Here's Where It Gets Interesting - From the Printing Press to AI, Why Fascists Fear Teachers, and Answering Your Questions

Episode Date: November 3, 2025

Five centuries ago, Johannes Gutenberg’s printing press shattered the barriers to knowledge. Today, AI is doing the same. Sharon takes you on a journey into history that is strikingly similar to where we are today. Plus, she’s joined by Randi Weingarten, author of Why Fascists Fear Teachers whom critics have called “the most dangerous person in the world.” Together, they explore why teachers remain democracy’s first line of defense against authoritarianism. And Sharon answers your most pressing questions: Why is the US giving Argentina a $40 Billion bailout? Are there ways Trump could run for a third term?  Can Biden’s pardons be overturned? If you’d like to submit a question, head to thepreamble.com/podcast – we’d love to hear from you there. And be sure to read our weekly magazine at ThePreamble.com – it’s free! Join the 350,000 people who still believe understanding is an act of hope. Credits: Host and Executive Producer: Sharon McMahon Supervising Producer: Melanie Buck Parks Audio Producer: Craig Thompson To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Johannes Gutenberg spent years cloistered in secrecy, perfecting a machine that could uniformly stamp letters onto a page. If his idea could spring from the confines of his mind and make it into the real world, everything would change. To finance the project, Gutenberg borrowed money from a wealthy merchant named Johann Fust, using his equipment as collateral. When profits from the endeavor were too slim and too slow, Fust sued. And in 1455, Gutenberg lost everything. The court case, his workshop, and the printing press itself. Welcome to the preamble podcast. More on this story at a moment, but first an introduction.

If you're new, hello and welcome, each week you'll hear some of the most interesting stories from our weekly magazine, also called the preamble. We'll speak with a fascinating guest for a short interview. Today I'm joined by a woman labeled by some as one of the most dangerous people in America. And I'll be answering your most pressing questions like, why is the United States giving $40 billion to Argentina but not funding SNAP benefits or paying air traffic controllers? Stay with me because there's so much more to come. I'm Sharon McMahon. And this is the preamble podcast.

And now back to our story. Within a few months, Fust and one of Gutenberg's apprentices were printing, not copying, the world's first mass-produced Bible. Gutenberg, however, vanished from public life, forced to subsist on a modest pension bestowed by the Archbishop of Mainz. Gutenberg unlocked the modern age, but he died penniless while others. The others built entire empires atop his idea. Tempting as it is to imagine that this is a cautionary tale about investors and visionaries, it's more than that.

The trial of Johannes Gutenberg was the first recorded moment when technology, money, and information collided. Gutenberg wasn't simply inventing a machine of efficiency. He was creating a new way for ideas and information to multiply. Its genesis may have been a tool for copying scripture, but soon it was an accelerant for everything humans could think, love, fear, or believe. Less than a century after Gutenberg's death, his invention changed the life of a young woman named Anne Boleyn. Bolin arrived at Henry VIII's court around 1522 after she had spent years in France

where she'd been exposed to many ideas that seemed to right. radical at the time, like the idea that people should be able to read scripture in their native language and not just Latin. Around that same time, a scholar and linguist named William Tyndale was translating a New Testament from Greek to English, which was considered an act of heresy under English law. He couldn't find a printer in England willing to take the risk of reproducing his translation, so he fled to Germany, where he used Gutenberg's technology to print his English. English New Testament on small, easily smuggled pages that could then be shipped secretly back to England. When one of those contraband books reportedly found its way to the hands of Anne Boleyn,

she is said to have recognized both the power and the danger that she held. She presented Henry the 8th with another work of Tyndales, the obedience of a Christian man. The book argued that kings and not Popes had authority over their own realms and that everyone had the right to read scripture on their own. Within a few years, Henry VIII would break from Rome, declare himself the head of the Church of England, have Anne Boleyn executed, and set in motion a chain of political and religious upheavals that reshaped the world. Tindale was arrested, tied to a stake and strangled, and then his body was burned to an unrecognizable corpse. But the English Bible, he translated, and the printed ideas,

