American Thought Leaders - Gov. Jeff Landry: Has the Supreme Court Forgotten the Importance of the 1st Amendment?

Episode Date: March 25, 2024

Sponsor special: Up to $2,500 of FREE silver AND a FREE safe on qualifying orders - Call 855-862-3377 or text “AMERICAN” to 6-5-5-3-2Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, the landmark free speech case revolving around government communications with Big Tech companies.“I left the court really scratching my head at some of the questions that the justices offered to the new solicitor general from Louisiana,” says Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, who was among those who first brought the case against the Biden administration back when he was Louisiana’s attorney general.“Some of the questions seem to really leave you wondering whether or not the Court still has a real appreciation for the First Amendment,” Mr. Landry said.Where is the case headed? What might the Supreme Court decide?We also take a look at Mr. Landry’s first few months as governor and get his take on the Supreme Court allowing Texas to enforce a law on arresting suspected illegal immigrants.Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

The justices seem to be convinced that there are times under which the government can censor American speech. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, the landmark free speech and government censorship case. I do believe it's one of the most important First Amendment cases in the last hundred years. Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry was among those who first brought the case against the Biden administration. This was back when he was Louisiana's attorney general. Where is the case headed? What might the Supreme Court decide?

We also take a look at Governor Landry's first few months as governor and get his take on the Supreme Court allowing Texas to enforce a law on arresting suspected illegal immigrants. This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Jan Jekielek. Before we start, I'd like to take a moment to thank the sponsor of our podcast, American Hartford Gold. As you all know, inflation is getting worse. The Fed raised rates for the fifth time this year. And Fed Chairman Jerome Powell is telling Americans to brace themselves for potentially more pain ahead. But there is one way to hedge against inflation.

American Hartford Gold makes it simple and easy to diversify your savings and retirement accounts with physical gold and silver. With one short phone call, they can have physical gold and silver delivered right to your door or inside your IRA or 401k. American Hartford Gold is one of the highest rated firms in the country, with an A-plus rating with a Better Business Bureau and thousands of satisfied clients. If you call them right now, they'll give you up to $2,500 of free silver and a free safe on qualifying orders. Call 855-862-3377, that's 855-862-3377, or text AMERICAN to 65532. Again, that's 855-862-3377, or text AMERICAN to 65532. Governor Jeff Landry, so good to have you back text American to 65532. Governor Jeff Landry, so good to have you back on American Thought Leaders. Well, it's great to be back now as a governor. Well, exactly.

You've been AG in Louisiana for, I guess it was eight years, and things changed. And now Liz Murrell, who was recently on the show, is the AG. And so, you know, obviously you've been very involved in this, what was originally Missouri v. Biden, and now it's called Murthy v. Missouri. And the oral arguments were just the other day. What's your reaction to that? Yeah, look, I left the court really scratching my head at some of the questions that the justices offered to the new Solicitor General from Louisiana. By the way, I think the Attorney General now, Liz Murrow, is going to do a fantastic job. She's argued before the court four, five, six times.

But some of the questions seem to really leave you wondering whether or not the court still has a real appreciation for the First Amendment and the reason that the First Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights as the First Amendment. You know, it should be unquestionable whether or not the government can infringe upon the rights, the First Amendment rights of a citizen. And that answer should be no, it cannot. The justices seem to be convinced that there are times under which the government can censor American speech, but they seem to not be able to want to use a narrow test. They want it to seem like they want to broaden that test. So I don't know.

I'm hoping maybe that was just a couple of questions they needed to answer before they got to the right conclusions. But we'll see. Well, that was my impression as well. I watched the session. There were a few questions that Justice Jackson had that kind of struck me in particular. One of them, well, she kept mentioning this term, that the government can have compelling interest, right? And that is the justification for upridging the First Amendment right. And that was the implication. Do I have that right? How do you understand that? Yeah. So under some Supreme Court precedent,

they set up basically a two-pronged test, right, that says that the government may violate a person's constitutional right if it can prove that it has a compelling interest in doing so. But what Justice Jackson seemed to skip over was that you first have to find that the government has violated someone's First Amendment right. She didn't say she stipulated that under this condition the government did and if they did then the government would have to prove that they had a compelling interest to do so. So like to give you an example let's say that you had some information that you were going to release or you were saying that was a danger to national security. And so the government squashed it. So you went to court and you said, the government has squashed my speech. And the judge would say, yes, they did. And the government would come in and say,

