Advisory Opinions - Satire Meet Reality

Episode Date: September 2, 2020

Ever since its humble beginnings in March 2016, The Babylon Bee—a Christian, conservative version of The Onion—has been a godsend for Americans who have become worn out by news outlets that take themselves too seriously. From its theological inside jokes about the prosperity gospel to its Snopeslong-standing feuds with and CNN, the Bee has made its mark in the world of satire. On today’s episode, David and Sarah are joined by the Babylon Bee’s editor-in-chief, Kyle Mann, who tells us about the challenges of satire writing in a cultural moment when it’s not always easy to determine fact from fiction. “There is an element where it’s not that our articles are too close to reality, it’s that reality is too close to satire,” Mann explains. “It’s what makes it so hard to write because you write something that you think is so goofy and over the top and then people believe it because reality is so crazy.” Listen to today’s episode for a conversation about C.S. Lewis’ best books, Kyle’s joke-writing process, and a tell-all about why Twitter’s decision to temporarily deplatform and demonetize the Babylon Bee was ironically “the best thing that could happen” to the team. Today’s episode would be incomplete without its requisite dose of legal nerdery. Tune in to hear David and Sarah discuss the never-ending saga with Michael Flynn, the McGahn case, and Sarah Palin’s defamation case against the New York Times. Show Notes: -Some of the Babylon Bee’s top headlines: “Nation's Cats Endorse Trump In Hopes Americans Will Go Back To Work And Leave Them Alone”, “Nation Shocked As Jerry Falwell Jr. Doesn't Turn Out To Be Man Of Upstanding Character,” “Lego Introduces New Sharper Bricks That Instantly Kill You When You Step On Them,” “Joel Osteen Sails Luxury Yacht Through Flooded Houston To Pass Out Copies Of 'Your Best Life Now,' ” “Inspiring: Celebrities Spell Out 'We're All In This Together' With Their Yachts.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by RBC Student Banking. Students, get $100 when you open an RBC Advantage banking account, which includes no monthly fee, unlimited debit transactions in Canada, Avion points on debit purchases, and so, so much more. Unlock more perks for less with RBC Vantage. Conditions apply.

Offer ends June 30th, 2024. New eligible clients only. Complete criteria by August 30th, 2024. New eligible clients only. Complete criteria by August 30th, 2024. Visit rbc.com slash student100. This ad for Fizz is only 25 seconds long, but we had to pay for 30. Those leftover five seconds shouldn't just disappear, right? It's kind of like what happens to your unused mobile data at the end of each month. Except at Fizz, your unused data from the end of the month rolls over,

so you can use it the next month. Hey, you paid for it, so keep it. Try the other side. Get started at fizz, your unused data from the end of the month rolls over, so you can use it the next month. Hey, you paid for it, so keep it. Try the other side. Get started at Fizz.ca. If you need some time to think it over, here's five seconds. Ah, do, da-da-dee-da, do-da-do-do. Certain conditions apply. Details at Fizz.ca. You ready? I was born ready.

Welcome to the Advisory Opinions Podcast. A day later than normal because I have been on vacation. Sarah, my first vacation in five years. It's not what I call a vacation, hiking 14,000 feet. I call that punishment. 14,440 feet, to be precise, Sarah. But you made it. You sent me a picture. I made it. I made it.

I sent visual proof from the peak of Mount Elbert where two of my friends and me, we went up all the way to the top. And I'll say this. I was not expecting this. I am not as sore now at age 51 when I did it than I was when I did it the first time 28 years ago when I was 23. What explains that? Well, I think it's this, Sarah, that when I was 23, I did nothing to prepare for it. Yeah, right. Okay. You had some healthy fear this time.

Yeah, I had a very healthy fear. So I worked out as much as I feasibly could. And I got up to the top of the mountain and I felt great. Like I felt like, wait, I mean, on top of the world, so to speak. Wow. And then the descent. As someone who has had major knee surgery, the descent's always what gets me. Even just going downstairs, holding the brisket, like, yeah, that's not good. Oh yeah. I, by the end of it, I, I, so we have

three, three of us went all the way up to the top. One of the guys is a three-time Ironman triathlete. And so he just went on ahead. He just went on ahead. He got up there and he came down and met us and then went up there with us again. Gross. So he, he, yeah, he did it twice. I hate him. Uh, but he did it twice. The other guy was a guy who hadn't worked out a ton and, and, but was sort of naturally physically fit. Uh, but he was struggling and we had a, we had a program and a plan and it was all we do is we take 50 steps and then we rest. We take, there's no, it's not, we don't think we're 1000 feet below the summit. We just think there's 50 steps and then rest. That is all of life is 50 steps.

But then on the way down, all of life was just pain. It was just pain. But, um, Sarah, there were a few adventures on the way. The RV we were driving in broke down on the way uh the rv we were driving in uh broke down on the way of course it did yeah uh coolant low uh started to go up the high altitudes it broke down so that was one adventure another one is uh we did a utv or an all-terrain vehicle adventure thing where we were just flying around this like 100,000 acre wilderness area. It was so fun. And I may or may not have broken my ATV.

Well, it didn't really break it. I may or may not have blown a tire on it through my own quite possible negligence. Yeah, no, 100%. Yeah, I can neither confirm nor deny that that occurred. At least you didn't flip it. I was worried you were going to, I mean, I had concerns about this whole trip. I feel like Nancy and I should have discussed.

Well, yeah, I did almost flip it. Yeah. Almost at one point. Because a bunch of boys hanging out with their old college friends, thinking that they're back in college is just not, no, no, no, no, no, no. Yeah, yeah, no, it was, but it was great. It was a fantastic time, but I'm back.

I'm back. And I'm actually, my goodness. Um, it's September by the way. Can you believe like, I know it's September weird days away from labor day. And after labor day, it gets real. Yep. Politically. I mean, as if it doesn't feel real now, it gets really real politically after Labor Day. And it got real legally in the last few days. Yeah, we had some, man, some opinions coming out that really are tying, they're not tying bows yet. They're ongoing, but I don't know,

the first circle has been tied on some of the cases we've been talking about now for months. Flynn, McGahn, even the Trump finance cases. And we have a really interesting decision in Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against the New York Times. I mean, a lot of stuff. What should we start with? What do you want to start with, Sarah? Well, real quick on the Trump finance cases, basically the second circuit, not surprisingly, just said that they were going to hear arguments on this. So let's table that one until the arguments, which are the end of this month. And you and I will no doubt listen to those arguments and have feelings and thoughts. So table that one. Okay. You know what? I haven't

even mentioned. We have a guest. Oh, right. Yes, we have a guest. We have Kyle Mann coming from the Babylon Bee, the most fact-check satirical news site on the internet. So he's going to talk about the origin of the Babylon Bee, the origin of the feud that they have had with CNN and Snopes. And he's going to regale us with his favorite bee headlines ever, which also include some of my all-time favorites. So that is in the second half of the podcast. The first half is law.

Second half is satire. So let's launch. And we'll see if you can tell the difference between the two. Why don't we go to the never-ending saga of Michael Flynn? Thought you'd never ask. So, last in our episodes, the... Well, let's just do the real quick recap.

