Advisory Opinions - C'mon Man Corollary

Episode Date: January 4, 2021

After a holiday hiatus from podcasting, our hosts have quite a bit of news to catch up on. Did Trump commit election fraud during his phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger? Will Trump’s election conspiracy theorizing depress Republican turnout in Tuesday’s Georgia Senate races? What should we expect when Congress convenes on Wednesday to count the Electoral College votes? All things considered, Biden will take office on January 20. But when it comes to GOP officials’ ongoing attempts to overturn the results of the election, David argues that “the futility of this effort should not excuse its malice.” Our hosts wrap up their first episode of 2021 with David’s spirited defense of Wonder Woman 1984. Show Notes: -“POLITICO Playbook: The backstory of Trump’s Georgia call” by Marc Caputo. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

With Ancestry, putting together your family story is made easy. Using an intuitive family tree builder, you could discover and preserve new details, photos, and stories about your ancestors. Uncover new relatives and branches of the family with automated Ancestry hints. Connect the dots with access to millions of historical documents. And then share what you find in one central place. Visit Ancestry.ca and start discovering your family story today dq presents how to officially start your summer step one head to dq step two try the new summer blizzard menu and step three dig into new peanut butter cookie

dough party new picnic peach gobbler and more more. Make it official. Only at DQ. Happy tastes good. You ready? I was born ready. Welcome to the Advisory Opinions Podcast. Happy New Year, Sarah. Happy New Year, David. It is 2021 at last. Yes, but it's still got a little bit of a 2020 feel to it, I think. It really does for me. I didn't want to say anything, but like everyone else is acting like the clock turned over and everything now is different. And I have to say, I'm feeling

very 2020 about these last three days. Oh, yeah. Well, very 2020 about the last three days. I'm feeling really 2020 about this week. This week is going to be lit, as you kids say. We've got a Trump rally in Georgia. We've got the Georgia runoff on Tuesday. We've got the January 6th counting of the electoral votes. We've got multiple protests planned for D.C. We have people encouraging them to be wild. We have a congressman from Texas urging violence. My goodness. So we're going to walk through some of this stuff, not all of it. We're going to, here is the run of show, as they say in the business. We're going to start off with the Trump call, the famous recorded phone call with

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. We're going to talk about what it said. We're going to talk about the context of it, how it happened, what it might mean politically in Georgia. And we're going to talk about the legality of it. Were there any laws broken? Then we're going to move into the challenge to the electors on January 6th. Is the challenge itself even constitutional? Does it have a ghost of a chance? What the heck is going on there? And then we're going to wind up with my defense of Wonder Woman. So you're just not going to want to miss that because in my exacting film critic eye, I'm

zigging where everyone else zagged. I liked the movie. I actually thought part of it was kind of touching and I'm goingging where everyone else zagged. I liked the movie. I actually thought part of it was kind of touching and I'm going to explain why. But before then, I've been thinking all weekend, Sarah, about how to really sum

up how I feel about what's unfolding. And it has to be something different from the gnaw dog doctrine. Yeah. Because... We're past gnaw dog doctrine. Yeah. Because. We're past gnaw dog now. This is different.

Yeah. This is like the come on, man, corollary to the gnaw dog doctrine. Like you just see, you just see these things. Josh Hawley objecting to the count. Ted Cruz objecting to the count. The Trump phone call. Come on, man. the count, the Trump phone call. Come on, man. Because on the one hand, these efforts are dangerous if they had a ghost of a chance. They don't have a ghost of a chance. So in one sense,

they're not dangerous, but the intent of them is still terrible and the effect of them is still terrible. So that's where I am. I'm thinking the futility of this effort should not excuse its malice. That's kind of my overall, and then we'll sort of break it down step by step. So where's your head at? I tried very hard to take our pod time off seriously, but it was really hard to do, David, because we had the Louie Gohmert lawsuit. We had DOJ's response to the Louie Gohmert lawsuit. And then, of course, we had the judicial opinion dismissing it. There was sort of this increasing cacophony heading into January 6th, the president tweeting

about it, the Josh Hawley thing. Anyway, that's all to say, we had a lot of emails and tweets and stuff asking why we weren't doing an emergency podcast. And I mean, I guess somewhere, maybe if I'm being honest, like deep inside my heart, I was hoping it would all go away by the time we got to today. Yeah. It didn't. So now we just have a lot to cover. So let's dive in. Yeah. It didn't. So now we just have a lot to cover. So let's dive in. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Well, let's start with the phone call between Donald Trump and members of his team and the Georgia Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, and members of his team. Now, Politico Playbook has some background. so let's set the stage for this. So on Saturday, Trump and his team, and I'm getting this reporting from Politico Playbook, and it's Mark Caputo.

I don't know if you know Mark, Sarah. I do not personally, but I followed his reporting for years. He was sort of the major political reporter covering Florida, still is. Yeah, he's good. I mean, I think Mark Caputo, I've been impressed with Mark Caputo. So Mark is reporting the background here. And he says, Trump's team reaches out. Raffensperger's team is immediately concerned because they thought he was going to be pressured by Trump to do something unethical or do something illegal. And Raffensperger had previously accused Lindsey Graham of improperly exhorting him to meddle in the election to help Trump win Georgia. And Graham denied it.

So Graham denied it. So at that point, it was sort of a he said, he said, Raffensperger versus Graham. So Raffensperger decided, you know what? We're going to record this thing. As they said, as one of his advisors says, this is a man, Trump, who has a history of reinventing history as it occurs. So he's going to try to dispute anything on the call. It's nice to have something like this hard evidence to dispute whatever he's claiming to try to dispute anything on the call. It's nice to have something like this, hard evidence to dispute whatever he's claiming about the secretary. Lindsey Graham asked us to throw out legally cast ballots. So yeah, after that call,

we decided maybe we should do this. So Lindsey Graham laid the seeds for this thing by denying their allegations. So here it is. They essentially held on to the recording. They didn't make it immediately available until after Trump said on a tweet at 7.57 a.m. yesterday, I spoke to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger yesterday about Fulton County. This is the Trump tweet and voter fraud in Georgia. He was unwilling or unable to answer questions such as the ballots under the table, scam, ballot destruction, out of state voters, dead voters and more. He has no clue. Hmm, Sarah, gauntlet thrown down. And so the next thing that happens is that two hours later, Raffensperger tweets, the truth will come out. And I love this way that Caputo ends this little segment of his report. It wasn't an empty promise. back in the Comey era when Trump and Comey were having this back and forth about what happened at their meeting. Yeah. And Trump said like, you know, he better hope there are tapes or something

like that. And there was a sort of idle threat that Trump made that he was going to release tapes of his meeting with Comey. And then it was like, well, are there tapes? Aren't there tapes? And it turned out there weren't. This was like the reverse of that. Yeah. Yeah. The exact reverse. And there wasn't much suspense. And the reality was, so first you got a news report about this that sort of hit the highlights of it. So then immediately sort of Trump's defenders say, well, why don't you release the whole thing? And so the Washington Post says, boom, here it is. Here's the whole thing. Here's the transcript. And when you read through it, one of the things that stuck out to me is this is the Zelensky call, Sarah. This is the Ukraine controversy. Here you have a president very intent on achieving a political purpose, consumed with conspiracy theories, talking to, and not in this case, you know, the head of state, a foreign nation, about lethal aid, not with stakes that high, but talking to another official, pressuring him, completely convinced by a conspiracy.