Anne Boleyn helped move into the hands of a king, could no longer be contained. The printing press had done what no monarch or priest ever could. It made ideas portable. A single book, copied by machine, could leap from exile into a royal palace. from an outlaw to a sovereign, and reorder the moral and political structure of an entire civilization. And that is the real power of revolutionary technology, not the machine's design, but what comes after it's used. Artificial intelligence is the movable type of the 21st century. AI began as a niche experiment in language modeling, infused

by venture capital and built largely in digital secrecy. A mere handful of years later, AI has escaped the lab it was conceived in and is now in the process of redefining authorship, expertise, and access to information. Like Gutenberg's press, it makes two promises. It will democratize creation and it will destabilize the systems that once controlled it. Before Gutenberg, information moved up the speed of a man scratching a quill onto parchment. A single Bible could take more than a year to copy, and that meant Bibles came at great cost. In the West, knowledge was hoarded by monasteries and churches, and the cost of a single volume was often as much as a skilled tradesman's yearly wages and ornate versions could cost even more.

With a printing press, a page could be duplicated hundreds of times before the ink dried. Within several decades, the price of books fell dramatically as much as 60%. By 1,500, more than 200 European cities had printing workshops, and those with presses had populations that grew roughly 50% faster than cities without them. The parallels to the present moment are more. than uncanny. Until recently, the production of knowledge, lines of code, images, videos, essays, was limited by human labor. Now, with generative AI, the bottleneck is gone. An algorithm can draft in seconds, often quite imperfectly, what previously took days of human effort. But

both of these revolutions turned knowledge from something expensive and rare into something so plentiful that it changed the definition of truth. When there are thousands of copies of a text or 10 million versions of an image, authenticity becomes harder to measure. In Gutenberg's era, that confusion gave rise to pamphlet wars and forged indulgences and counterfeit relics of saints. In hours, it manifests as deep fake videos,

misinformation, and lies masquerading as breaking news. The question today is not how to bind information. It's how to trust it. It's easy to tell ourselves that every generation has panicked over the next big invention. People once feared that books would ruin our minds. I mean, some people do still fear this and they try to ban the books, right? They believe that the books plant seeds that should never take root in the fertile soil of impressionable humans. They believed radio would destroy our conversational skills. The TV would make us into dullards. And yet, like humans are a want to do, we adapted and civilization carried on.

But this moment feels different, not just because of the speed of change, but because we've never invented something like this before. Everything that's come before still needed us. Someone had to load the dishwasher or set the type or crank the wheel. Machines amplified what humans could do. But artificial intelligence is the first technology. designed to work without us. It learns on its own. It adjusts on its own. It creates things we didn't even ask for. The printing press needed someone to feed it words. Now, algorithms are making them up. That's not simply a technical issue. It's one that has profound implications for what

makes us human. Reasoning is not a chore. And making meaning of information is how we come to know ourselves if we hand that work off to a robot. We are not just outsourcing, putting widgets into a box. We are giving away the formation of our very identities. I love it as much as the next person. I can pull out my phone calculator and multiply 396 by 28. But if we sort of spare ourselves every effort. We sacrifice what the effort teaches us. What happens when we no longer need to reason at all? How long will it take for us to notice what we've lost? Like the slow, frustrating process of turning information into wisdom. At the center of this conversation lies a paradox. AI promises it will make us infinitely capable, but capability isn't the same thing

as competence. A civilization that can generate a million images a minute and encyclopedic volumes of words every hour might find itself surrounded by content but starved for meaning. When creation costs us nothing, what is the value of what we create? For all of history, hard-fought knowledge acted as a form of guardrail. You couldn't build an atomic weapon without first acquiring a PhD-level knowledge in physics. You couldn't deploy a virus capable of taking down an international banking system without first learning everything about how computers work. But if the know-how is automated, that a single bad actor can summon the skill of entire professions, this changes the moral math in ways we cannot yet predict. The printing press made our