So, Michael Flynn asked to have his case dismissed. Then, all of a sudden, DOJ was like, yeah, yeah, let's dismiss it. And the judge was like, nah, I want to think about that. And appointed an amicus to make the argument of why he shouldn't dismiss the case. And he also asked for anyone else to send in their thoughts on why he shouldn't dismiss the case. So Michael Flynn then files a writ of

mandamus, which is an extraordinary writ. That's not just my thoughts. That's like what it is. It's an extraordinary writ. And a panel of the D.C. Circuit was like, yes, writ granted. The judge must dismiss the case because DOJ and Flynn agree. And while, yes, there's a rule of federal civil procedure that says the judge or criminal procedure that says the judge has some role in it, it's really about abusing DOJ, abusing its process. That's not an issue here. So you have to dismiss the case. The DC Circuit took the case on box so that all the judges could hear it. The oral argument was interesting. And you and I made predictions. The opinion came out and our predictions were totally correct. Yes, indeed know i have to apply the podcast promotion exception to the

moral dictate of humility um that one of the things we've been emphasizing from the start of this uh latest round of the flynn case is how unusual it was that this thing was tossed uh this case was tossed on mandamus we have emphasized the writ of mandamus that this thing was tossed, this case was tossed on mandamus. We have emphasized the writ of mandamus, that this is an extraordinary thing. This is unusual. You just don't do that very much. And that is the core of the en banc opinion here. It's like, wait a minute, you're asking us to intervene before the trial court has even had a chance to hear the motion to dismiss the case. And honestly, Sarah, we've talked many times about how this case is just full of these holy crap moments. Like, holy crap, the DOJ is uncorking a novel legal theory that it doesn't do in other cases

to try to dismiss this case. Holy crap, The judge has decided he's not going to dismiss it and he's going to appoint an amicus. Wow. There's a mandamus. Mandamus was granted. It's just like escalating unusual moments. And all of a sudden we just had one that's totally normal. Yes, that's okay.

So you and I haven't talked about this, but I was reading it and I was like, oh man, David, how are we going to talk about the fact that for the first time, I feel like we have a normal opinion in this case. First time. Yeah, exactly. This was very normal.

You do not intervene. It is not normal to intervene, to try to get an appeals court to intervene, to dictate that a trial court rule on a motion in a particular way. That is not normal. And especially as they point out that Michael Flynn isn't even in detention right now. He's not in jail right now. So it's not as if he's suffering real damage by going through the process. He can go through the process and it's entirely possible in the process that the court may go ahead and dismiss the case anyway.

Well, and in fact, that was another part that I found very normal, is when a circuit says, like, oh, we absolutely defer to the district judge. We have to let this play out. P.S., district judge, you'd better find this way. Like, we're not embarrassing you, but, like, hint, hint, you know this has to'd better find this way. We're not embarrassing you, but hint, hint,

you know this has to come out a certain way. And I thought that Judge Griffith's concurring opinion was just, I mean, talk about it could be satire, but it's not. It was lovely. So it starts with, in cases that attract public attention, it is common for pundits and politicians to frame their commentary in a way that reduces the judicial process to little more than a skirmish in a partisan battle. The party affiliation of the president who appoints a judge becomes an explanation for the judge's real reason for the disposition, and the legal reasoning employed is seen as a cover for the exercise of raw political power. No doubt there will be some who will describe the court's decision today in such terms, but they would be mistaken. And he has one paragraph talking about it. And here's the last paragraph. Moreover, as its counsel repeatedly stated at oral argument, the district court may well grant

the government's motion to dismiss the case against General Flynn. In fact, it would be highly unusual if it did not, given the executive's constitutional prerogative to direct and control prosecutions and the district court's limited discretion under Rule 48A, especially when the defendant supports the government's motion. But if the court denies the motion, General Flynn has multiple avenues of relief that he can pursue. And because he does, mandamus is not appropriate in this case at this time. Subtle, subtle, Judge Griffith. Very subtle. Not sure that Judge Sullivan is going to care particularly what Judge Griffith thinks.

This is a, you know, we may rapidly go back to the incredibly unusual chain of events that has dominated this case from sort of the get-go. But for right now, this was, hey, y'all, a return to normalcy legally. Even though the headline would sort of frame it as a rebuke to Flynn, it's much more of just a,

hey, guys, let's pause on all the craziness. We're going to go back to business as usual procedurally, and we'll just see what happens in the outcome. There was a dissent on, well, there were two dissents, one on the mandamus issue, which is even too nerdy for this podcast. But there was one on when a judge has lost the appearance of impartiality, or rather their impartiality could be, quote, reasonably questioned. I found that pretty interesting because I think that that's something we don't talk a lot about in any legal settings. Because for instance, the judge in this case gave some very, what's the word, blunt assessments of the case during what was going to be the sentencing.

assessments of the case during what was going to be the sentencing uh he said that these actions disgusted him that they amounted to treason things like that but we expect judges to do that at sentencing hearings and i thought it was interesting that in those he was phrasing it about the actions not the person you know the actions that you took are bad not you a person is bad um but then it just to me it comes down to whether you think that it has to be really extraordinary for a judge to be seen as not impartial or if you think that should just happen more often it's sort of like how i think more lawyers should be disbarred but we kind of have a policy against disbarment as a country more or less. And so it's not that I'm saying in any specific case, I just think generally we should disbar more people. And so I feel like with this, it came down to, you know, do you think that judges in general should be more

quick to recuse themselves, even though they are the fact expert in the case by that point? Does it hurt our system of justice when people feel like the judge doesn't like them? And I don't have strong feelings about it. In this case, it's definitely one that I think is closer to the line. You know, it's interesting. I found the majority's discussion, really brief discussion, actually, of this recusal as as pretty interesting because they're they're really making a point that way what he said was in the context of the proceeding itself in the context of a guilty plea yes and if you know anything about sentencing for example uh

post-conviction sentencing or post-guilty plea sentencing it is not unusual for a judge to unload on the defendant. That's right. It is not unusual at all. And in fact, that's often praised. They're in state courts which have TV cameras. Sometimes these things will go viral as a judge lectures a defendant. And it's kind of seen as okay and has traditionally been seen as okay because it's all post-conviction. This is where the system has adjudicated the guilt and then the judge sort of like takes it on its own prerogative to sort of vent his or her spleen about what the person has either been admitted to have done or was found to have done by a jury. And that's just normal stuff. It would be really interesting if he had been forced to recuse on the basis of this,

because it would have ripple effects. You'd have a lot of sort of, you kids get off my lawn, district court judges going, oh, okay. on district court judges going, oh, okay. Yeah, I mean, the part that's odd here is normally these cases have a lifespan and you know what comes next in the lifespan. And therefore, after you have, for instance, pled guilty and then there's a sentencing, that's the end of the lifespan. What's odd here is the judge said the things at the sentencing, but then the case goes back kind of to the very beginning as he wants to undo his plea. And then DOJ wants to drop the case.