well, if we did, we had a compelling interest to do so, Your Honor, and this is why, because it was detrimental to national security. That's not what Justice Jackson was saying in the court. She was trying to broaden that test, to basically say, we don't even have to say whether or not the government has violated someone's First Amendment. We can just say the government always has a compelling interest in, say, duty to protect the public. And I think that was the problem. What's interesting, though, is just this week or last week, the court released a case under which it said that I cannot take someone's post down

if they're saying things that I don't like on my official Facebook or social media platform. But then they seem to say that while I can't, as a government actor, take someone else's post down, they seem to want to let the government take your entire social platform down. That's the interesting part. They seem to be in conflict. So it's going to be interesting to see how they come up with this case.

What do you mean by take the entire social platform? Well, I mean, so what the government, what the justices were kind of questioning and what they were leading to was that if the White House calls and says, we don't like what Jan is saying on his Facebook page, take it down or throttle it back. The justices seem to agree that the White House could do that. But yet, last week, they said that if you put a post on the White House's social media, on their Facebook page, that the president can't take you down off of that post. Now, think about that. Those things, I know you're trying to square those because you can't. It doesn't make any sense. Either the First Amendment means one thing.

It can't mean one or the other. That's the confusing part about the case. But when you think about it, if you think back into the simplicity, if not for this case, we would not have known that the FBI knew and was in possession of the Hunter Biden laptop. Okay, you knew for sure. We would not have known that there was evidence that the COVID-19 virus came or most likely came out of a lab in Wuhan. We wouldn't have known all of the things that the government was doing to suppress people's speech and talking about other methods of protecting them from the virus,

such as ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine. All of those things came out in this case. We were able to extract that information and peel the curtain back of all of the things the government was trying to suppress. And so if the justices rule against this, Americans will not have a way to find out what the government is doing when they want to question the government. They won't know that the government is trying to squash their speech.

The government will be able to pick up the phone, call the social platform, say, we don't like what Jan's saying, take take it down and you will have no recourse yeah i mean to my ear it was really really justice alito was the only one that seemed to be very clearly asking questions and perhaps justice thomas as well that that would suggest uh you know kind of the the alternative view you said they all seem to think that this White House behavior might be okay, but maybe not all of them, right? But it's a lot more than one would expect. It was. It was surprising. I mean, Justice Thomas doesn't say much, but you would think based upon his line of questioning, I think he is suspicious and certainly wants to ensure that Americans have the ability to speak and to question government action in a forum without government interference, and Alito the same.

What Kavanaugh seemed to be kind of—he wasn't really one way or the other. questioning were pretty good, but Justice Barrett's questionings were somewhat concerning, and maybe some of Justice Gorsuch's questions were somewhat concerning. And then, of course, the chief, which we never know where the chief is, but I don't know. We'll see. Tell me a little bit. Why don't you just outline to me kind of what this case is about, just in very, from first principle, it's very simple. This case is about whether or not American citizens can express their views that may be contrary to the government's position on an issue without fear of the government pressuring

those social media platforms from taking down their content. That's it. Whether or not we're going to be free from government intervention when we question the government in a private platform like social media. And that's a pretty scary thing because in today's world, social platforms basically act like virtual public squares. It's where people express views. Social platforms basically act like virtual public squares.

It's where people express views. It's what the Internet was supposed to be about. It was about giving us a virtual marketplace of ideas where we could talk back and forth and question and discuss issues. And we thought it was free from government intervention. And what we're finding is that the government, when it doesn't like some of the things that you say or post, when it's contrary to what the rhetoric is that they believe in, have the ability to go in and pressure and coerce those social platforms to either take you down, put you in Facebook jail, moderate your content, or simply just eviscerate you from that virtual public square. And how important, this is something that's come up as well,

because how important are the oral arguments relative to the entirety of the arguments? You know, that's been debated for time immemorial since the court opened. You know, the oral debates used to have a lot more weight back in the day. Now there's, you know, tons of briefs paid, you know, thousands, maybe hundreds of pages of briefs. There's amicus briefs that have been filed and the court takes all of that in consideration. Sometimes the justices have a tendency to tip their hand. Sometimes they're asking questions just to maybe vet something that was vexing them. It doesn't mean that that's the position they're taking.

