a little different from yours. You, you know, work in soup kitchens and really have shown a history of dedicating yourself to maybe the person who needs the most help as opposed to the person who maybe is most like you, the person who had the most success despite dire circumstances. To what do you attribute that predilection?

S6: It really just came down to this realization that the opportunities and the things that I have or the burdens that I don’t have worked simply because I got lucky. I had opportunities that a lot of people don’t have in this country. And then all that really crystallized for me when I joined Big Brothers, Big Sisters after a personal tragedy in my life. And I met a little boy who was an AIDS orphan or would become an AIDS orphans shortly after we got matched up. And I couldn’t reconcile this idea that, you know, someone who could be an orphan before his ninth birthday and I could be you know, I could have my master’s degree, I could move anywhere in this country and I could live my life and whatever. And it just like just how profound that the inequality was. And at that point, I decided to really change the trajectory of of my career path. And I joined AmeriCorps at that point.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S3: So many Americans, even Americans on the far right, probably have personal sympathies that where their heart would go out to someone in a dire situation. But how do you as a politician or how does the political system take personal sympathies and turn it into policy, maybe progressive policies that these people, you know, stand against and don’t connect to the personal situation that would evoke sympathy?

S6: I just have always run on what I believe and know to be true, that if we don’t provide is level the playing field as we can, if we don’t provide an opportunity for a second chance, if we don’t provide investments and resources for these communities, these families and these regions, then of course they’re going to continue to generate the kind of tragic outcomes that so often make the news and create all of these terrible trajectories for four towns and regions. And and that’s the way I wanted to spend the rest of my life figuring out what that was. And that’s what brought me to Braddock twenty years ago. This year is to work in a way that was somehow to synthesize, you know, whether it’s business, social work and and public policy into something meaningful in terms of my career. And I like to think I’ve I’ve done that. And and this is just the latest evolution of it.

Advertisement

S3: I looked at exit polls from the lieutenant governor race. And, you know, just anecdotally, you have a broad coalition of people behind you, and that includes many people who might vote for Trump, you know, noncollege educated working class people. So the question I want to ask is whether it is honest or dishonest. One of Trump’s great skills was convincing enough Americans that he spoke for them, that he stuck up for them. I mean, maybe he was lying, but enough people bought into it that he was elected once and quite closely, maybe almost twice. You speak to that. Graphic to it’s why Democrats point to you is the kind of person who might be a breakthrough candidate who can speak to that demographic, but my question is this since Trump’s appeal was so much based on lies and dishonesty and just kind of the persona, does that worry you since your appeal is based more on reality and factual stances, maybe you’re not competing on this in the same ground. Maybe there is something more to the primacy of persona than actual policies to reach out and affect this potential voter base.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S6: I’ve never aspired to an order. I would consider myself a breakout breakthrough candidate or whatever the term is. I’m just a guy that showed up in Braddock 20 years ago to work on the issues and ideas and advocacy that I believed in. And 20 years later, they seem to have resonated at an a level that because I know that they’re true. I think it’s important that you live an authentic life and I think you should champion things that you believe and know to be true. I haven’t had to evolve on any of my positions. I’ve always been for a living wage. I’ve always been in health care is a universal human right. I’ve always been for legalizing marijuana. I’ve always been for LGBTQ ayyad protections. I mean, equal protection under the law. I’ve always been for a smart, sane approach to environmentalism. And as long as I’m deemed relevant or worthy of a vote, I’m going to keep doing it. But I believe in democracy and whenever the time comes, I’m happy to go away, if that’s what the voters would want.

Advertisement

S3: What about gun ownership? Do you think? Do you think assault rifles or AR 15 type rifles should be legally owned by private citizens?

S6: I do not believe we should own weapons of war in civilian hands. I think we can all agree on that. And I believe in the Second Amendment. But the Second Amendment doesn’t mean that I wish we could all agree on this, that you don’t need a military grade weapons of mass. Casualty for deer hunting, for home protection, for these kind of things just. Can’t we agree that no one wants to take away the vast majority of of guns? I mean, we have too many guns in our country. We should all agree on that. But if you are a gun enthusiast, I would imagine you would want to make sure your guns are only guns are only in the hands of those that will not harm their significant others themselves and society. I mean, we agree on that.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S3: How high a priority for you is DeCaro Serration? Do you think we can achieve meaningful conservation without freeing those incarcerated for violent crimes?