him completely convinced by a conspiracy. What was fascinating to me about this whole thing is, and Trump does most of the talking in this, and when you hear it, when you read it, there's sort of a calm point-by-point debunking of everything. And then Trump's lawyers, including, although she was not, and Trump, other people on the Trump team, I should be more specific, like Cleta Mitchell, jump in and they seem more reasonable, they sound more reasonable at the beginning, but there's this sort of relentless pressure, but what about this that happened? And what about this that happened? And what about this that happened? And you can tell Trump gets more and more frustrated

until he more than vaguely threatens them, Raffensperger and his team, with criminal punishment. But you can tell, Sarah, and it's consistent with everything else, Trump believes this stuff. I mean, I'm pretty convinced at this point that Trump believes this stuff, that fraud that wide scale happened,

that the Dominion machines were something was wrong with them, that this election was completely stolen from him. This just isn't a tactic. It's a belief. It's a belief. And this goes back to the Ukraine scandal where Trump insiders said, look, we were always fighting this battle with him to try against these conspiracy theories around the 2016 election, constantly fighting this battle with him to try against these conspiracy theories around the 2016 election, constantly fighting this battle. And I think that's one of the reasons why this, it makes this moment more fraught is because we're dealing with a president who really believes this stuff. And if you really believe that an election was stolen from you and you're the president of the United States, that leads to a constant and consistent escalation.

What did you think as you sort of walked through what was going on? Well, immediately, a lot of people want to know, did Donald Trump break the law? And I know you've looked into this some. I have thought about it and I've read a lot of the excerpts. I did not go through and read the entire transcript to be clear. But I'm curious your thoughts on that, because, yes, I understand he kind of threatened some things, maybe sort of, kind of, what a. But in that sense, it reminds me a lot of the Ukrainian call. To me, you would have to prove intent. You'd have to prove what he actually said

matched the indictable offense. I don't think it matches, meets that standard. Actually, I don't think it's a particularly close call. It's an impeachable offense though, David. Yeah. And that's sort of where the Ukrainian call came down. And it turned out that while it was impeachable, it was not impeached. Or rather, I guess it was impeached. It wasn't convicted. Wasn't convicted, right. And I think that's where you get to this really philosophical conversation about how the founders set up our system and the branches and who they thought would be in the office of the presidency and what care they took in case a bad person got into the office of

presidency. And what we think of that now, but let's back up a second. Let's talk about whether he broke the law, what laws he could have broken, and why I think he didn't. Do you want to walk through a little of these? Yeah, yeah. So let's start now. Let's start with Georgia law. And I'm not a Georgia attorney, y'all. So I'm sure we have some Georgia attorneys who are listening. And if you want to write into us, David at the dispatch, Sarah at the dispatch, you want to write in to us and give us your analysis. If you send us a good analysis, we'll definitely talk about it. You guys know we respond to the mailbag for sure.

But I'm not a Georgia attorney, so I don't have ready case citations to follow along. I'm looking at the statutes here. I'm looking at the statutes. case citations to follow along. I'm looking at the statutes here. I'm looking at the statutes. And so one of the things you're always going to want to ask is, okay, wait a minute. If a person has what seems to be a criminal intent that doesn't, for example, if it would break the law for Brad Raffensperger to change the numbers to benefit Trump, that would be a crime, clearly. Is it a crime to try to get him to induce, is it a crime to try to get Raffensperger to induce Raffensperger to do this? Well, it turns out that there is a miscellaneous offense criminal solicitation to commit election fraud and it

essentially says this a person commits the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the first degree when with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony under this article he or she solicits requests requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct. Number two, a person commits the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the second degree with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a misdemeanor under this article. Again, when he or she solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct. So,

on the face of it, if Trump in this call is asking Raffensperger to do something illegal, it does raise concerns. It does raise legal concerns here. And if you go back and if you look at Georgia election law, essentially what it does is there's a giant pile of election statutes that a misdemeanor. Just accept as otherwise provided by law, any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. So some violations are felonies and some are misdemeanors. The basic background is a misdemeanor. So if you're going to interpret Trump's request

going to interpret uh trump's allegation or request that he find votes um that he that you know that the uh secretary of state find votes that this sort of thread of criminal prosecution under the belief that what the secretary is doing is withholding from him a victory that is due him um does that violate the statute uh let me put it this way. It's not a laughable argument, Sarah. It's not a laughable argument. I don't think he'll be indicted for it for a lot of reasons, in part because the transcript itself is far more, but what about this? And what about this? And what about this? Then it is, you need to change this vote for me. Yeah, that's where I think the huge problem is. That statute assumes that the person making the solicitation is saying, hey, go break the law. That's solicitation. But in this case, the actual line is, so look,

all I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state. In the context of what he's saying, he's saying there was all this fraud. All of these were illegal votes that should be cast out because they were illegal. I need you to find 11,000 votes. So 11,000 of those illegal votes, I think is a, not just plausible. I think it's actually the more plausible reading of what he was saying, by the way, there's this later line. So what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break.

I actually don't think that comes particularly close to the solicitation line, David. So here's the other part. The ballots are corrupt, and they're brand new, and they don't have seals, and there's this whole thing with the ballots, but the ballots are corrupt.

And you're going to find that they are, which is totally illegal. So he's talking about, he's making a conspiracy theory claim. It's totally illegal what happened with the ballots. It is more illegal for you, Secretary of State, than it is for them because you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's criminal. That's a criminal offense. And you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer, and that's a big risk. But they are shedding ballots, in my opinion, that's what I've heard. And so- Right, he's not asking them to break the law. He thinks in the context of this

conversation, again, whether you think he believes it or not, what his argument is, these ballots are illegal, therefore under Georgia law, they have to be not counted. is these ballots are illegal. Therefore, under Georgia law, they have to be not counted. I'm asking you why you're counting these illegal ballots. And if you know that they're illegal ballots and you're therefore counting illegal ballots, you're interestingly aiding in a felony the people who cast the ballots illegally in the first place. So it's like this weird jujitsu reverse thing. He's not saying these are valid ballots and I want you to throw them out. That's solicitation. Yeah. You know, I think that here's where I think, and this is why I say, okay, it's not a laughable assertion that what he did was violated the law. But here's where I think it breaks down.

Now, if he had the acting attorney general on the call, because remember, he's without an attorney general. Boy, I tell you, the resignation of Bill Barr is starting to make a lot of sense right now. If he had the acting attorney general on the line, and the acting attorney general on the line and the acting attorney general said, you know what happened in Georgia is criminal and you're covering it up and I'm going to prosecute you. Okay. That would, to me, that would violate the statute. That would violate the statute. That would violate, because then what they're in a box is I'm going to have a federal prosecution

unless I agree with their interpretation of the facts, which would reverse this election. Their false interpretation. That's, and so here's my analogy, Sarah, because the president of the United States is pretty intimidating. He's a pretty intimidating figure. Here's the question I have.

Here's my hypo. Dwayne The Rock Johnson walks into a bank. Okay. Big, intimidating guy. And he yells loudly, this is a stick-up. But instead of pulling a gun out of his pocket, he pulls out a stuffed rabbit. Okay. He has no ability to execute the stick up.