And now all of a sudden you're back to the very beginning of the case. And it would be odd for a judge at the beginning of the case to say that he thinks you probably committed treason. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, and, you know, that's exactly right. This is highlighting the unusual aspect of it because it's not just undoing a plea, it's undoing a double plea. Yeah. It's a double plea. He said, yeah, I did it before. New judge comes in, new judge says, hey, before, you know, you filed a sentencing memo that really raises questions about the plea itself. Are you sure you want to plead guilty? And Flynn goes, I am sure I want to plead guilty. I'm going to reaffirm it.

And Flynn goes, I am sure I want to plead guilty. I'm going to reaffirm it. So you've had this double plea, which the judge then unloads on Flynn. And then Flynn comes back for the third time and says, nope, nope, nope, no plea, no plea. And then, which is the only thing that would remotely cast into question the judge's comment. So that was sort of an artifact of the strangeness of this case. Speaking of strange, McGahn. One other thing. Your prediction. Oh, no. What did Judge Sullivan do? I think that's a really interesting question because it is abundantly clear that even in the majority, Flynn's case is getting dismissed. Whether they have to do it or whether Sullivan does it, it's getting dismissed whether they have to do it or whether sullivan does it it's getting dismissed so it just depends on whether sullivan wants to like is he willing in order to make this painful

for flynn to make it painful for himself alsoJ and Flynn and dismisses the case. Yeah. That he may write an opinion that just sort of lays out all of the strangeness here, but then dismisses the case because of the deference due the DOJ and its prosecution decisions. But that's been sort of my prediction from the beginning, is that he's just going to wear them out, but dismiss the case. But we'll see. Now this one, this one, Sarah, the McGann case. Let's stay in the DC circuit, shall we? Lots of action. Lots of action. Do you want to summarize this sucker?

Okay. Well, first of all, we're back with Judge Griffith. Yeah. That's sort of fun. So this is whether the House can force McGahn to testify. McGahn initially said that he didn't have to even show up. He has blanket immunity as the former White House counsel, which was a weird argument. Yeah. And nobody really bought that. And indeed, the court did not. That was the end of that. There's no blanket immunity. And then it was just, okay, so you have to show up. But now there's the question of, does the House of Representatives have the ability to enforce its subpoena? And this was a bit of a surprise. Judge Griffith saying, uh, no, they can't enforce their subpoena under article one because there is no law that Congress has passed that Congress can enforce its own subpoena.

Now, I did feel like I, I mean, it's a, I have friends, we have, weirdly, I have these debates sometimes, David, over whether Congress actually has subpoena power or not. Yeah. This is like dinner conversation around my house. And, you know, the Griffith opinion turned around two statutes, 2 U.S.C. 280 A.D. and 28 U.S.C. 1365 B., both of which authorize the Senate to enforce their subpoenas with a noted exception for subpoenas over potentially executive-privileged documents or testimony. And so Judge Griffiths said, look, there's this exclusion principle in law, where if there's a law that says one thing, and it is very specific, and it doesn't include all these other things, we're going to assume that was intentional. And in this case, the two things are pretty relevant. It says the Senate, they could have said Congress, they didn't, they could have included the house, they didn't. And so if they didn't include the house, we will read into it that therefore it was very specific that only the Senate can enforce its

subpoenas. And two, that by specifically excluding within the Senate authorization, specifically excluding within the Senate authorization, these potentially governmental privilege documents or testimony, that even if for some reason you think it should include the House, that that exclusion could potentially apply there too. So no sort of blanket constitutional implied subpoena power. Well, that's a real shock, I think, to the system. Yeah. You know, it's funny. It was almost as if when I saw it, I was like, wait, what?

The House doesn't have subpoena power? Excuse me? And then I read the opinion, and it was almost like a law school dorm conversation come to life. Yes. A hundred percent because I've had this conversation and it is like a law school dorm conversation in my house. And then I saw it in paper and I was like, oh yeah, that's what that looks like. So it's sort of like somebody who hasn't, they haven't, you know, let's just say that they haven't really engaged with longstanding practice of the House, you know, House committees issuing subpoenas and they haven't really thought very much about it. And then somebody says, here are these two statutes.

Right. Can the House issue a subpoena? And you read them and you go, well, it doesn't say so. And then they go, well, wait a minute. Okay, what about Article 1? And you pick up Article 1 and you read it and you go, well, it doesn't say so. But they could probably pass it off if they wanted to. And you think, oh, oh, wait a minute.

Could this actually be right? And some of the commentary talks about the consequences of this, that there are real consequences of this. The House has sort of had this stick in its back pocket for a while where it says, we're going to make you show up. And, well, what about government oversight? What about legislative oversight and accountability if they can't really make you show up in the same way that you thought they could? And that's when you sort of say, okay, that's probably right as a matter of policy. You know, it's a matter of public policy. You'd want the House to be able to compel people, but where do you get that authority? I don't know. I found the decision oddly compelling, I have to admit.

I don't know. Well, how about this? I didn't even read it in the context of whether I found it compelling because this is also going to go on bonk. Yeah, absolutely. So I was like, oh, I wonder how quickly it will go on bonk

and when it will go on bonk rather than was I personally persuaded because I guess I also wanted to, at that point, go back and reread the briefing materials because it felt a little narrow, the Griffith opinion, to just focus in on those two statutory points. Yeah. Yeah, it was very narrow, but it's one of those opinions. So I have to think more about it. As I said, everybody, I've been driving or riding for 23 hours, and I actually tried to take a real vacation where I'm mostly unplugged. And so I've only, you know, my altitude-addled mind read the Judge Griffith opinion and thought, huh? Right.

But like there's Supreme Court precedent on congressional subpoenas. And there's never there's always been an assumption that, of power to get information through judicial enforcement of a subpoena. Yeah, it's almost like it's been so obvious no one questioned it. Right. Yeah. And then, you know, the dissent talks about the Declaratory Judgment Act, which that I did find not persuasive. the Declaratory Judgment Act, which that I did find not persuasive. Like at the point that there is a very specific statute that talks about Senate subpoenas excluding governmental privilege stuff, I don't think that the Declaratory Judgment Act somehow sits above that and just squashes it.