I don't know. We'll see, I guess, in June maybe when the court makes the decision, maybe sooner. Okay. Just to summarize very briefly, how important is the outcome of this? I think this is the most important First Amendment case in the last 100 years. I mean, I said that when we filed this case. I said it when the judge, the district judge, granted the injunction. I said it when the Fifth Circuit upheld the injunction but narrowed it. I said that we'd be at the Supreme Court. I didn't think that the court would ask the questions they asked yesterday,

which is what concerns me because I do believe it's one of the most important First Amendment cases in the last hundred years. So are you still involved in it in some way? I'm involved as watching it from the sideline and certainly discussing it with the new Attorney General. Happy to lend an ear, but it's in the Attorney General's hands now, and I feel very confident. She's very confident, very, very. She's going to do well. Well, let's switch gears a little bit, and let's talk about your first two and a half months as governor.

So you've actually very quickly, straight out of the blocks, had a special session on crime. So tell me about that. Yeah, so we campaigned last year on three important issues. Crime, education, and economy, because Louisiana has terrible metrics. In crime especially, we have three cities in the top ten most dangerous cities in America. New Orleans at one time was in the top ten most dangerous cities in the world in the last couple of years. And so we made a promise to the people of Louisiana that we were going to go into a crime session to fix the structural defects in our criminal justice system through the legislature. And that's exactly what we did. And the legislature responded phenomenally. They passed 20 bills in 10 days that further strengthened or reversed bad criminal

justice reforms and put in place positive criminal justice reforms that placed the victim first and not the criminal. And so we went out there and focused on the victim and ensured that the victims had a voice. And that's what we did. And I believe that, you know, over the course of the next few years, the changes we made in this special session are going to have a positive impact in making Louisiana a safer place. So it's a little bit early to see the outcomes, I guess. Here's my question.

My observation has been, and I think the statistics show this very clearly, that it's really a small group of people that cause the vast majority of the crime. They're kind of repeat offenders, if you will. And so the idea is to keep those people away from the rest of society. I mean, that would seem to be the way. So these are the kinds of reforms you're talking about. Correct. I mean, look, and you are correct. I mean, like the vast majority of Americans aren't criminals. The vast majority of Americans want to live in safety, irrespective of who they are, what they believe in, what's their socioeconomic background or current place. Everybody wants to be safe for the most part.

But there are there are people out there that seem to want to wreak havoc on society and not follow the rule of law. And when but when this is the interesting part, but when those people in the population know that the rule of law is going to be upheld and that there are consequences for breaking the law, the number of people who break the law tend to shrink even more. And of course, when you put those people away and out of society, they don't have the ability to influence others, which was one of the issues that we took up in a special session, which was correcting the age. Because back in 2017, the legislature, and this happened around the country, it was kind of a woke movement under which they wanted to raise the age of how we treated 17-year-olds.

Instead of treating them as adults in the criminal justice system, they wanted to treat them as juveniles. And so in 2017, the legislature, against both my and Senator John Kennedy's wishes, raised the age. And what we saw was an erect havoc on the criminal justice system. We had criminals above the age of 17, the majority adults, would go out and recruit 16 and 17-year-olds to go out and commit very violent acts by promising them that they wouldn't be in jail for long. Because if you get convicted of, say, life in the juvenile system, you're be out at 21 and so that meant that the penalties for for some of the most violent crimes if you were charged as a juvenile we're not as stiff if you were as if you would try it as an adult and so those were one of the things that

we did we corrected that age we went back to the way it was we think that that is absolutely gonna have an impact on crime as well. Because, again, the more you keep sending these criminals back out onto the street, they go out and recruit others to engage in their criminal activity. It's what you just said. It's why you want to take a certain segment of that population and kind of lock them up for a while until they have an opportunity to think about the things that they did for a long time before we sent

them back into society. Why did Louisiana have such a high crime rate? I mean, it's not purely these progressive policies, right? No, look, I disagree. I mean, look, I think that, well, first of all, Louisiana has a big percentage of its population that lives in poverty. And so that when you fix the economy, certainly you start to move people from the bottom, you know, up, upwards. You have that upward mobility.