So he's, is this bluster or is this a stick up? You're kind of confused by that. Like what, what's going on? Is he actually trying to rob the bank with a stuffed rabbit? But wait, he's a big, scary guy. Is there something else going? What's up? That's how I kind of read this. It's like he's trying to rob the bank with a stuffed rabbit. To be clear, if you go into a bank with a stuffed rabbit and say, this is a stick up and

give me your money, you've still tried to rob the bank. Just legally, folks, I just don't want anyone going into a bank with a stuffed rabbit and then arguing that they didn't try to stick up the bank no i don't need a weapon to stick up the right but that's what i'm saying here is it's he the intent here is to get the secretary of state to flip the results of this election and when there's no legal basis to flip the results of this election. That's why I say that this has legal problems for me. But when you dive into it, it's so dumb. It is pretty dumb. It's extra dumb. It's so dumb that you think, do you prosecute him for this? Or do you just impeach him? Or do you just hope he goes away? I mean, because, you know, I just don't think I don't think it comes particularly close to meeting the solicitation line.

But again, that's why impeachment exists. You don't you not only don't need to convict the president of a crime, you arguably cannot convict the president of a crime. But if there is something that is abuse of power, that is just not appropriate and the house and Senate agree, you remove the president from office. That's the system that we have set up and agreed to, but that's not going to happen here because it's at the very end of his term. But I just don't think solicitation wise is particularly close. The department of justice can call people all the time and say, we think what you're doing is illegal.

If you don't stop it, we're going to prosecute you. Yeah, of course. And that's not solicitation. Right. But they have a predicate for believing it. Well,

the president, if you believe that he believes what he's saying, the president, you know, this is where like laws that have intent components kind of suck and are somewhat disfavored is because it seems to me under the solicitation statute, you would need to prove that Trump doesn't believe what he's saying. And so when, for instance, they had this whole fight over the dead voters, Trump says, I forget the number he uses, there were 2000 dead voters. And the Secretary of State in Georgia says, well, actually, sir, we've looked into that. There were only two. All the other ones were very much alive. But, you know, two of these folks actually were deceased and seem to have voted two votes, not 2000. If the president then said. There were 2000 dead votes, Brad, you better find those 2000 votes.

Those were illegal votes. Right. That might be enough to hit that solicitation line. But that's not what happens in the call. Instead, then he just bounces to ballots under the table and ballots, I don't know, like falling from the sky. I put more. And in that sense, he doesn't have the intent. I think I put more stock in the criminal allegation than you do. Because here you

have the chief law enforcement officer in the land. Now, he's not the head. He's not the attorney general. He's the attorney general's boss. I'm all unitary executive, David. So as far as I'm concerned, he is the attorney. He's all of the things. He is the secretary of commerce. He is the secretary of agriculture. He is the attorney general. Now, I do think it would be more menacing if you had the attorney general on there and saying, I have prepared an indictment based on the, you know, what the president is saying. That escalate, you know, there's ways to make it more appear to be a more professionally delivered threat. But my point is the Department of Justice delivers those threats all the time.

Yes, but again, the question here is, if I have no good faith basis to believe that you have committed a crime and what I'm asking you to do is to commit the crime or I will prosecute you. So again, that's the issue here, Sarah. It's not just that they're threatening him. They're threatening him and asking him to do what he doesn't have the lawful authority to do or potentially vaguely face criminal sanction. Like that's the issue to me. I think that is the one that's more than quote unquote find the word

you know the word find yeah um this is where this to me is the crux and and i think one of the reasons why it feels so like there's just not going to be an indictment here is because it's all so dumb it's all so dumb and. And we're used to criminals being dumb. Like, that's one thing that a lot of people don't realize. Lots of criminals, y'all, are not smart. Not smart. This is a, actually, sidebar, this is one of the things that helped us a lot in Iraq.

Lots of terrorists are not smart at all. They're not masterminds, and they lead lots of trails of breadcrumbs that we can follow. But anyway, the whole thing is so dumb, the stupidity of it starts to shed that sort of atmosphere of criminality. But if he had come on in a much more sort of Machiavellian way, I would bet you just the atmosphere of it all would change to an awful lot of people. And that criminality allegation that he made would feel a ton more ominous

than when it's attached to like some wildness about Dominion machines. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Let me read you another quote that's out of context, but within a few sentences that I think is, again, I think it's problematic. I just think in the fuller context, but within a few sentences that I think is, again, I think it's problematic. I just think in the fuller context, you fail. This is the president speaking. You have a big election coming up. And because of what you've done to the president, you know,

the people of Georgia know that this was a scam. Because of what you've done to the president, a lot of people aren't going out to vote. And a lot of Republicans are going to vote negative because they hate what you did to the president, okay? They hate it. And they're going to vote. And you would be respected, really respected, if this can be straightened out before the election. So that's actually, to me, a little bit more forward-leaning than the, I need to find 11,000 votes. forward leaning than the, I need to find 11,000 votes. You would be respected, really respected if this can be, quote, straightened out before the election. He's not saying that these were illegal votes and you need to throw them out. It's much closer to saying, look, I know that I don't really care whether they were legal or illegal votes.

I just need you to say that I won. Now, David, we haven't talked about something really weird about this whole thing. Yes. You know, there's other parts where he says, like, I just, you know, I've got to win Georgia. I can't lose Georgia. Yeah. But, okay, let's say Georgia flips. Do you know who wins the presidency?

Yeah. Joe Biden. Yeah. Joe Biden. So I am a little confused about that aspect of this. Like why all this focus on Georgia when Georgia isn't enough? I mean, I guess the argument is he's working on Pennsylvania, too, like he's able to chew gum and juggle at the same time or whatever the analogy is there. But yeah, Georgia isn't enough. there been other phone calls, which to other secretaries of state, you know, but Georgia isn't enough. I do think Georgia sticks in his craw particularly because each one of the traditionally red states that went blue, I think really bothers him, especially the ones that were very, very close. So yeah, but you have to have, if the dominoes are going to fall, if the, in sort of their mindset that we're going to cause a sort of a series of dominoes, there has to be a first domino, I suppose. One of them has to reverse. David, the dominoes already picked their slate of electors and sent it in, you know?

Yes. Oh, I know. I know. Like, I'm not sure what Brad Rastberger has to do with this anymore. Well, let's move on to the federal statute. And then I want to get put on, Sarah, put on your sweep hat. And we'll talk about the Senate election. Okay. Let's do it. So there's Georgia law and then there's federal law. And the federal law that everyone stampeded to was 52 U.S. Code Section 20511.

And it says a person... I have that hanging over my bed, as you know. Oh, of course. Yeah. Don't we all? I basically wallpaper with the U.S. Code. Yeah. I really don't.

I would not wallpaper with the U.S. Code. I'm not that bad. I'd wallpaper with World of Warcraft art before I do the u.s code i'm not that bad i'd wallpaper with like a world of warcraft art before i do the u.s code um all right a person including an election official who in any election for federal office knowingly and wilfully well sorry knowingly and willfully deprives defrauds or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a state of a fair and impartially conducted election process by the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the state in which the election is held shall be fined in accordance with Title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years or both. Now, I think this was the easier call than the Georgia one for the reason that you identified. In Section B, it says he's trying to, yes, there's an attempt to defraud the residents of the state of a fair

and impartially conducted election process. I believe that's true by the tabulation, but here's the part B, by the tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the state. That's where I think that's the mens rea that Trump does not have. I think Trump is completely of the mindset that he is being defrauded, not that he is trying

to procure fraud. Oh, I'm not totally bought into the fact that he believes this. He might not, but I don't think you could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt right right i'm i'm more i might be more bought into you that he really believes this but i do think that proving that intent um beyond a reasonable doubt would be tough uh that would

be tough um but yeah i I think the federal penalty, the federal violation is less likely than a state violation, but the state violation may well just be a misdemeanor. And you know what nobody's going to do is prosecute the president of the United States for a misdemeanor violation of state election law. Just don't see it happening.