So I think either you go with the exclusion through the Senate statutes and that that wins, or there's an implied subpoena power in Article 1. One of the two. And so it's like huge stomping foot of the Constitution, or who even knew we had these statutes about Senate subpoenas? But like the Declaratory Judgment Act, that I thought just sort of, eh, I found that really not persuasive. So that's my en banc prediction, that it goes either the small way or the bigfoot way. Yeah. Yeah, this feels like a kind of legal issue

that doesn't exactly make headlines. Well, very briefly, very briefly, and doesn't exactly get the people going, so to speak. But it's pretty darn important. And if I was a Speaker of the House, I would think, you know what? One of my priorities is just sort of as a housekeeping measure. We're going to try to ram through a bill giving us the sort of at least as much prerogative as the Senate and see where it goes. Interestingly, that should be a pretty bipartisan bill coming out of the House. I don't know exactly what would happen to it in the Senate, but I know one part of the

government that will probably veto that. Oh, yes. So, yes, normally I would say this will get mooted out because the House will pass a law that would take care of this, except it won't happen in time and they would have to have a veto-proof majority. And again, while I think the House would actually have one, I don't think the Senate has a veto-proof majority on letting the House have more power because they don't really care. So I think you'd have some Republican senators just siding with Trump over that. So I do think that this will just continue the McGahn saga. And it'll be interesting to see what happens to so many of these cases if Trump were to lose and how many of them just get dropped. Or if the House pushes it and wants to sort of make some law

on this, there's always risk in doing that, David. You could make bad, bad House law like right now where all of a sudden the House of representatives doesn't have subpoena power whoa yeah yeah it is it's a big case it's a big case but you're right it's en banc it's going to go en banc so what this sort of did was just like it's like pinging on our radar screen now we're we're like two sailors in the you know the command center of a ship, and we have now seen a hostile, a bogey has pinged onto the radar screen. So we've got something else to follow. We never lack for things to follow, but we have another case to follow. Yeah. And speaking of things, by the way, that I thought were off of our radar pinging, the Sarah Palin New York Times case.

Yes. Now, this is interesting. Okay. Over the weekend, a United States district judge rejected the New York Times motion for summary judgment to try to toss Sarah Palin's case against the New York Times, her defamation case against the New York Times. And you think, Sarah Palin case against the New York Times, her defamation case against the New York Times. And you think, Sarah Palin has sued the New York Times for defamation? Why, indeed she did. But before I go on, Sarah, I need to disclose conflicts, disclose relationships.

Nancy has worked with Sarah several years ago on not one, but two books. So Nancy and Sarah have a really good relationship. And I have represented, and I think I talked about this in a previous case, our previous podcast, Bristol Palin, in a defamation lawsuit. So putting that out there, that's part of the French family's squish rhino history, is our work for Sarah and Bristol Palin. But anyway, okay, so here's what happened. If you guys want to get a quick reminder,

after the James Hodgkinson shooting, and if you don't remember who James Hodgkinson is, he was the vocal Bernie supporter who opened fire on Republicans who were practicing for the congressional baseball game, very, very, very severely injuring Steve Scalise. New York Times published an editorial in response to the attack. It very appropriately condemned Hodgkinson, you know, said all the right things. But then it said this, was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Lochner opened fire in a supermarket lot, parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a nine-year-old girl. The link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin's political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that puts Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs. Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes

by anti-Trump liberals. They're right. Though there's no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack. Liberals, of course, should hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.

There was the problem there, Sarah, was there was no evidence of that Sarah Palin incited Lochner in any way, shape, or form. And how would the New York Times know that? From the New York Times. They had done a really comprehensive reported piece just days after the shooting. They describedchner's mental illness his political beliefs in very great detail and they had nothing to do nothing to do um with sarah palin in any way shape or form i mean for example this is one of his quotes from his um you know online screeds um most people who read this text forget it in the next two seconds.

The population of dreamers in the United States is less than 5%. If 987123478961876 is the year in BCE, then the previous year is 98. This is the kind of stuff that he was thinking about. And it had nothing to do with Sarah Palin at all. And after an outcry, the Times did make some revisions, but Sarah filed suit,

and now she gets to go to trial. Now, she tried to change the legal standard to make it easier for a public figure to prove defamation. Under the law now, it's very hard. You have to prove actual malice, but that doesn't mean like spite or, you know, it doesn't mean evil intention.

It means, did you publish something that was wrong or you should have known was wrong? And it's a hard threshold to clear. Although, what's interesting about this case is it's usually impossible to clear. Yes. Because the New York Times had published so much specifically on that shooting when it occurred

and any ties to the Sarah Palin crosshairs image, there is actual evidence that they did know, but she still has to prove that this specific person knew um but but she's better off than the vast vast majority of these situations which makes it an interesting case yeah in which makes provides the new york times with a lot of incentive to settle the case because now you're going to trial and there's some pretty compelling evidence that uh that would and again when we talk about actual malice we're not talking about evil intent it's just knowledge basically yeah there's a great explainer of this a law explainer by ken white um in his new sub stack so which ken Ken's a friend from law school, super sharp attorney,

former U.S. attorney. Now he's a federal criminal defense attorney, First Amendment attorney. And so he's got a substack. Mostly a Twitter attorney. Love the Twitter. Twitter attorney. Yeah, absolutely. So he's got a great explainer about it. And he's really good at noting how some legal words in law don't mean what they mean in life. And so malice doesn't mean, in law, doesn't necessarily mean the same thing that malice believes in life. So she has a, she's going to be able to make a case to a jury. And in that circumstance, an awful lot, if not most defendants, when they're staring in the face,

you know, misconduct severe enough that they actually kind of had to correct the record publicly, don't like to run that risk. I mean, the New York Times may, you know, they may decide that they believe they can win, but it would not surprise me. Getting in front of a jury

means the likelihood of Sarah Palin winning this case has gone up to, in my book, roughly 70%. Maybe higher. I would agree with that. I would agree with that. Because a jury is going like, someone said this false thing about you. Yes, technically the law is supposed to turn on whether they knew it was false,

but they're going to admit that it was false and that they had to correct it. And so I just think at that point, the jury is already kind of with you. And the New York Times will, I mean, I'm not saying a legal burden, but they will have a jury burden, if you will, to show that like they didn't know that it was false. And it's that's the important thing is that they didn't know it was false. They just accidentally said something, you know, blamed someone for murder that wasn't right. And, you know, most juries are like, yeah, I don't, I mean, you had reasons to know it would false, whether you knew or whatever, like, eh. Now, whether you'd put Sarah Palin on the stand with that jury will probably depend on who you get on that jury.

Yeah. But, you know, it's not a criminal case. So the defendants will be able to put her up there. Oh, good point. Yeah. Yeah. So she's, in fact, at one of my last trial, one of the witnesses I called first was the chief, the defendant's chief witness, because I wanted to get some stuff in the record coming from me first. But yeah. I think Sarah Palin can make herself a less sympathetic plaintiff if potentially on the stand. You know, one of the things about witnesses. Let me tell you about witnesses. Let me tell you about witnesses. It reminds me of my mentor in the practice of law, incredible lawyer in Kentucky, taught me 90% of what I ever knew about litigation.

So blame him. But one of his, I'll never forget a moment where we go into his office and we just won a case and we'd won on summary judgment even, Sarah. It was great. And so we called the client to break the good news and the client chewed him out because the judge didn't give him all of the relief that he asked for. And I was gobsmacked. I mean, this young attorney, how come a client isn't just over the moon at winning a case? And Phil, that's his name, Phil, Phil Scott looked at me and he goes, David, the practice of law would be marvelous if it weren't for clients.

which sometimes clients have unrealistic expectations. And I would say, I'll add the addendum to this, but being a trial lawyer is a marvelous, marvelous experience. If it weren't for your own witnesses that you often don't know what they're going to do until they're on the stand and the chips are down. So that'll be an interesting trial. It's set for 2021 and we'll be down. So that'll be an interesting trial. It's set for 2021.