You try to expand the middle class. The greater the middle class grows, the more safe and peaceful society is. I mean, that's just been proven time and time again. Louisiana has always had a problem in some of its bigger cities. New Orleans was always tough to get under control. But what we saw since the criminal justice reform movements were a number of other cities having very violent spikes in crime rates. We saw it in the rural areas as well. Because when people know that there's no penalty or they know, well, if I committed this crime, say, a decade ago,

I might go to jail for 20 years. And today I might go to jail for three years. Well, it's like a slap on the wrist. I mean, it's the same reason we see all of these smashing grabs. Look at California. Look at when California said, we're not going to prosecute any theft over $500 or $1,000. What happened? People went crazy, started stealing things all over. They had to lock everything behind the counters.

Then they started breaking the glass in the counters and getting behind the counters. If there's not a penalty, people would just, they would just wreck havoc. So, in other words, I guess all your prosecutors are tough-on-crime prosecutors now? Well, that was another issue. I mean, we had George Soros about a decade ago started funneling money in district attorney races around the country in hopes of electing very progressive DAs who would be soft on crime,

who would basically muffle the voice of victims. And of course, in those cities, in those cities, every one of them that got elected, you saw crime spike. I mean, that's a pretty compelling exhibit of when you don't prosecute criminals, crime rises. So what other issues do you find you're needing to tackle kind of right out of the blocks other than crime? Right now the legislature is in session, and we're trying to focus on education. We're trying to move Louisiana into a more reformed educational environment under which the parent is the most important voice in a child's education, under which the money that people pay in taxes follows the child, expands school choice, try to

wipe out all of the unnecessary service hours that we've piled on our teachers that do nothing to make them a better teacher. We want to remove those things and let teachers just teach. And so those are some of the things that we're focused on now. You know, and I remember, I recall a few cases in Louisiana of, you know, gender ideology, gender affirming care. You've been looking at this as well. Yes. I mean, we've closed uh we did we the legislature while i was attorney general passed some laws which the governor vetoed they overrode some of those there are some bills that are moving through this through the legislature today

that start to bring us back into balance i mean like just making sure that the boys restroom is for boys and the girls' restroom is for girls. I mean, the fact that we have this conversation is kind of, you know, interesting in and of itself. But, yes, those are some things that we're trying, that the legislature is trying to balance out as well and try to wash out the wokeism that was kind of ushered in. It's very, you know, in the education system, I mean, from what I can tell, every state has this issue in the education system.

It's not just something unique to Louisiana, but it's kind of a big issue that this, both in the education system, this type of thinking being fostered, and also in the medical community, this is related thinking being fostered as a way of looking at the world more broadly. So I'm just curious if you've given some thought about how to shift that.

Well, I think public support for shifting things back to more traditional educational models is really gaining ground. I think you see it in a number of states. I think you're going to see it happen in Louisiana's legislature. It happens certainly in the south, in the southern states, where, by the way, more people are moving into those southern states than any other states around the country.

And I think that that's a reason. I think that public support for that wokeism is waning and people wanting their schools to go back to more traditional models and knowing that their kids are going to be taught the basics and not worry about what's the next social fad being infected into the classroom. So I also noticed that you signed into law a constitutional carry bill. We did. Louisiana had a concealed carry, was a concealed carry permit state, and we moved in and aligned ourselves with 28 now other states

that allow for constitutional carry. And so the legislature had twice passed it, and the governor before me vetoed it twice, and we signed the bill. So how do you think that will impact the state? Well, you know, I'm going to tell you, the biggest shocking thing to me after we passed it were the number of women that came up to me just as I went around either to the gas station or I went to the dentist one day who said, thank you for passing constitutional carry. And it struck me that basically these women, evidently they feel the impact of crime in Louisiana. They evidently did not feel safe. And so they felt the need to be able to carry a

handgun. And of course, everyone who told me that, I said, well, look, if you're going to carry a handgun, please, we still kept our concealed carry permit. Go out there. We want you to be properly chained. Get the permit if you'd like. You don't have to have it. But we encourage you to go through the safety program. But to me, that was shocking, Jan. It's just the amount of women who seem relieved that if they wanted to carry a firearm in their purse, in their car, they were not worried about the government arresting them or harassing them for it. I want to jump a bit to the border. How are these current federal border policies affecting Louisiana, especially in the context of Texas now battling the federal government? And as I