No, nor would I suggest it at this point. No, no. But again, this kind of thing is impeachable. It's impeachable. You know, and it's funny, again, with an echo of the Ukraine impeachment, it feels like the smoking gun has emerged on day one.

You know, like the Zelensky transcript emerged on day one, or, you know, about day two or three after the first reports that it existed. And then all of the rest of the evidence that came forward was sort of like, yep, that's the transcript. Yep, that's what he really tried to do.

Yep, there's no hidden meaning there. There's no really redemptive value in that transcript. That's what he tried. And on day one of this, you have, yep, that's the transcript. That's what he's trying to do. There's no redeeming value here. But of course, there's not going to be an impeachment. But I think it's worth highlighting. This is absolutely impeachable conduct. Absolutely. Sure. But again, in fairness, anything's impeachable, right?

Impeachment is not a legal standard. It is a political standard. You know, he went out with mismatched socks. That is an impeachable offense in the eye of some perhaps very sartorially minded viewers. Yeah. Well, but when I say impeachable offense, I agree with you as a legal political matter. You're right. Anything's impeachable. But I think this is something, does conduct rise to the level of an actual material abuse of office? Yeah. This fits that definition for me. material abuse of office. Yeah, this fits that definition for me.

Your teen requested a ride, but this time not from you. It's through their Uber Teen account. It's an Uber account that allows your teen to request a ride under your supervision with live trip tracking and highly rated drivers. Add your teen to your Uber account today. Add your team to your Uber account today. Senate races tomorrow in Georgia. A lot of people wonder if this is going to depress Republican turnout, charge up Democrats. Will it have an effect? Will it not have an effect? I don't know nearly enough to even be after all

of the polling debacles of the last few weeks to really predict this. Where's your head at on the Georgia Senate races? Well, this is what's sort of fun. There actually hasn't been a lot of polling. There's been a little, but by and large, pollsters have not wanted to wade into this for the exact reason that is kind of obvious. They don't want to be wrong. And frankly,

no one would believe the poll anyway. So what's the point? And the polls are super expensive, and they're really, really hard to do in a special election anyway. So I'm not going to talk about polling at all. Gone. No polling. What I am going to talk about is what we know, you know, the sort of, do you play fantasy football, David? I'm sure you do. You know, I have played, I played fantasy football for years and years. One year, I won so much money in fantasy football, Sarah, that

I... Did I report it on my taxes? No. I'm going to take the fifth on that. But I can... Let me just say, there was a period of time before I filed my taxes where I was like, this is enough fantasy football winnings that I wonder, do I need to report this? Wow.

Which is just a way of flexing, Sarah, that I'm a quite proficient fantasy football player. In your matchups, all of your players may have played Thursday night. It's possible. And they may still have a bunch of players playing Sunday. And so you have all of these points in the bank already, but their projection is higher and you'd rather be you because your points are in the bank. Their guy could, you know, I don't know, an asteroid could hit him or something before Sunday and then he could have nothing. Uh, That's a little bit how I feel going into tomorrow's election.

So right now, 3 million Georgia residents have already cast their vote. Now that's split between early in person and early mail. That's just enormous, David. Like, I can't. For a special election, that is huge. Just under 5 million people voted in total for the presidential race in November. So to have 3 million already have voted early is enormous. It also means that Democrats have more points in the bank. That does not mean that Republicans can't score more on Tuesday. Their projection always needs to be in Republicans' favor when you're A, talking about a special election, and B, talking about Georgia. Still, and be talking about Georgia. Still, it is what it is.

So their projection is higher in my view, but the Democrats have more points already stashed. And it looks good. Black turnout is high, it looks like. And certainly in the areas that they needed to have good early vote turnout, they look like they did it. The amount of money is obscene that has been spent on this race, these races, just outrageous compared to any previous Senate race in history. And that would be a two-year race. This is a two-month race. So crazy, crazy. 40% of all registered voters have already voted. Wow.

In a runoff. So you have three million just in early votes. And I think it's have a polling problem. That's why you have a prognostication problem. Because in previous years, I know I talked about this to death before November, we had data telling us what numbers would mean from previous cycles, because not that much would change partisanshiply between cycles in early vote in person, early vote absentee, and voting day in person. But all we have is the November election to go on. And with a special election and two Senate races with this much money, it's too much of a snowflake. So that's why I say right now, Democrats look better than you'd think they would. They certainly have done the turnout job that I think they wanted to do.

And now it's just going to be a question of whether Republicans can do what they think they're capable of doing on election day and squeak this one out just on turnout. And normally, again, I would say, yeah, they will be able to, except for all this stuff about how the election's rigged, and it's just not going to take that many people to stay home. If 10,000 people on the Republican side are listening to Lin Wood or Sidney Powell or now even the president to some extent and say this thing is rigged and I'm

going to teach the Republicans a lesson. That's the ballgame. And then the Republicans lose those two seats. They will go to the Democrats and Biden will have control of both houses of Congress as every Democrat, every incoming, every incoming president has had since what, 1988. Every Democrat, every incoming president has had since, what, 1988? So that's a real thing. Now, we'll get to this in a second, David, about January 6th. But there's also going to be this weird thing. David Perdue isn't a senator anymore.

Kelly Loeffler is. And so some have asked also whether these two races could split. I think it's really unlikely. Both sides have run together. I think that Loeffler is the weaker candidate and Warnock is the stronger candidate and they happen to be the ones matched together. So if it splits, I would think that it would be Warnock and Purdue coming out, but it would have to be,

I think a really, really tight race for it to split. And we're talking within... I'd say if it's within 3,000 vote difference, it could split. Outside of that, I doubt it. Now, here's my question for you.

If... So we've been through this festival of post-election conspiracy theory theorizing, the president, to all appearances, is completely consumed with the election and not with presidenting. And now there's sort of open civil war on the right in the Republican Party that we're going to talk about in a minute. So the sort of unified we're with Trump wall of Republican support is starting to crack now. What is the impact on Trump and Republican views of Trump if the GOP loses the Senate in Georgia in this runoff. Well, you've seen Trump try to set the narrative for if that happens, which by the way, to me, says that the internal numbers aren't great for Republicans. But then again, Trump would probably do this anyway. So Trump has tried to say

that if that happens, that it's in fact the fault of Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensperger and all the Republicans who aren't standing with him to say that they're standing up to election fraud, that they're the ones who are making voters in Georgia feel like their votes don't count, not him. I don't think that's how history will remember it if these two seats are lost. But that will certainly be the immediate battle that Trump fights. And in the immediate term, what we've seen is that Republicans will follow Trump on that. So I would expect if a poll were to go out, you know, Republicans lose both seats in Georgia. Trump continues to blame Kemp. And then there's some poll in the field. It's like, who do you blame for the loss of the two seats in Georgia? Trump, Republican officials in Georgia, or Republicans in Congress who didn't do their job? I think Trump will win that narrative battle in the short term. I just think when we look back, I mean, not even 10 years from now,