And we'll be watching. We will watch. So we have three things to watch more. Well, we're already watching Flynn. We now have the, was the House of Representatives just cut off at the knees? We'll hear that from Anbank. And will Sarah Palin defeat the New York Times? And one thing I'd add... And the New York Manhattan DA's subpoena of Trump's tax returns. So much. So much. So much, Sarah. And I'll say one other thing about Sarah Palin's case.

I think you have a harder time asserting sort of like innocent mistake if you're the New York Times. Right, not exactly a fly-by-night publication that's understaffed. Yeah, exactly, exactly.

But we'll see. So let's move from the world of law, shall we, to the world of satire, including satire directed at not just Biden and Trump, but little-known Christian subgroups. The Calvinists. Well, wait a minute. We're not little-known. We're dominant colossuses astride the land. So without further ado, let's talk to Kyle Mann from the Babylon Bee. But before we go to Kyle, let's thank our first sponsor, Bills.com.

Being in debt sucks. Credit cards, student loans, mortgages, doesn't matter what kind. Being in debt flat out sucks. Well, there is a good way to defeat your debt. Thanks to Bills.com. If you're losing sleep over maxed out credit cards or stressed out thinking about your mortgage payments or student loans, Bills.com can help you take back control of your life. The first step to lowering your monthly payments and becoming debt free is to get a free debt assessment.

It only takes a few minutes and could save you hundreds or even thousands of dollars each month. From debt settlement to personal loan consolidation to student loan or mortgage refinancing, Bills.com has you covered. to student loan or mortgage refinancing, bills.com has you covered. They're part of the Freedom Financial Network, which has been in business since 2002 and settled over $10 billion in debt. Take the first step to defeating your debt.

Get your free debt assessment today. Go to bills.com slash opinions. That's bills.com slash opinions. Bills.com slash opinions. And joining us, Kyle Mann, the editor-in-chief of The Babylon Bee. First, for those of you not familiar with The Babylon Bee, although I feel like most of our listeners will be, David, but I'm going to read what is The Babylon Bee from The Babylon Bee. Because if you check in with Snopes or maybe some other websites, you may get a different version.

So according to the Babylon Bee, the Babylon Bee is the world's best satire site, totally inerrant in all its truth claims. We write satire about Christian stuff, political stuff in everyday life. The Babylon Bee was created ex nihilo on the eighth day of the creation week, exactly 6,000 years ago. They have been the premier news source

through every major world event from the Tower of Babel and the Exodus to the Reformation and the War of 1812. We just focus on facts, leaving spin and bias to other news sites like CNN and Fox News. If you would like to complain about something on our site, take it up with God.

Kyle is the editor-in-chief. He was created in an orc spawning pit beneath the tower of Orthanc. David, what is... Orthanc. We'll get to that later. Near the end of the Third Age, Saruman, the many-colored, drew upon all his dark powers... Saruman.

Okay. To imbue Kyle with the ability to write satire of semi-acceptable quality from time to time and also pillage many small villages in Gondor. I got Gondor right? Correct. Yes, you did. Kyle oversees and approves all content posted to the site and writes a good bit himself.

Kyle, thanks for joining us. Yeah, no problem. Thank you for reading my bio. It's 100% accurate and fact-checked by Snopes. So, you know, it's the most accurate possible. Well, I have a bone to pick already, okay? Because I don't think those were orcs spawned

in the pits below Orthanc. They were Uruk-hai. Yeah, Uruk-hai. I mean, it's a kind of orc, right? Well, it's a hybrid orc. I mean... We can check Snopes. Yeah, they're considered orcs, according to the Lord of the Rings fandom wiki.

Oh, David. Wow, fact-checked in real time. Oh, so we're trusting wikis now? Is that what we're doing? Yeah. So, Kyle, I want to hear a little bit about how Babylon B takes off, because for so many years, and especially during the sort of era

of the daily show being at sort of its max in the aughts, let's call it, there was this sense that it wasn't that there wasn't a conservative daily show or a conservative onion. It was that you couldn't have one because there wasn't anything funny about liberals or the conservative side. And that's why we never saw conservative, uh, funny television shows or conservative satire sites. And then along comes the Babylon B and y'all have just taken off since you started in what, 2016? Yeah. March, 2016. How does it come about? Yeah. It, we launched in, uh, right during the 2016 election when that was kind of taken off. And so I think it really resonated. You know, we were critical of Trump.

We were critical of the left. And so it was kind of a unique voice in a lot of ways. You know, Christians were trying to kind of figure out how to feel about Trump and about the election. And a lot of us felt politically homeless. about Trump and about the election. And a lot of us felt politically homeless, you know, so to have this thing that kind of made fun of everything, it didn't really take a political stance, but so much, but kind of deconstructed a lot of the assumptions on both sides, I think was pretty unique. And you're right. I mean, the conservatives have traditionally been pretty bad at comedy. And typically, it's because conservatives take themselves very seriously,

which is fine because they believe in things, they believe in certain values. And so, they have a hard time making humor without having it make this very on-the-nose blunt point or just kind of being really mean towards the left or something. So we were trying to do something that was a little more like, I don't know, first and foremost, it has to be funny. And that was kind of what we were going for. I mean, normally when I'm falling asleep, like this is I follow you guys on Instagram and I will, you know, see a couple and inevitably one of them, I like bother my husband. I'm like, ah, you have to read this one. But this week,

it is Nations Cats Endorse Trump in Hopes Americans Will Go Back to Work and Leave Them Alone. That one hits close to home, Sarah. It does. That hits close to home. It did for me. Yeah. You know, what I find interesting is you guys, you have the political side, but you also have a lot of insidery evangelical humor. And I have to ask the question, Kyle, what did Joel Osteen ever do to you? Yeah, you think he kicked my dog or something, right? Yeah, we made fun of Joel Osteen right from the beginning. Anybody who's like prosperity gospel or uh you know just kind of that big uh prosperity style mega church we were very critical of and i think again that's something that that got us a lot of

uh followers who were you know it's just we're like christians but we're we make we make fun of christians and we call out things within, uh, Christianity that we feel that need, uh, to be called out. So it was kind of, it's kind of a unique voice in that we can make fun of both, uh,

cultural things and political things. And then, and then even call it our own. Sometimes here's, uh, one also from this week, nation shocked as Jerry Falwell jr. Doesn't turn out to be a man of upstanding character.

Yeah, it's utterly shocking. Came out of nowhere, really. So, you have these folks who work for you who are presumably coming up with content. A, how does an editorial meeting work at the Babylon? B, at 11 a At 11am each day, you'll sit around and toss around ideas or everyone brings you ideas and you're like, no, that's too funny. We can't do it. Walk me through a day in the life of Kyle. Yeah. You'd be surprised. It's a very lean operation. For the first two years of the

Babylon Bee, it was me and the founder, Adam Ford, basically just working on the site, like in our basements type thing. And we had a few writers that would pitch some stuff, but I wrote most of the content and Adam edited most of the content. That was pretty much it. So more recently, we've hired on a couple other people. We have three full-time workers now that do Photoshop and writing and work on our podcasts and stuff. We probably have 10 or so part-time contributors that will send in ideas.