S6: Yeah, I mean, in Pennsylvania, I can speak to this. You know, before the pandemic hit, I was on a panel with our director of corrections and he said something that I agree with and is that we could release one third of our inmate population and not make anyone less safe. And that’s an amazing statement to make. I mean, just think about that. Pennsylvania spends over three billion dollars a year on incarceration. And if you don’t need to be in prison because you’re not a danger or you’re older or, you know, you were a victim of sentencing guidelines or mandatory minimums, and you’ve you’ve been an exemplary I mean, what are you doing in prison? You know, it just doesn’t make any sense. Why wouldn’t we want to optimize our inmate population? Because that would generate about a billion dollars a year in savings that we could reinvest in schools or our communities. That would ultimately lead to fewer negative outcomes like ending up in prison in the first place. And that’s the tragedy. And as lieutenant governor, I’m president of the Board of Pardons and giving second chances and making sure that if you don’t need to die in prison or should die in prison, why would we want to extract the maximum punishment of death by incarceration? Because here’s the truth. If you’re convicted of second degree murder in Pennsylvania, you will serve the same identical sentence as the Tree of Life shooter who systematically executed 11 elderly worshippers in their synagogue. And that is not justice. I don’t care how conservative you are, you will never convince me that some 18 year old kid that was sitting in a car when a robbery occurred and didn’t know that they were going to there was going to be a death deserves the same punishment as a coward that executed 11 elderly people in a synagogue. But that’s what’s happening not only in Pennsylvania, but across the country where you have death by incarceration for these kind of crimes in this kind of involvement.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S3: OK, so you’re saying that I mean, you just raised the point of the person convicted of second degree murder, that some violent criminals, perhaps after serving long, long stretches, those should be the sorts of people that we are diecast rating as long as as long as they’ve held up their end of the bargain.

S6: At what point does justice become vengeance? At what point can we as a society acknowledge redemption in the power of forgiveness, too? If you look at the recidivism rate for juvenile lifers since the Supreme Court decision, it’s less than one percent. What do we really want to accomplish, vengeance? Or do we want to accomplish justice and rehabilitation and redemption? And that’s a decision that we have to come to and arrive at as a society.

S3: Your wife listeners should know your wife is Brazilian American. What I want to ask about that your children are Latino. This means was it surprising to you that people were surprised that a third of the Latino vote went for Trump?

S6: I don’t judge people by who they vote for. I don’t subscribe to the whole deplorable scene or whatever. It’s like there are voters that are unreachable for whatever reason, just like there are unreachable voters on the Democratic side that I’ll never vote for a Republican no matter what. And with respect to that, I am not a member of that community. And I can speak to my wife’s heartbreak over children in cages and the effect that it’s had on her psychologically to see immigrants demagogued and treated in the way that they were over the last four years. Because that was my wife’s experience in this country as an undocumented person. My wife has been unflinching in her advocacy and I have as well to that. Immigration makes America, America, you know, there’s nothing more American than immigration. And my community of Braddick here, the great fortunes that gave rise to Carnegie Mellon and all this, we’re all built on the backs of poor immigrant labor. You know, immigration really built this country. And Donald Trump weaponize that against all of us. And I my hope is, is that Joe Biden reverses that. I’ll never forget Chris. He’s asked me a question on his show. He’s like, you’re, you know, hey, they say your wife’s family broke the law. Like, what do you say to that? And I was like, oh, I’m so glad that they did. Because I wouldn’t have the amazing partner and beautiful children that I have if they didn’t. I’m so grateful, mean, I’m going to get choked up here, but it’s like it’s how I feel. And as my wife has always aspired to be, the kind of face and voice for what immigration really is. We’re never more un-American than when we are being anti-immigrant, as far as I’m concerned. And, you know, in my first Senate race, one of the issues that I ran with is the cruelty and indifference that we express towards Syrian refugees. That, you know, little children that were the age of my own children at the time were washing up on the shores of the Mediterranean and their boats were sinking. And and I tried to tell people like you, how bad would it have to be in your life if you walked away from your business or your home or everything and stripped your kids to your back and walked eight hundred miles? You know, like, you know, we’re better than this. And we, you know, and we forgot these chapters when we turn these people away, you know, the Statue of Liberty doesn’t say, well, send us your PhD candidates and your entrepreneurs. You know, it says send us your tired, huddled masses, because that’s really the promise of America.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S3: Just out of curiosity, does your family use the word Latin text to describe their identity?

S6: No, I do not. And I’ve asked my wife about that. She she understands where the word came from in the concern. But but but but she does not.