in a short historical lens, that it will look that Trump convinced his own voters not to go vote. Yeah, I think that if so, again, I'm going to say I if you put a gun to my head and say who's going to win, I'm I'm still thinking the GOP is going to win on Tuesday. That's I don't feel confident in that. I don't I don't feel super confident in that prediction. But if you make me predict, I say the GOP. Of course. That's just a smart bet. GOP loses the Senate on Tuesday after this complete electoral conspiracy theory farce. And that is going to empower an awful lot of people who've been quiet. I think the short-term version of it will be, it will put the sort of GOP civil war front and center faster. Because immediately you're going to have a pretty strong

argument that you everyone has been indulging this guy and now look and now look rather than sort of saying hey we got out of 2020 about as well better than we expected to get out of 2020 with narrowing the gap in the house and keeping the Senate and, you know, we're going to be able to him in Joe Biden. Um, it's wait a minute in 2016, we had control of all three. We had control of the house and the Senate and the presidency. Um, you know, the, and, and then we were solidified. We had nominal control of the Supreme court. So we had control of all three branches of the government and solidified that for a while. And then we're leaving with, yeah, stronger control of the Supreme Court, but having lost the House, the Senate, and the presidency during the Trump four years. And that's not, you know, if your goal is to be winning so much, you're tired of

winning. That doesn't fit that definition. And I think over time, that would really be an anchor around Trump. It would be an anchor around Trumpism. But we'll see. I think it's a big problem for him wanting to run in 2024 because even if the initial narrative goes his way with a certain segment of Republican voters,

I think as emotions cool down over it, and it's just the Biden presidency with a unified houses of Congress, I think in two years, Republican voters are going to think that Trump might have gotten a raw deal, but that raw deal hasn't changed. The media is still going to hate him. The Democrats are still going to hate him. There's still going to be Republicans who refuse to back him. And I think that will hurt his argument for why he should be the nominee in 2024,

unless people really buy into, Republican base voters really buy into the like, nope, nominating Trump is a losing, but nevertheless own the libs move. Right. Okay. Well, I can't argue with that. Yeah. It's funny that sort of the own the libs narrative has gotten so ridiculous that it's as if the only goal is to cause distress. And so the point is, it's person A, look at me, I'm being really stupid.

Person B, man, your stupidity really bothers me. Person A again, yes, I think I'll keep being stupid. I mean, this is the way it's breaking out at this point. And some of the commentary and some of the rationalizations that you're seeing are just so, and they're just so dumb. Like just so dumb, Sarah. There's just so much. I never thought, so I grew up, I came of age during the Reagan administration. I was 12 years

old when Reagan was, I was 11, almost 12 when Reagan was sworn. I was 11, almost 12, when Reagan was sworn in. He turned 12 right after Reagan was sworn in. I can remember like it was yesterday when Reagan was shot, came of age in reading National Review, admiring. I knew Reagan wasn't perfect. I knew George H.W reagan wasn't perfect i knew george hw bush wasn't perfect but they were honorable people who surrounded themselves with people who loved this country who had powerful intellects again nobody's perfect i mean i'm not saying that this was some sort of utopia but to see coming up in the GOP, having come up in that tradition, and then to see the Seb Gorkas, the Lynn Woods, the Sidney Powells, the, I mean, you name it, circling around this presidency, it's unbelievable and look i know those elements have all sort of been out there

but now you what you what's happened is through this presidency it's taken these fringe personalities the kooks and the cranks and just yanked them in to the centers of american power to the definers of a particular political movement and it's one of the more appalling scenes, things I've ever seen in my entire adult life. And if there's any one thing that I really hope happens after 2020, it's that this giant ball of rolling conspiracy theorizing and stupidity just begins to lose its momentum, in part because it no longer is empowered by the patronage of a president.

But we'll see. We'll see. I mean, I hate to see what people I know who I live around and I've known for years. For years, believe about the coronavirus and masking and the election. I mean, it's very distressing. It's infuriating, actually, to think that this is what the right, the Republican Party has become. Okay. We have lots more to talk about because January 6th is right after Georgia. January 6th is the date in, I mean, we have crushed the statute, but in the Electoral Count Act of 1887, it specifies that on Wednesday at 1 p.m., the houses shall meet together and the president of the Senate will Mike Pence. So what happened while we were on break, David, was that Louie Gohmert, a congressman from Texas, colorful, as most members from Texas, frankly, are expected to be. But Louie Gohmert taking it maybe to another level. Louie Gohmert sues the vice president. the vice president. But it was a weird lawsuit, David, because he sued the vice president to increase the vice president's powers. It was a weird lawsuit. All I could think about was like

back in my clerk days that if this lawsuit landed on my desk, and mind you, the lawsuit landed in Texas. So, you know, I felt, I felt very a kinship spirit with that law clerk. Like, you know, that it has no standing. So, you know, already that you're going to kick it on standing, but like, where do you even start? It's so odd. So it was a declaratory judgment, meaning that the harm has not already happened. You're trying to have a statement of law ahead of time. What makes that not an advisory opinion is that it has to be sort of this concrete, absolutely going to happen injury. It just hasn't happened yet. So you're sort of trying to prevent it from happening and it would be irreparable if it happened. And then you got to sue. And it was like a declaratory judgment to say that the vice president is not ceremonial,

that basically he's in charge of picking the next president. So say we all. Then there was DOJ responded, and DOJ's response, I mean, talk about being in an interesting position, right? Yeah. I mean, talk about being in an interesting position, right? Yeah. The Trump Department of Justice responded to the lawsuit against Mike Pence trying to get Mike Pence to declare Donald Trump president.

And they couldn't touch the merits, obviously, because that would be odd to say that Donald Trump, that the merits of the claim were just false. So instead, it wasn't even that clever, but I the merits of the claim were just false. So instead, it wasn't even that clever, but I was like, oh, this is awkward. They said, you've sued the wrong person. Mike Pence, is it the right person because he isn't causing you, Louie Gohmert, injury? If anything, the rules of the House of Representatives are causing you injury. Maybe the Electoral Count Act is causing you injury. But the vice president, like you don't get to sue to increase the vice president's powers. That's not how lawsuits work.

amicus come in and say that, well, actually, it should be done by House state delegation, not House membership. That one fell out of left field. I was like, wait, what? Like, we weren't even talking about that, but okay. And the judge dismissed it on standing, David. So, I mean, it was all, it's funny because this was filed after our last taping and then all of this happened and it was dismissed before our next taping. And I was like, good. Yes. We've saved everyone some time here. Yeah. And I didn't want to do an emergency podcast to interrupt, you know, vacation and, and time with babies. Cause you have a baby, there's a baby in our house. Um, my grandchild, Lila, she came home from the NICU on New Year's Eve and, um, Lila, she came home from the NICU on New Year's Eve and didn't want to interrupt.

But it didn't deserve one either. No, because it was so dumb. And again, I kept seeing people say, oh, Pence, Pence is in charge of the process. Pence can just refuse to recognize the electoral votes from these contested states. No, he can't. No, he can't. I mean, that's essentially like asking that, saying that the parliamentary role that you have, if you're, if you're, you know, gaveling in the Senate means that, you know, if McConnell is, has got the gavel in his hands, then he can refuse to recognize votes that are contrary to the position that he would prefer in a, say, a vote on a filibuster or a vote on a legislation. No, no, it is not the case that the person who's gaveling in the Senate has the power to refuse to recognize lawful votes. This is just, again, it's like Twitter fiction is what it is.