understand it, a lot of border issues have actually shifted to greater concentration in other states that are in the south. Yeah, because Texas is taking on the border on their own. We're actually sending National Guardsmen down to help Texas to protect their border. Louisiana's, I think, sending 50 this month and then 50 the next couple of months. So we're in a rotation. We went down to the border. Both Sharon and I went down to the border a month ago. Look, I think there is an absolute correlation between the border policies, crime in America, the fentanyl and opioid epidemic that's sweeping the country, the amount of human trafficking that we're seeing back in the United States.

All of those things, I think, are basically a product of an open border that just does not check who comes into the country. And what's amazing is that if you go down to the border, if you went down the Eagle Pass, you know, you would think that the border problem in Texas was that there were a lot of people from South America and Central America trying to get into the country. But we're not seeing that. We're seeing Chinese nationals. We're seeing Middle Eastans, Africans, Haitians, and we know that some of those countries are emptying their jails. And those criminals that are being dumped out of the jails in other countries are finding their way into Mexico and then just coming across the border to break our laws. SCOTUS, the Supreme Court, has decided that it's going to let this Texas law allowing

Texas police to arrest. And actually, let me ask you, you know, illegal immigrants, migrants, undocumented, how should we call them? Well, it's a great question. You know, back in our day, Jan, when you came into the country illegally because the government didn't just let you in, then you were considered an illegal alien but what are you really called when the government says you can come in you just don't have any documents and you're not really supposed to be here legally but we're gonna let you in if the government lets

you in are you really illegally illegally here are you just undocumented that goes to show you the quagmire we're in. They're not supposed to be here, they got no documentation. You could say they technically are illegal, but if the government lets you do something, do they make an illegal act legal? That's a fascinating question.

So what are the implications here of this ruling? Look, this is a very interesting ruling. You know, if you go back to Arizona versus the U.S., when then Governor Janet Brewer challenged the federal government because she wanted to enforce federal immigration law, the Supreme Court struck her down and said a state may not enforce federal immigration law. What Texas did was interesting. Instead of Texas enforcing federal immigration law, Texas wrote their own immigration law, where they said if you come into the state of Texas through our border and you illegally cross into it or you undocumented,

we're going to make that a crime in the state of Texas. and you are illegally crossing to it or you're undocumented, we're going to make that a crime in the state of Texas. Then they went another step further, according to what I've read, and made a second part to that, is that not only can they arrest you, not only can they criminally charge you, but they're claiming that the state judge can then order you to be deported. Now the question is, how does that occur? Do they turn you over to the feds? And then what happens when you turn them over to the Biden administration? They just maybe they'll let them loose and maybe they'll send them to New York. I don't know.

But that's what the Texas legislature did. A federal judge in Texas enjoined the law, said, you cannot enforce the law. The Fifth Circuit lifted the injunction. The government took the case to the Supreme Court. The court basically green-lighted the ability for Texas to start enforcing the law while the question of whether or not it's constitutional or not goes on. That's a pretty good indication though that the Supreme Court believes that the law is constitutional because the court normally wouldn't let a state take action such as arresting an individual without really having thought through some constitutional questions.

But that's where we are today. Huge ruling could have severe implications. Certainly states now, you know, more states could do the same thing. Well, that was my next question. Do you expect that other states will be passing similar laws? And I guess they'll work until the next ruling on the constitutionality. Yeah. I mean, you know, that's that's a good a good a good question. I'll tell you something that will complicate it, too. So if you come into the state of Texas and let's say

you cross the border where the federal government catches you, they don't they don't arrest you. They give you some papers that say, oh, well, you need to come into a deportation hearing or whatever, right? Well, once the federal government processes that migrant, then I would believe that the state of Texas's law would not allow the state government officials to arrest them. But if you cross into Texas before the federal government officials to arrest them. But if you cross into Texas, before the federal government catches you, if the Texas state police catch you, sounds like you're going to jail. Okay, wait a sec.