S3: My last question is about money in politics. So a couple of days ago, you say, I’m going to maybe run boom. Half a million dollars comes in in 2016. You ran and I’ve heard interviews you’ve given where you pointed to just the inability to raise money as dispositive. You you could get, I think, 16 percent of the vote, maybe in terms of 20 percent, 20 percent or so. Yeah, maybe. Maybe in terms of vote per dollar spent. You were number one. Yeah. But we also saw in this last cycle Democrats who lost just setting unbelievable amount of records in terms of money that they raised. So my question is, has that reshaped how you think about the the importance of money in politics, or is it more like you need a certain threshold to get your hat in the ring? But beyond that, it might not be that important.

S6: One of the things that I was really proud of is well over sixteen thousand donors so far and is that these are small dollar donors. And I think that’s the essence of democracy is not catering to to those individuals that can only write big checks. Mikey, I’ve already in the first six days of just saying that, hey, we’re looking at this race. I have raised more money than I have in either of my previous races, you know, and that’s the truth. And so it’s never been about how much money I can raise. It’s about running in races that I know I believe I can win and running and advancing the ideas of where we should be as a party. And that’s what it’s only ever been about. And I think now things are more it’s more resonant because think about where the Democratic Party was. You know, 20 years ago when I came to Braddock, we were five or six years after passing and ending, quote unquote, welfare as we know it. You know, the crime bill was in ninety four, ninety five. I mean, this is only five or six years after some of these landmark bills that were really antithetical to the Democratic Party and values that are leading the way. Now, you know, it’s a mathematical certainty that you can’t live on seven twenty five an hour. Why do we pretend that you can’t and why do we set people up? Well, you know what? You’re you’re a welfare queen because you’re you have food stamps. Well, it’s like well no shit. You’re only paying them eight fifty an hour. What do you get. I risked my political career to officiate the first same sex wedding in Pennsylvania as an official, you know, because it was still illegal at the time. The governor said threatened to have me arrested. And it was like, hey, you know, send the gay police if you want. But this is something that’s important and it’s meaningful because it’s equal protection under the law.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S3: So if elected, you will become the tallest senator ever elected. Luther Strange was appointed. He’s six, nine, six, eight.

S6: I’m right there with Luther Strange, OK? I mean, eight, six, nine kind of a situation.

S3: So my question is, though, what advantages does having such a big height and mass give you in politics and are there any disadvantages we haven’t thought of?

S6: Oh, I don’t know if it confers any advantages. I do know, for example, I know for a fact that my face is used in a national inherent bias training program. So in other words, they’ll show a picture of me and they’ll like, well, tell me about this person and they’ll assume I’m a, you know, a skinhead or I’m a criminal or on this or that. And they’re like, well, no, actually, he went to Harvard and he’s so-and-so. So my look can be off putting to some people. And, you know, and let’s be honest, I’m not exactly easy on the eyes. I’m. Idol, but, you know, I am who I am and there’s not really I can do to change that and my wife, I definitely bring down her average. I can say that definitively. It sucks to buy suits, but, you know, it has its upsides and it has its downsides, I guess.

S3: John Fetterman is the lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania. Thanks so much, Lieutenant Governor.

S6: Well, thanks for having me on. I really appreciate it. Time.

S2: Now, remembrances, things trump the word that best applies to Trump is shame for shame.

S1: He has no shame. But it wasn’t just a lack of shame that defined Trump’s presidency. It was a surfeit of Sean. The most hapless of the Seans was President Trump’s doctor, Sean Connolly, who had the good sense to know that he was in over his head when it came to conveying medical information that had to be both accurate and be pleasing to the president.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S7: The president has been a phenomenal patient during his stay here, and he’s he’s been working hand in glove with us and the team. And today, I got to the point he’s holding court with those of us around him, the whole team going over all the specifics, the testing, what the future is. And and we we have been back and forth on what’s safe and what’s reasonable. And he has never once pushed us to do anything that was beyond safe and reasonable practice that we all first want and dedication to safe and reasonable medical practices, not the hallmark of Trump’s public posture.

S5: Upon release from the hospital, he posed for a hero shot that ended with him whipping off a mask and praised the fine treatment he got, never noting that ninety nine point ninety nine percent of Americans did not have access to that treatment. The next Sean to talk about was Trump’s first Sean and his first discarded Sean Press Secretary Sean Spicer, who was made to lie from the podium within hours of Trump’s inauguration, exaggerating the crowd size thereof. He later defended his boss’s use of Twitter.