And it was Twitter fiction turned into a lawsuit. So here's what's going to happen on Wednesday. They're going to meet in a joint session at 1 p.m., the House and Senate. Presumably Pence is going to preside, although there's been plenty of times where, in fact, the president pro tem of the Senate, the senior member of the majority party, has presided instead of the vice president. As of now, in our era, that would be Chuck Grassley,

presumed dear dead Chuck Grassley. But I think there's a pretty good chance Pence shows up. What do you think, David? I think he might. I think he'll show up. I think he'll show up. I think it's hard to come up with, like, I had a haircut scheduled that day, you know? Yeah.

Yeah, I think he shows up. Okay. So then that's where we move to the Electoral Count Act of 1887. This is, you know, and we've talked about this in a previous pod, where the slates received before the Safe Harbor Day are presumed to be the slates, but they will hear objections. And as best we can tell, there will be objections. The objections have to be signed by a member of the House and a member of the Senate. So when they go through the roll call,

they are going to go alphabetically, we believe. So Alabama, nothing. Alaska, nothing. Arizona, number three. That's where I think Mo Brooks and Josh Hawley may at that point have joined forces, although it's unclear whether Josh will wait for Pennsylvania to object. It's unclear whether Mo Brooks will have someone else objecting to Arizona. This is, I think, where you're going to have that Ted Cruz coalition, at the very least, pile on. Yes. Well, and that's going to be a whole thing. Ted wants to have a commission like they had in 1876. Yeah. So it has happened before in 1876. It didn't turn out to be that clean of a situation they had partisans from each side and then they had these neutral parties the democrats tried to buy off one of the neutral parties with a senate

seat that guy uh was like cool a senate seat and he just took the senate seat and didn't actually vote first so that was fun for everyone uh so they could ask for that commission or they could simply object. If there's an objection, you can have up to two hours of debate, but only five minutes per person. So quick math there, uh, 24 people to fill your two hours. Am I right there? people to fill your two hours. Am I right there? Yeah. So then we have to go to the actual breakdown. The House has 432 members, 222 Democrats, 210 Republicans, three vacancies. So already the Republicans do not have enough votes, but also we know that not all the Republicans will join on this. It will not be a party line vote. The Senate starts with 51 Republicans because remember, I mentioned David Perdue will not be a senator on Wednesday. 48 senators who caucus with Democrats,

the one vacancy will be the Perdue vacancy. So, and certainly we know that not all the Republicans will vote that way. So this is the like lost cause of lost causes. And that's where you start to wonder, David, what would happen if they were playing with live fire? What if Republicans did have the majority in the house and had enough votes in the Senate, would they still do this? And the reason that I ask, because I think a lot of people are like, yeah, of course they would. They didn't do it for Obamacare. Remember, they ran on repealing Obamacare. I mean, everyone ran on repealing Obamacare. And then they come into 2016, they have both houses of Congress

and they did not repeal Obamacare. They took a lot of like procedurally votes where basically everyone could say that they voted to repeal Obamacare, but they did it in such a way where not all those votes happened at the same time so that they did not in fact repeal Obamacare. So that's all to say, I don't necessarily believe that if they were playing with live fire, that this would count. And it just, it's, you have one person out there who I think is like, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills and I normally would think I must be

like, something has to be wrong, but I just don't get it. But thank goodness for chip Roy, who we've had on our pod, uh, Texas, Thank goodness for Chip Roy, who we've had on our pod. Friend of the pod. Chip Roy from Texas. He is going to object to the seating of 67 House members

representing the delegations of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin under the theory that if these folks really believe that the election was unconstitutional, rigged, all of those things, if all of those votes were fraudulent in those six states it was the same election down ballot and so chip's trying to make a point that you can't object to the presidential election and not object to the congressional one and yeah he did object and there was a vote. There was a vote, and the final vote

was 371 to 2, permitting Pelosi to swear in all the House members. So, wait a minute, we're probably going to have, what, about 100 members of Congress, Republicans, somewhere in there, if the reporting is correct, objecting to the 2020 presidential election. But they didn't object to seeding themselves from those same states. I mean, this is a fraud. It's a fraud. So Wednesday will be interesting because of all of that.

I expect it to be a whole lot of heat, not a lot of light. It will fail in the procedural sense, but in the damage and this march that's supposed to happen, I'm not sure that failure is actually the right term for it. Yeah, I think you raise a really good point. There's going to be a march, maybe another Jericho march that I've written about those before. There's going to be multiple overlapping protests. Things could get very ugly.

It's a contest to see who can sort of be the most dramatic and committed Trump supporter advancing the most dramatic and deranged conspiracy theories. It's bad. It's bad it's bad and sir you raise a really interesting question to me about this question of playing with live ammunition and by that of course we mean not live ammunition but uh would they do this if they thought they had the votes to actually deny the count the the count of the electoral college and i don don't know. I mean, yes, on Obamacare, they couldn't quite pull it off. They came close. There was the famous McCain with this thumbs down, but they couldn't quite pull it off. But that was also kind of early in the Trump era. There hadn't been the year

after year after year of stoking increased negative partisanship and fury and rage. I mean, we were negatively polarized, but we're in a worse place now than we were in 2017. So I genuinely don't know. But what I do know is that multiple members of the Senate and the House are essentially just spitting in the face of the constitutional text and the relevant statutes. I mean, the Constitution, Liz Cheney wrote a long memo that was taking apart this effort. And the Constitution gives the responsibility of electing the president rests with the electoral college, not Congress. This is clear from the constitutional text.

I mean, as Cheney says in her own memo, the person having the greatest number of electoral votes for president shall be president. That does not say unless Congress objects or Congress wants to investigate. This is the, what's happening here are Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley and others are taking on a role that the Constitution does not grant to them. And the statute itself states that if these electors, the relevant statutes, have been selected under the safe harbor, they have to be counted. So this is a ministerial function here.

This is not a discretionary function by Congress. And so they're really just, these are people who until recently would describe themselves as constitutional conservatives attacking the very structure of the system itself. And so, you know, do, would they pull back if it actually, in their view, meant something? I don't have any confidence of that anymore. I really don't.

I'd like to think that this is performance art, but, you know, when we've seen so many people transgress, so many boundaries that we didn't think they'd transgress, I don't think we can have any confidence to say, well, they won't transgress the final boundary. That's just where I am on it. Historically, of course, a lot of people are pointing out that this is not the first time that any slate has been challenged. The first time that a slate was challenged from the Electoral Count Act of 1887 rules was 1969 a representative named james o'hara from michigan and senator edwin edmund muskie from maine challenged north carolina's slate over a faithless elector

of case that we have talked about on our pod david now that that's been resolved uh in 2001 In 2001 and 2017, a House member tried to contest the results without a Senate sponsor, which of course is like the most performative because then you know that it can't go anywhere. In 2005, a representative named Stephanie Tubbs-Jones from Ohio joined forces with Barbara Boxer, the senator from California, to challenge Ohio's electoral slate. So yes, this has happened before, but frankly, it was even more performative and understood itself to be performative. That doesn't excuse it, by the way. I think that's gross. I think all of these performative, you know, look at me, performative, you know, look at me. I will object to George W. Bush winning Ohio with no evidence.

I think that was stupid. The difference was that John Kerry wasn't president United States and that John Kerry wasn't having a March nearby saying that elections shouldn't count anymore. While this is performative. He had conceded. Yeah. While this is performative... He had conceded. Yeah, while this is performative, like that is like a high school musical that nobody went to go listen to. And this is like a blockbuster movie. It doesn't make it less performative,

but the impact it has on the culture is just so different. Nobody knew about the Boxer Jones objection from 2005. And so everyone who's now saying, well, they did it first. You didn't know about this before you went and looked it up. It had no cultural impact. This does, this will. Yep. And it's not just in that you did it first. A, that's the logic, the playground. And B, is it does that mean that Republican Party now aspires to be like Barbara Boxer? I mean, is this what's happening? I mean, Barbara Boxer was voted down.