So you're telling me, according to this law, if you're processed by the federal government, which is what most people try to do, then the law doesn't apply? Well, it might not. That's going to, I think that that's where the conflict's going to be. That's where it's going to get real interesting. Because remember what they did, what the federal government tried to do in Eagle Pass was set up a deportation, not a deportation station, but a processing station. And that's what Governor Abbott shut down. Because what they were doing was they were dog whistling all of these migrants across the Rio Grande, encouraging them to swim across. And then they were going to process them and then determine whether they needed to be deported again or not.

That's what they're doing. They just in California and Arizona and New Mexico, the federal government is just letting them in and then giving them a set of papers and saying, come back and we'll determine whether we let you stay or not. And then they turn them on into the country. So if the federal government does not catch these migrants before the Texas State Police catch them, according to the Supreme Court, they can go to jail. Do you have a sense of how many illegal aliens are in Louisiana? We don't. We put an executive order asking, basically directing all of the state agencies to do a calculation on the amount of state services that are going to undocumented or

illegal aliens in Louisiana. The one place that we know it's impacting us is in our jails and in our schools. What concerns me the most is the jail issue. It's how many of those people that the government, that Joe Biden has let into the country, that have raped, pillaged, burglarized, and murdered American citizens. That, to me, is the most concerning part. And the president has no regard for federal law either. We sued him when I was attorney general. This is the case going on right now, where there is a statute right now, Jan, that says that if you are in the country illegally and you commit, and there's a list of crimes, if you are caught committing one of these crimes, the statute says you are to be immediately deported. And you know what Secretary Marcos and Joe Biden are doing? They're not deporting them. They're not even holding them. They're letting them back out.

Well, there's an example of at least one. I think it was top 10 Interpol most wanted criminals that entered the country as a refugee, so to speak, and got accepted. This is maybe an extreme example of this scenario. But there's also reports of transnational gangs basically setting up shop or gangs that are typically based in other countries becoming transnational and setting up shop in the U.S. Have you been following that? Yes, we're seeing that down. But, you know, the Canada police chief, Keith Connolly, has expressed to us,

and it's been documented in the news, in fact you should you should call him up um under which he's seeing some of uh certainly some of the cartel gangs um start to to show a presence in in that city which is a city next to new orleans yeah we we're seeing it i mean why wouldn't they i mean if if they know they can just walk across the border and they can come and they can go into some states without any harassment from law enforcement because some states are still sanctuary states, and they know that they actually are treated as first-class citizens while American citizens are treated as second-class citizens, and they can conduct their criminal enterprise knowing that they won't be deported, why wouldn't you? I mean, it certainly seems to be pretty profitable for them.

And the sad part is we have the ability to control that. We have the ability to seal the border. We have the ability to enforce our laws. And yet the president just refuses to, and his secretary of Homeland Security refuses to as well. So I guess in your situation, what can you do in this response? Look, in our situation, we do what we're doing now. We support our Texas neighbor. When they request assistance, we do that. We join them in the litigation. The attorney general joins them in all of the suits that they have. We try to take the fight into the courts so that the courts can see the damage that's being done to states

by the federal government when they don't follow the law. And, you know, we continue to come and visit with you all and hope that all the great readers and listeners and watchers out there remember this come November. Well, so as we finish up, let me ask a little bit. I've asked about all the troubles you have in Louisiana. I guess, you know, maybe you can tell me a little about the things that you see are working well and, you know, what you're looking forward to as we finish. Well, I think the great spot about Louisiana is that we have a great legislature who has shown the ability to move fast when they need to.

I think that we put in place the first step in making Louisiana a very safe state. We're going to work through this session to reform our educational system. We're working on maybe cleaning up our Constitution. And then we're going to work on our economy to try to focus on the business and industries that grew Louisiana. I mean Louisiana is a great place. It's filled with fun people. I always say that the greatest natural resource we have in Louisiana is its people and we've got great natural resources. We've got the Mississippi River, a lot of oil and gas, 30% of the seafood is caught off the coast of Louisiana that's consumed in the country and so we've got some great things. We're opening Louisiana up for business and we're hoping that people that are looking for a state to come

and live in, that they'll look to Louisiana. Well, Governor Jeff Landry, it's such a pleasure to have had you on. Well, thank you for having me. Thank you all for joining Governor Jeff Landry and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I'm your host, Jan Jekielek.