S8: The president is the most effective messenger on his agenda, and I think his use of social media, he’s now as a collective total of close to hundred and ten million people across different platforms, gives him an opportunity to speak straight to the American people, which has proved to be a very, very effective tool for using it. And using it wisely can be two different things. And I think the same people who are critiquing his use of it now critiqued it during the election and it turned out pretty well for him then.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S1: History smiled well upon that assessment. And the last chance to talk about is perhaps the most important, Sean Sean Hannity, the Fox News host who once gave Trump an intro at a political rally in contravention of Fox rules. No punishment was given Sean Hannity, who was revealed to be one of Michael Cohen, the jailed Trump fixer, Michael Koans, one of his two other clients, the third a Republican fundraiser who resigned in disgrace. If that emotion could possibly apply to someone in the Trump orbit. But let’s go back and let’s remember what Sean Hannity said. That was scary. All right. Let’s just remember one random thing that Sean Hannity said we could pretty much pulled from any show on any night saying stuff like this.

S9: We were right. We exposed how corrupt high ranking law enforcement officials tried to rig an election and destroy Donald Trump at all costs to overturn an election, even the president himself. It’s not the same thing as what happened to George Floyd, but it’s horrific. He was a victim of crooked cops now, not the same circumstances. I’m not making any comparison. A bad cop is a bad cop.

S1: I seem to be making a comparison. I don’t know. I don’t know.

S3: I guess I don’t have the listening skills to match Sean Hannity’s rhetoric. Fox News and the 20/20 is the most watched channel in cable news for the fifth straight year.

S5: And while it has experienced a fall off in viewership since Hannity’s primetime show remains strong with an average audience of three point seven million viewers a night, this has been remembrances of.

S3: And now the spiel yesterday on the show, I talked about why big tech companies shunning the president and his allies wasn’t just warranted, it was necessary. But I was thinking about it and reading about it afterwards. Well, I thought about it first before I said it’s usually the order of things.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S1: But then even afterwards, I was reflecting upon it, sort of examining my own decisions and my own decision making process to see if I was being intellectually consistent or if I was just going along with popular sentiment, if I was betraying any principles I’ve held, which, by the way, is allowed, you’re allowed to rethink principles or things that you’ve said or stated or believe. Just have to know why you’re doing it. If there’s a new principle, if you want to admit you were wrong about, you know, one of your formerly held beliefs. So coming in, I would say I’m a very big defender of free speech. I don’t think words are violence. I don’t think the danger of words in general outweighs the danger of suppressing words very much in general. I do believe in meeting speech with more speech have been told that’s kind of a 60s or 70s idea. All right. I was born in 71. I guess I adhere to that idea. And now I can report. I’ve done the work I’ve gone in and reflected podcasts where I listen to some articles were read. Good news, everyone. It turns out I was right all along. I’ve been intellectually consistent. I’m not actually backing one inch from any commitment to free speech that I’ve ever had or have ever shared. I don’t necessarily agree as much with the burgeoning new way to think about speech, Emily Bazelon wrote about in the New York Times Magazine and Jonathan Zittrain of Harvard Law was on the Lawfare podcast. I listened to that one last night and he was talking about it was interesting to hear about let’s think about speech more like public health. I don’t know, regulate it like smoking. I just think speech is speech and ideas or ideas. I have also been listening to a lot of conservatives talk about the not just the bands of Trump on Twitter and YouTube, but the fact that Amazon stopped hosting parler or parlay, as maybe they want to be called a bunch of people who hate the French. Anyway, conservatives split into a few camps and so most of the never Trump is like on the dispatch. They’re saying the ban is appropriate. But Ben Shapiro and Fox hosts, they painted as dire and aimed right at conservatives. Largely, the argument breaks down on did you vote for Trump? Or if you didn’t, if you voted for Trump and still like Trump, you would think that this is a threat to your non dangerous speech. I don’t know. It’s convenient to make a generalized argument that could sweep up potentially like minded people who don’t really know what’s going on on parlay or et gab, because what’s going on is a lot of dangerous sentiments, demonstrably dangerous. How do we know that? Because they echo the very sentiments that led to the danger of an insurrection at the Capitol and many of the people who are defending the perpetuation of these sentiments and keeping Donald Trump and other Sayer’s of these sentiments on these platforms, many people defending them are using martyrdom or free speech arguments just to get away with threats. Parler sued Amazon. Amazon filed a brief of their own. And in that brief, this is what convinced me that they repeatedly talked to Parler Pearlie and said, you’re allowing sentiment’s to air that are a violation of the terms of service. I’m going to read you some expurgated parts of some of these sentiments that were on par lay. After the firing squads are done with the politicians, the teachers are next. Fry them up the whole f ing crew, Pelosi, AOC, the squad, Schumer, Soros, Gates, Adam Schiff. We are coming for you and you will know it. Jack Dorsey, you will die a bloody death alongside Mark Zuckerberg. It has been decided and plans are being put in place. We are going to fight a civil war on January 20th for militias. Now, on January 20th, we need to start systematically assassinating liberal leaders, liberal activists shoot the police that protect the shit bag senators. Anyway, it goes on and on and on. Oh, maybe this is one that would turn Mitch McConnell around that. See you blank. Blank. Elaine Chao should be hung for betraying their country. Hang this mofo. Salkey talking about Brad Raffensperger today. Hang that N-word ASAP. OK, I could I can find a bunch of sentiments on Twitter that are maybe just as horrible, but they would be brought down. And what Amazon said it did is contact parler and it kept raising the issue of Amazon for. These comments and parler wasn’t taking them down on January 6th, on January 8th, 9th and 10th, they had discussions. Amazon was concerned about content upon content, upon content. And then the parlor executive said there is a backlog of twenty six thousand reports of content that violate its community standards and forget about its community and they can’t get to the backlog. That was the point in which Amazon said, well, then we cannot continue to host you. Amazon was doing what our nation as a whole couldn’t do. It was faced with a vile flood that couldn’t be stemmed. And Amazon, because it’s probably more powerful than the federal government was able to say, well, we actually have the power to put an end to this. And so they did. This isn’t even a free speech case, really. It’s an incitement case. Listen to this one conservative podcast that I like, the National Review Editors Roundtable and their Jim Garrity conservative talk to his other panelists.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S10: And he articulated a principle, I believe Lin Wood on his parler account, said Mike Pence, ready the firing squad, Mike Pence should be first or something like that. Would anybody dispute if your social media platform, you should take stuff like that down? You would not take it down or you would I would take it down. Yeah, OK. So in other words, if you know Apple and Amazon Web Services go on to parler and they find this stuff and like, whoa, we can’t be associated with this. And they reach out to parler. The proper response from parler, assuming they did not know about it, is to say, oh my goodness, we didn’t know about this. Thank you for calling this to our attention. We’ll take that down immediately. That’s that has no place on our site. If Parler did not respond that way, then I think Apple Web Services and Amazon Web Services and Apple have every right to say we’re not doing business with you anymore, but nobody there know.