There was one vote, one vote upholding the objection when the vote actually happened in 2005. And it was Barbara Boxer's. the vote actually happened in 2005, and it was Barbara Boxers. This was a complete, and every single other Democrat either abstained, didn't bother voting, or voted against her. This was a nothing, a nothing. And instead to say, look, you know, there is this one Democratic senator in 2005, so now we can have a dozen Republican senators and a hundred members of the House, and you did it first. No, no. The scale is quantifiably different. The circumstances are quantifiably different. In 2017, Hillary Clinton had conceded. In 2005, John Kerry had conceded. And yeah, you can use the Google machine to find a bunch of articles in fringe journals or maybe fringe articles in mainstream journals questioning election results. But the idea that we're confronting anything like what we're confronting now, anything like it, is pure fiction. And stop making the comparison. anything like it is pure fiction and stop making the comparison. Because I'm also old enough to remember to the extent that you cared about what those people were doing in 2017 and 2005,

you thought it was ludicrous and ridiculous. And so now your argument is I can be ludicrous squared. I can be ridiculous cubed. That's where we are now. That's where we are. Or I should say the bad news. I don't know. Depends on your perspective. Every Republican will now have to say which side of this they are on. They will all have to vote on it. And that will be, you know, recorded for history, so to speak.

And David, this reminds me. I finished a book recently on the history of the 1692 Salem witch trials. And I cannot tell you how applicable it all felt. And we don't need to go into the whole history of the Salem witch trials and what all happened. But there's sort of this like denouement where the bad guys kind of win in the short term. Nobody's punished. The liars aren't punished. The folks who went along with the liars because they lacked courage weren't punished.

The chief justice over the court that heard these cases, he goes on to have a pretty nice career. And if anything, the folks who were accused but then not executed, they had a hard time. Yeah. Because they had been accused of witchcraft. But history turned pretty quickly, all things considered. Yeah. Yeah, not for the most part in their lifetime.

But like immediately after, because everyone even knew at the time. That's what I don't think a lot of people know about the Salem witch trials. This wasn't like, oh, well, these poor backward people in 1692, they just all believed in witchcraft and people were flying around in brooms. No, they knew better then too. better than two it was a it was a stain on the history of the united star the history of the colonies at that point and would become a stain on the history of the united states john adams is mentioning it in the 1770s as like oh uh that was unfortunate um and it really I don't think you blame the teenage girls who, for whatever reason, wanted attention or were struggling with their own, and I use this term quite metaphorically, their own demons. You blame the adults who went along with it because they lacked the courage to say,

stop, guys, this is ridiculous. And it turned into either you accused or you were accused. And it just, that feels very modern right now. And you wonder what would have happened if there had just been one or two more people who were willing to stand their ground. Obviously, a couple of the people who stood their ground were killed, including the only person who has been pressed to death in the United States, David. Yikes. And it's not what you think, or at least what I thought, which was that they would put you between two boards and crank them together and just squeeze you to death. It's much, much worse than that. You are sort of laid on the ground

and they put a board on top of you and then they slowly pile rocks on top of that and it takes like two and a half, three days to die. No. Oh my gosh. Yeah, so that's how one of these guys went. So that's all to say, we're going to have a vote on this. We're going to be able to see where people stand. And it just depends.

Are you here for current opinion? Or are you serving in Congress for posterity? And that's what that vote will tell us. I agree. I don't think any person who votes to uphold an objection should hold public office in the United States of America ever again, is my view. But many of them are coming from the safest of safest of safe red jurisdictions, and we'll see. But here's one bit of optimism before we move on to my spirited defense of Wonder Woman 84. Because we got to end on a lighter note. I've emphasized several times throughout this podcast that a lot of what we're dealing with is just our dumb arguments.

Really dumb arguments. Really stupid declarations. Really silly reasoning. And I think that one of the reasons why it has gained such purchase in the Republican Party is when stupidity is married to power, power attracts. Power attracts. So, you know, when stupidity is married to the ability to make thousands of political appointments, to bring in higher thousands of bureaucrats and people who have real authority in the country. There's a lot of incentive to kind of play along with it because there are benefits to playing along. But stupidity divorced from power is often just stupidity.

from power is often just stupidity. And that's when it begins to, as my old law firm partner said, that's when the bloom is off the rose. That's when people are suddenly able, suddenly, to see things for what they really are. Now, they could have seen things for what they really are before, but I predict you'll start to see some folks who would have been quiet, who'd not said anything, to suddenly find themselves again when that stupidity is disconnected from power. That's my prediction. And interestingly, that's pretty much what happened in the Salem witch trials. Once the tribunal is disbanded, all of a sudden a lot of people spoke up and said, this was ridiculous. Those people were innocent. They knew right away. They acknowledged within weeks that they had put 22 innocent people to death. Yeah. And then it was just a question of like, what do we do about that?

And the answer was not much, not much. And we'll take a quick break to hear from our sponsor today, Aura. Ready to win Mother's Day and cement your reputation as the best gift giver in the family? Give the moms in your life an Aura digital picture frame preloaded with decades of family photos. She'll love looking back on your childhood memories and seeing what you're up to today. Even better, with unlimited storage and an easy to use app, you can keep updating mom's frame with new photos. So it's the gift that keeps on giving. And to be clear, every mom in my life has this frame.

Every mom I've ever heard of has this frame. This is my go-to gift. My parents love it. I upload photos all the time. I'm just like bored watching TV at the end of the night. I'll hop on the app and put up the photos from the day. It's really easy. Right now, Aura has a great deal for Mother's Day.

Listeners can save on the perfect gift by visiting auraframes.com to get $30 off, plus free shipping on their best-selling frame. That's A-U-R-A frames.com. Use code ADVISORY at checkout to save. Terms and conditions apply. All right, Wonder Woman, 84. Okay, everyone says this is a bad movie, David.

I know, I know, but it's not a bad movie. Okay, let me give my standard two things. One, spoilers. Spoiler alert. If you're going to see Wonder Woman 84 and you really don't want to know how this movie ends and how, spoiler, Wonder Woman defeats the bad guy, don't. Keep listening. But if you want to know how, spoiler, Wonder Woman defeats the bad guy. Don't.

Keep listening. But if you want to know how it ends, why I liked it, look, one standard disclaimer. I'm a fan. I'm not a critic. Okay? I go to movies or I watch movies not with an eye of like, what can I find wrong with this thing?