But it's mostly done online. We'll do chat groups, a chat room, and we'll just send over ideas and brainstorm and collaborate. The kind of comedy we write is very... It doesn't work great for collaboration on the headline, usually. It tends to be more like one person comes up with the idea, but then the collaboration element comes in when we actually write the copy and someone will do the Photoshop or, you know, maybe we'll punch up the joke a little bit. So that tends to be what it is. It's just someone thinks of something funny and sends it in. But yeah, they're really great guys and it's a lot of fun to work with them. Had you done comedy writing before?

No, I was actually in construction four years ago when the site launched and I just started emailing in ideas. And I think the first article I wrote was, Holy Spirit Unable to Move Through Congregation as Fog Machine Breaks. That's so good. I sent that in on the first day of the site launch because I saw Adam had launched it and I just started emailing him ideas and it ran the next day

and that was kind of our first big hit. And I was like, you know, all the kind of comedy I like is very dry and, you know, onion style stuff or mockumentary style stuff. And so it was like right up like, oh my gosh, these people get me. It's the Christian, you know, it's like the Christian version of the onion. That's exactly what I've needed all my life. So it was perfect.

So, you know, Babylon Bee is legendary for the headlines. The headlines are what go viral on Twitter. And what's interesting to me is you guys veer wildly between something that is just upfront and center in the news and really insidery theological jokes. And as a Reformed Calvinist myself, I like some of the Calvinist jokes in particular. And I have to ask you, are you favor, are you, are you the, or, uh, the originator of Calvinist health insurance company declares all conditions

preexisting? No, that was actually, uh, that was actually one of the ones I didn't write back then. That was, um, that was a guy, uh, Dr. David Fisher, who's a medical doctor that, uh, that works with, um, that works with the elderly. He would be like going into some medical procedure and he'd text us on his phone, hey, I got an idea for an article. Oh, is that right? It was a bizarre combination, but he's been great. He's one of our oldest writers in terms of tenure. And yeah, no, I love the Calvinist jokes. I'm a Calvinist myself. And so that's why we, that's why, you know,

if I'm a Calvinist, then I make fun of Calvinists, you know? So usually if we make fun of something a lot, it's because it's something that I'm, that I kind of care about. Another one I like, unconfirmed Calvinist laughs at joke. Yeah, if you argue with a Calvinist online, you know, then you get that one. Oh boy, that is true.

How much negative feedback do y'all get? Oh, we get tons. I mean, it comes from all directions, too, because, you know, progressive Christian Twitter hates us. Trump Twitter hates us a lot of the time. You know, well, it's funny because Trump Twitter, we make fun of the left a lot. So you make fun of Biden and we'll get all these followers. And then the next article, we make fun of Trump. And then they're like, hey, wait a minute.

I didn't sign up for this. And anytime somebody has their sacred cow, if it's Trump or the left or whatever it is, and you make fun of it, it's like, hey, that's off limits for satire. I love satire. But when you make fun of my thing, that like, hey, that's off limits for satire. I love satire, but when you make fun of my thing, that's where I draw the line. Makes perfect sense. And speaking of that, so y'all end up crossing paths with Snopes. And Snopes is a pretty well-known fact-checking website. That's really all they do, as far as I know, is do fact-checks. And you had a headline that said,

CNN purchases industrial washing machines to spin the news. And this got fact-checked. And I thought that was the joke. I thought that was really funny that y'all were making fun of fact-checkers for fact-checking absurd things, but it wasn't a joke, and in fact, it ends up kind of spiraling out of control.

Do you want to tell your version of how this all went down? Because I'm sure it's far more informed than my, like, what is going on version. Yeah, my version is the true version, so I'm happy to give you that my uh yeah so we i wrote this joke yeah i don't know it was a monday or maybe it was the friday or something that cnn purchases industrial washing machine to spin the news and you know it's not even like that funny a joke like it's funny but like whatever thanks but that's exactly what i was gonna say is that

it's like it's one of those jokes you kind of feel dumb for writing like uh okay you know we got we got to get an article up uh i'm just gonna kind of phone it in and it's a quota joke yeah yeah it's red meat you know it's like all right whatever and uh and then like the next day i got this we got this notification from facebook saying that our page was going to be deplatformed and demonetized because we were sharing fake news. So we click on it and it's like, our fact-checking partner Snopes has determined that you've been sharing fake news. And it links to that article. And Snopes had written this full lengthy fact-check of it. It was serious, like dead serious, like not satire was serious, dead serious, not satire.

Their fact check was not satire, even though I have to say it read like satire. And it made the joke so much funnier too because like you said, it was kind of a dumb joke and then you had this thing like, did C.R. didn't really purchase a washing machine? And the words they use in that fact check are so funny because they're like,

it reads like they actually, you know, like call CNN and say, hey, did you guys purchase a washing machine? It says the Babylon V website published an article reporting that CNN had made a significant investment in heavy machinery to assist their journalists spin the news. It's like, what like they tried to make it sound like we were trying to report it like like it was real or something and we're like what are you talking about it was bizarre so we've had a few run-ins with snopes i mean we get why we get why they fact check things i mean

you know people are dumb on the internet and they they believe things that that are obviously satire but that one was like i have no idea why that was the one that that triggered uh triggered that fact check and and triggered us to to get some kind of run-in with facebook and his snopes like the snopes have a history of fact checking the onion as well yeah they fact check the onion uh many times Yeah, they fact-checked the onion many times. But the difference was every time they fact-checked this, they would kind of throw in these little weasel words like, oh, the Babylon Bee is muddying the waters, or the Babylon Bee is fanning the flames of a current controversy. And then if you read their onion fact-checks, they were like, oh, this is obviously satire. And, you know, some dumb people got fooled by it, but it's clearly satire.

So there was like a difference in tone with the way that they were fact checking us, which was concerning, obviously, because they were kind of looked at as this like unbiased fact checker for anything. So it was kind of strange. Well, and has the Onion had any run-ins with Facebook that you're aware of? Um, not that I'm aware of, you know, that kind of came about because Facebook was using Snopes as their, uh, as their fact-checking partner at the time. And so if Snopes fact-checked the onion during that time, which they weren't, they were fact-checking us a lot more than they were fact-checking the onion at that point. Um, but't they were fact-checking us a lot more than they were fact-checking the onion at that point um but if they did it's possible that it triggered something similar for the onion and they resolved it or whatever but uh but yeah nothing nothing

that i'm aware of do you talk to the onion guys are y'all like buddies online somewhere in some happy satire little chat room i wish i i someone reached out once that was not from The Onion, but someone who knew The Onion writers and was trying to get us all together for, you know, we got to do some kind of event or, you know, that'd be a lot of fun. We could do a debate or something. That would be hilarious. But yeah, I never heard back. So I don't know. Maybe they weren't down for it. David, I remember back in college, The Onion was actually a print newspaper that you could pick up in Evanston.