S1: But that is what happened. It’s not protected expression. It’s a fake argument to conflate the normal usual, maybe right, maybe wrong, maybe horribly wrong political discussions being had by conservatives all the time everywhere on podcasts like that, on podcasts like Shapiro and Bongino, it’s wrong to conflate that with the content that actually got parler yanked from Amazon and Trump yanked from Twitter. Might there be some expressions within the parlor community? Sure, of course. That are fine. Absolutely. But that’s not the point. The point is we’re not going to allow those fine expressions if it also means allowing these extremely, demonstrably dangerous threats. So in summary, I would still let the Nazis marched through Skokie, even with the realization that Nazis in America are real and pernicious because the Blues Brothers made their Nazi, Henry Gibson, seem pretty harmless and feckless. But if the Nazis in Skokie started chanting kill the governor, kill the governor, then no, they would have needed to be shut down, not because they’re Nazis, but because they were issuing threats. So principles affirmed. Situation examined. Case closed. Trump banned.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S11: And that’s it for Today Show, Margaret Kelly produces the gist, her favorite, Sean. Sean Combs, but her favorite, Sean Combs is Puffy, not Diddy P. Diddy or Puff Daddy. Shania Roth’s been thinking Sean Combs. He’s sort of the gateway celebrity between Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes. Remember Alan Colmes, the liberal milksop to Hannity’s raging patriot with Sean Combs all along? Jasmine Ellis has produced the gist this week. She thinks the label of the name Sean Bean, you know, Sean Bean was thinking of who Sean Bean might be. Hi, I’m Sean. Being very different from the reality of Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones. Actor Sean Bean Montgomery is executive producer of Slate podcasts. She’s also six nine, heavily tattooed, but has set up residence in a disused Vesper dealership just to differentiate herself from John Fetterman.

S1: The gist, we too live in a former car dealership that. No, no, what? It doesn’t come without a powertrain warranty. A former car dealership, that one. Get out of here. How do I know what the EMTs are on a four door sedan? What a former. Oh, wait a minute.

S11: Maybe we need to tweak the signage. What Racan pinions. You made that.

S1: Deborah, Deborah, and thanks for listening.