But with an eye of, I want to enjoy this. I want to have fun watching this thing. And superhero movies are all good. The modern superhero movie. I've never left a superhero. And yes, even Green Lantern listeners, even Green Lantern, I have not left a theater going, I wish I hadn't gone. Now, some of them are forgettable like Green Lantern. I didn't. It's not a, it's not, it's the worst of the genre. But I like them. I like them. So lots of people, Sarah, thought it was cheesy and corny,

which it was cheesier and cornier than the first Wonder Woman, which I think is a top pantheon superhero movie. But what people really got mad about, spoiler, spoiler, spoiler, is they say, Wonder Woman saved the world with a speech. And that was cheesy. Okay. All right. I thought it was touching. And here's why. And then you can tell your Gal Gadot story. I thought it was touching because it wasn't just that she say, so what the conceit of the story is a guy gains the power through, you know, complicated superhero Greek God kinds of ways,

the power to grant a wish. But if, as he grants your wish, he also takes something from you. And so all of us and all of these people around the world are able to get what they want, but what they want turns out to not exactly be what they should have or what they need. And people begin to regret a lot of their choices, but it's too late. You got what you asked for and here it is, but it's too late and the world is coming apart. It's

too late. And there was only one way to get people to unring the bell, and that was to renounce their wish, okay? So, this has huge echoes in Christian theology, which are the heart is deceptive above all things. A lot of people, when they live life the way they want to live it, they end up five, six, seven years later going, whoa, this is not what I wanted. What can I do about it? And that's the process of confession and repentance and reconciliation. And anyway, so there's that sort of hovering in the background. And so what happens is Wonder

Woman can't physically defeat the bad guy. He's growing so powerful from taking things from everyone around him that she lassos him with the lasso of truth. All right, don't be laughing. There is such a thing as a lasso of truth. No, David, there's not such a thing as the lasso of truth. In this world, there is. There's a lasso of truth. We're in the dynamics of the world. And so not only does it allow the big bad guy to see the truth of what he's become, it allows everyone he's connecting with to see the truth of what they've become. what he's become. It allows everyone he's connecting with to see the truth of what they've become. And it has, again, major echoes of the process of repentance and confession.

Because in the process of repentance, you realize, what have I become? And then in the Christian story, the confession then leads to the gift of forgiveness and salvation. And so this was like an allegory, probably unintentional, whatever. But that's how this guy watched it. As I'm watching, I'm like, holy smokes, this is a really powerful moment of group awareness of sin followed by the hope of redemption followed by confession. And that's what happened. People saw clearly what they did and renounced their misdeeds and the world was healed. And I thought it was cool. I thought it was powerful.

So sue me, Twitter. That's what I thought about it. And that's why I liked it. It wasn't Wonder Woman 1, which was awesome. But hey, I liked that moment. So that's my case, Sarah. That's what I thought about it, and that's why I liked it. It wasn't Wonder Woman 1, which was awesome, but hey, I liked that moment. So that's my case, Sarah. That's my case. The lasso of truth, David.

I can't. Come on. I mean, Sarah, you're talking to a person who walks around back in the days. You remember when you could walk around cities and go in subways and things like this i walk around i get on planes with a gar not a garment bag a messenger bag that says on it bag of holding and that's a 20-sided dice so if i'm walking around with

a bag of holding i am fine with talking about the lasso of truth. Yeah, this movie sounds pretty terrible. I'm just going to say that. Your attempt to rescue it, I think might have made it sound more terrible, actually. It's hard to say. I really, you know, am a firm, like all in when it comes to lessons on forgiveness and grace. And I thought your Ted Lasso newsletter was fantastic about what instant forgiveness and what that grace can mean in all of our lives. This sounds silly though. I know. No, no, no. I reject. I reject this. So Wonder Woman 84 was filmed, at least partially, on Pennsylvania Avenue between Congress and the White House. And that is where the Department of Justice is located. So they shut down the road where I would like drive to get into

work in 2018. And, you know, there weren't all that many perks actually working at DOJ, but one of them was to, uh, call down and say like, Oh, Hey, I'm with the attorney general. We were wondering if we could come like walk around the set. And so we did, and we got to say hi to Gal Gadot. She was in her full regalia. We saw her stunt double doing like a run up Pennsylvania Avenue toward the White House as cars and other people in 80s garb came the other way.

I'm not really sure what was happening in that scene, David. You probably do. Yes. It was, you know, that was pretty neat. But on the neatness scale, like for me, I'm not super into this stuff. That was like a two or three on the neatness scale.

So there. I'm glad the movie was made. You talked to IDF veteran Gal Gadot. That's true. Yeah. Yeah. She's great in the movie. I mean, look, it's not a pantheon

superhero movie i mean we can we could have a whole podcast about what the pantheon is the mount rushmore of superhero movies top 10 top you know one day what i need to do sarah i need to rank every mceu andCEU movie from worst to first. That would be a lot of fun. What a great use of your time and intellect. It's not awesome. It's not the first one, but it's good. I enjoyed it.

Twitter's wrong. Twitter has piled on. It's like one of those shame storms. No, you got to push through and watch it for yourself and enjoy it. So's like one of those shame storms. Just know you got to push through and watch it for yourself and enjoy it. So there you have it. All right. Before we sign off with our first pod of 2021,

congratulations, David. Your granddaughter is at home with you. Team Lila has prevailed. Not just prevailed. Team Lila is thriving. Yes. If you could just give us a couple updates on our wonderful, wonderful Lila. I know that the brisket in particular is excited to meet Lila, woo her,

marry her, et cetera. Our families will finally be one. So I can't even tell you the contrast where we are now from what we expected and were told to expect two, three months ago. We were told best case scenario was going to be months in the NICU, possibility of discovering severe genetic defects, the idea that Lila could have a normal, healthy life seemed like the most remote possibility. But her condition from when some of the initial diagnoses were made improved in the womb. I mean, she got bigger. She had gastroschisis where your intestines develop outside your body. That condition didn't go away in the womb, but there was some evidence that it improved in some important ways. She only has one kidney, but it seems to be functioning very well. And she came when she was born on December 15th. She was on the low end of normal birth weight, which was super encouraging.

And then when they did the surgery to place her intestines inside her body, they said it would be miraculous if they could do that in one surgical procedure. They did it in one surgical procedure. surgical procedure. And then she progressed with remarkable speed to the point where about two weeks after the surgery, she was eating normally. And so two and a half weeks after the surgery, or a little more than two weeks after the surgery, they let her come home on New Year's Eve. And so she arrived in our house on New Year's Eve in the evening. And she's just beautiful. She's a good baby. She's easily soothed. She's so sweet.

And I'm in that stage that I'd forgotten about because my kids, I mean, my biological kids are 22 and 20. So it's been 22 and 20 years since we went through that newborn phase and I'd forgotten about it. And I think I'd forgotten about it because it was a haze of exhaustion. And so your mind doesn't remember much during a haze of exhaustion. And so we're not fully there because Lila's parents are with us and they're taking the laboring or on taking care of Lila, but we're trying to help a lot. But it's a remarkable blessing, just a remarkable blessing. And I appreciate everyone's prayers and good wishes. And, um, and she's just a sweetheart. So that's a great way. That's a way that 2021 is already material, materially better than 2020. Making my day, David, making my year.

better than 2020. Making my day, David. Making my year. I love it. All right. Well, this was the end of podcast one of 2021, but number 98 of the Advisory Opinions podcast. And I have to tell you, I'm so thankful. We're both so thankful for the response to this podcast. We have a podcast listening community that's just fantastic. And we really appreciate it. And if you are a listener, if you are a subscriber, go rate us on iTunes, please, or Apple Podcasts. I always say iTunes, Apple Podcasts. Please rate us. Please leave a review. We really appreciate it. And if you haven't subscribed yet, please subscribe. And guess what, Sarah? I think we're going to have a lot to talk about on Thursday. I think so.

A lot. All right. Until then, thank you so much for listening and happy new year. Imagine yourself in Ottawa, surrounded by thousands of vibrant tulips. Oh. And discovering your new favorite microbrew. Ah.

Before cycling along scenic bike paths. Oh. And wandering through a museum in awe, adventure awaits in Ottawa from O to A.