It was sort of a Midwestern Big Ten thing. It was awesome. Oh, I used to have copies of the print newspaper of The Onion back in the day. It felt really underground back in the day. Yeah, yeah, it did. And then it was, you know, responsible for some of the first kind of viral headlines.

Well, especially when politicians thought they were real. Yeah, exactly, exactly. So it seems to me that you've got sort of two issues going on here. One is you've got the Snopes issues going on here one is you've got this the snopes issue which is that you know it i mean of all of the articles to fact check this the cnn washing machine one still just boggles the mind i love it so much it's unbelievable i i literally i i can't it doesn't compute in my mind but the other thing that you have is you do have actually lots of people will believe

the stories that you write. Um, I mean, not majorities, but there are people who, who share your stories as truth. And so I guess one of the questions I have is how do you kind of react to that? Like, what do you, do you think, okay, well, if somebody, if someone shared a story that we wrote as truth, that was our fail or their fail? I've always wondered about that. Yeah, I think, I think there's a little bit of both.

Like maybe there's a little bit of responsibility on the writer's side. Like there are fake news sites you know that just write you know hillary clinton was caught worshiping satan or something you know and there's no there's no humor to it or satirical point it's just like uh clearly trying to deceive to get the clicks you know we saw that a lot i think like in the 2016 election some of those sites came up. So a lot of it has to do with motive.

Like, we're obviously not trying to do that. There's also another element where like the articles that do kind of get closer to that line. I mean, they're right. They're right on our website where like there's a bunch of clearly satirical articles all around it. You know, so it's supposed to look like, OK, yeah, that one's a little closer to the truth. Maybe someone can mistake that for being real. But if you're paying attention at all to the page that you're reading from or the Facebook or Twitter account, our Facebook or Twitter account, it's like you scroll through a couple articles,

you go, oh, this whole thing is satirical. So I think if it was always that very dry cutting really close to reality headline you might you might have uh you know there might be some culpability on the on the part of the writer like to uh to make it more clear um but at the same time it's like the criticism that'll come like oh you guys are just trying to you know deceive grandma on facebook or whatever. It's like, there is, there is an element where it's not that our articles are too close to reality. It's that reality is too close to satire. Yeah. You know, it's, it's what makes it so hard to write because you write something that you think

is so goofy and over the top and then people believe it because reality is so crazy. Or the next week, the prophecy will come true or whatever. It's like they're reading our site to get ideas. So I think sometimes it's more of an indictment on the people you're making fun of that someone would believe that because they are being so ridiculous or whatever. So this week, y'all picked up a lot of new Twitter followers. Yeah. Because you were kicked off Twitter briefly. Yeah. Yeah, that was bizarre.

And what was the reason? I tracked that from afar, so I just knew that it happened, but I didn't know what had happened. It was like, in a lot of ways, at least for now, it was like the best thing that could happen to us because it was very temporary, then uh and then it came back you know we gained i don't know how many subscribers we or followers we gained 130 000 140 000 new followers because of it good night but but it was you know we got an email that are that we were being banned for or suspended for um

spam and platform manipulation. And so it was kind of like, okay, is this a mistake? And we tried to kind of go through the process, and it was very opaque, like what it was we were actually doing. So we were worried, did we do something wrong? Are we using the platform wrong? And they banned a bunch of other satirical and parody accounts that are making fun of the left uh at the same time so it felt like it felt like there was some kind of label

or internal like list that they had going like these are these accounts to keep an eye on and then you know someone hit the ban button on accident or something you know and so it was a little it was a little like you know no permanent damage we are a little worried something, you know, and so it was a little, it was a little like, you know, no permanent damage. We are a little worried about it, you know, just because if we are on some kind, if we are listed in some kind of group of accounts that they're concerned about, you know, maybe next time we don't get, get reinstated so quickly. Titania McGrath, the popular satirical account was suspended for a couple of weeks, you know? So it's, it's, it's something that we're always kind of keeping an eye on, but luckily, you know, it resonates with a lot of people and they, they support us, you know, they, they follow us,

they subscribe because, uh, because it's something that a lot of people are concerned about. So this is a legal podcast. Do y'all look into your legal recourses on things like this? into your legal recourses on things like this? Yeah, we have really good lawyers. Like I said, it was kind of a basement operation for a couple years. And we got really lucky because if we had ever gotten sued or banned or in any kind of legal trouble, we wouldn't have had any way to really respond. We didn't have the finances finances we were just goofing around we only had google ads was our only source of revenue and uh but uh seth dylan's our ceo now he bought the site from adam ford two years ago and he's got a really good infrastructure good legal support um so yeah he's very proactive with that kind of stuff you know whenever we we feel like our brand's being threatened by this or that he'll'll draft letters and he's ready for that kind of thing. We launched a subscription service so people can

support us financially. And that was one of the main things that he did to kind of say, okay, if this ever happens, you know, and we use all our legal recourse and we have no way to get back on this platform or that platform, well, you know, people support us directly. So that's been really nice to kind of have that uh stability and that fallback so in other words uh similar to the the new the new declaration of independence now uh from cancel culture is getting a sub stack um which the dispatch where that we're one of the pioneers um so you're you're trying to sort of figure out a fallback out a way out of the threat of cancel culture yeah yeah we're trying to kind of just have that you know that like i said it was all we had it was kind of concerning because we were

doing fine and the babylon b was it was a kind of an overnight success and a lot of people were following us, getting a lot of new followers. But we're looking at it and it's like, I don't know, 80%, 90% of the traffic was coming from Facebook who had sent us that notification that we were going to be deplatformed and demonetized. We kind of felt like, if that ever happened, what would we do? Yeah. Because you'd have no way to get your message to anybody. So we've done a few strategies. Like we've done, uh, we, we, we built a big

newsletter list to kind of cut out some of the middleman. And, uh, you know, I think it's important for people to kind of diversify how they can reach their, uh, their followers. Do you ever pull your punches? Like as a joke that comes to you from one of your writers and you're like, you know what, right now, given what's going on in the country, country and we're not going to do that this week yeah that's i mean that's most of my job is like uh i think comedy is at its best you know when the writers have free reign to write whatever they want pitch whatever they want there's no like judgment you know behind the scenes uh but then my job as as the editor-in-chief is to go okay that's not like maybe that's a funny joke but that's not right for us or maybe that's a

funny joke but given what's going on we got to be real careful and you know sometimes maybe we step over the line but it's something that that we're constantly thinking about like we want the Babylon Bee to remain that unique voice that's speaking truth to a post-truth culture that, you know, and I think if you're just going for the jugular every time, you know, or you have no discernment whatsoever with what you post, you're going to lose some of that effectiveness. Let's pause for a moment to talk about our next sponsor, ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN lets you access the internet as if you're from a different country. Netflix has different shows and movies available depending on where you are.

With ExpressVPN, you can unlock thousands of new shows and movies from streaming libraries around the globe. There are hundreds of VPNs out there, but ExpressVPN is ridiculously fast. You can stream everything in HD quality with zero buffering. ExpressVPN is ridiculously fast. You can stream everything in HD quality with zero buffering. ExpressVPN is available on every device, phones, laptops, tablets, even your TV. ExpressVPN works with many streaming services,

Netflix, Amazon Prime, BBC iPlayer, YouTube, and many more. You can choose from almost 100 different countries. It's so simple to use. Just fire up the ExpressVPN app, change your location, hit connect, and then refresh the page and the show or movie you want to watch will magically appear. If you use my link right now at expressvpn.com slash opinions, you can get an extra three months of ExpressVPN for free. That's expressvpn.com slash opinions. So I'm curious about, do you try to do sort of an intentional mix

of like mainstream political humor versus the insidery Christian humor? Or is it just kind of a free flowing as the news cycle dictates, as the ideas come? Because you do have, as I was saying, it is this really unique combination. There's not many people who sort of speak

to that insidery Christian audience and also speak more broadly to just sort of, you know, what's going on in the culture at large. Yeah, yeah, it's very intentional. We want to follow the news cycle some, but I think, you know, and sometimes like, you know, there's a a during the convention week it's going to be heavier on current events it's going to be heavier on politics because that's what's hot right now or whatever but i think if you follow

it too much if you follow it you know uh slavishly like every day you're you're covering whatever the hot controversy is you're going to lose some of the you're going to lose some of the timelessness. You know, you think about some of the really popular comedy writing or comedy novels or comedy shows, comedy films. You know, they're timeless for a reason. It's because they're not, maybe they do speak to some current politics, but they're able to broaden it beyond just that. And so, yeah, I'm always going to do, as long as I'm running the

Babylon Bee, we're always going to do dumb Christian jokes because they're funny to me. And I think that really, you know, it gives the site good character that, yeah, we can make fun of current events, but at the same time, you know, we do some loving satire of the church or, you know, we make fun of little Christian living things, really, really inside baseball theological jokes, you know, that kind of stuff. I love it, and I think it does give us a unique character compared with just being kind of a generic politics. There's also old man by pond starting to suspect

ducks only like him for his food. It's true. Yeah, that's not fitting in the political or religious category and like for me like i just like die giggling like that's that's somehow like my exact sense of humor so kyle what are what are your all what are your favorite mic drop headlines that you've that you've drafted like that you look back to this day and you say yeah this is this is me at my peak i don't know i mean do you want like mic drop like uh yeah like we totally savage somebody or just like my absolute favorites you know like your favorites like you know if i'm gonna ask steph curry when did you feel most in the zone and he's gonna say you know like oh against you know

against the mavericks in you know april 2nd 2017 and you know so when were you most in the zone all right well let me give you a few uh so here how about this for general just dumb humor lego introduces new sharper bricks that instantly kill you when you step on them. That was one of those dumb everyday life jokes. But perfect for a dad. I'm guessing you have a son. Oh, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, absolutely. Christian joke. Joel Osteen sails luxury yacht through flooded Houston to pass out copies of your best life now. I remember that. I was in Houston for that. Yeah. And you saw the yacht, Sarah. I did. I saw the yacht. And then one more. How about like a little political current event? This one got, I don't know if it's got snow, but inspiring celebrities spell out. We're all in this together with their yachts.

I liked the one, the other, what was it? Powerful. I don't have it right in front of me, but I'm remembering powerful, uh, riders spell out love.

Yeah. Burning home. That was the sequel. That was the sequel to my yachts. I can, I'm allowed to steal my own joke. Yeah was a good one too uh so we always try to end with something uh off topic lighter etc uh what but you're a comedy writer so i want like i have curiosity like you have at least one son because we've seen him walking around in the background.

Yeah, yeah. What's, like, the funny book or something that you read to your son that you're like, this is a good sense of humor book for your kid's age? Oh, man. We read, well, not exactly funny, but we read, we just finished The Chronicles of Narnia together.

Not ha ha funny. Not ha ha funny, but there, but C.S. Lewis has so many funny little observations about, I mean, what's the one in Don Treader has the best, uh, one of the best opening lines in all of, uh, literature. It's like, uh, I'm not, you know, I'm frantically Googling. Real life fact checking. It's the, man, now I'm not going to get it. Oh yeah, there was a boy named Eustace Scrub and he almost deserved it.

I remember, I love that. I love that kind of dry writing that's not like, ha ha, like punchline funny, but it's like these very satir that kind of dry writing. That's not like, ha ha, like punchline funny, but it's like these very satirical kind of observations throughout. And, uh, yeah, here's an important question. Did you, which book did you start with in Chronicles of Narnia? Because I have started reading it to my two and a half month old, by the way, I'll tell you, he's not a big fan right now. I don't know why. What? I know it's crazy. Uh,

but there was a big controversy in my friend group of which book I started with. Did you start with the wrong one? Did you start with Magician's Nephilim? I did. I started with the wrong one. Yeah, that's the wrong one. No, yeah, that's not the correct order. You're supposed to start with Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

You have to discover Narnia through Lucy's eye, not through the creation account. Absolutely. Good to know. Good to know, David. Well, I'm going to, I'm just going to do, I'm totally not going to put the needle down on my whole album side

about how the best C.S. Lewis fantasy books are the Space Trilogy and not the Chronicles of Narnia. You're looking at me, Sarah, as if you've never heard of Out of the Silent Planet, Perilandra, or That Hideous Strength, or This Hideous Strength. I thought you were just going to talk about how C.S. Lewis's best writing for children was in one

of his real books. And I was going to be like, yeah, you're probably right. That'll be really interesting when I read one of those to my kiddo. But nope, nope, you went pure David on that one. Pure. Well, and truth be told, the space trilogy

isn't really for kids. But... I'm sure you tell yourself that. I think it's peak C.S. Lewis fantasy fiction writing. Like, I think that's where...

If I had to list my top five books, one of the top five is Perilandrid, the second one. Yeah. Kyle, you completely agree with me, I'm sure. Yeah, the last book was confusing. I didn't get it, but I guess it was responding to some controversy

at his time. And some people say it's really applicable today, that hideous strength. I need to go back and reread it. Actually, C.S lois's funniest is uh the screw tape letters that is excellent excellent oh good yeah so wait i know i said this is the last question before but now i do people at your church like did they side eye you when you walk in if you just made like a really sharp church joke oh yeah my pastor showed up on Easter Sunday last year in a pink, a pastel pink polo shirt. And so I wrote an article the next day that was like, you know, something about, you know, wife clearly dressed family for Easter and, you know, pink pastels or whatever. And I get a text from like an hour later, like, hey, wait a minute. This is me, you know? So yeah, definitely no. All right.

Well, thank you, Kyle, so much for joining us. This has been a treat. If any of you listening have not checked out the Babylon Bee, it really is like at the end of my day, sort of the thing that, you know, is a nice little bow on my day to just go off to dreamland with a happy, funny thoughts in this dark, dark alternate timeline that we're in.

Where we long for the asteroid. I believe I saw a poll that you posted where there was about 96% approval rating for the asteroid. That's 2020. Right. Thank you, Kyle, very much. We deeply appreciate you joining us. Yeah, thanks a lot.