ideas immortal. But AI makes them autonomous. And that is both the incredible opportunity we have before us and also the danger, because what truly separates us from our inventions is not our intelligence. It's our ability to care what the intelligence should be used for. Kootenberg's press would give rise to the Enlightenment and the flourishing of schools, libraries, and scientific discoveries, it pulled the written word out of monasteries and put it into the hands of ordinary people. For all its turmoil, it gave rise to an age where thinking for oneself became a moral act. AI is going to demand something more. The first invention of knowledge made us readers. The second we'll test whether we remain the authors of our own lives, our words, our words,

our ideas, and ourselves. What the algorithm we'll give rise to has yet to be inscribed in the history books. What a frightful consideration. And what an extraordinary opportunity. Up next, I'm speaking with the author of Why Fascists Fear Teachers, Randy Weingarten, labeled by some as one of the most dangerous people in America.

When news first breaks, it's everywhere. In the headlines, on TV, all over social media, in your push notifications. It's like a storm. But the coverage leaves you feeling unsatisfied. Well, that's where we come in. I'm Magna Chakrabardi, host of On Point. We ask the questions that still need answers. We analyze the meaning behind the news and why it matters to your life.

We equip you with the knowledge you need to face. the next newsstorm. On Point is clarity when it counts. Subscribe today, wherever you get your podcasts. Our guest this week on the podcast is Randy Weingarten. She is a labor leader, an attorney of former history teacher who has spent the last 17 years as the president of the American Federation of Teachers, and her new book is called Why Fascists Fear Teachers. She's represented over a million educators, healthcare professionals, public service workers throughout her career. And she's joining us today to talk about why teachers are the last line of defense against authoritarianism. I'm excited to share this with you, so let's type in. Randy Weingarten,

thank you so much for being here. It's a joy and an honor. I am curious about why you think some people view you as one of the most dangerous people in America. You don't seem dangerous. I think there's an intentionality to it from a power dynamic. I don't really think it's personal. It might be, but regular people have power really truly only three ways. One is something we both do through education. The pathway to knowledge and skills to a sense of self and confidence that happens through education.

The second, that's also pretty obvious, is through electing public officials that hopefully serve their interests or serve the country's interests. The third way for most regular folks is through a labor movement. And when the labor movement was at its ascendancy, when one out of three people were in a union, you had the biggest, most formidable middle class in America. So educational opportunity, economic opportunity, electoral opportunity. And so I kind of sit in the intersection of all three of them. And if you don't want regular people to have any power, then you're going to go after the people who you think lead those movements.

But when a former secretary of state calls you the most dangerous person in the world, that's about creating fear and distrust. My next question speaks to the title of your new book, which, by the way, congratulations. Why do fascists fear teachers? I think there's three reasons why fascists fear teachers. The first two, I think, kind of resonate with people. But the three reasons are the first three chapters in my book. One is they really fear the acquisition and the use of knowledge and critical thinking and problem solving, and how we help kids not memorize things, but use and apply information

and be able to have the understanding. And frankly, as you and I both know, because you've written about this too, the founding fathers really believed that the bulwark against tyranny was education and this notion of critical thinking and problem solving and context and communication. That's one. The second big issue is pluralism. When we are in a classroom or a campus, we're actually teaching the habits of democracy. When kids who are pretty diverse the first day they come into a classroom, even in non-integrated neighborhoods, you have a pretty diverse set of children. And so you're teaching these kids how to get along, how to work together,

even if they hate each other. How do we help them learn how to live with each other despite their differences, despite their opinions, despite their parents' opinions? And that sense of how we create a welcoming and safe environment that not only sees kids, but creates a way that they can navigate conflict and differences, that's pluralism. And that, I think, is why, fascist more than any other reason really fear teachers. And the third is we really do believe

in equal opportunity. And the fascist story is on us versus them based upon a mythical past where the them are going to be reviled, denigrated, dehumanized. So it is the opposite of equal opportunity and it's isolationism. It's the opposite of pluralism. So, So that's why those three issues just cut right against the authoritarian playbook of fear, apathy, and demonization. I love that. Public schools and teachers at large are teaching the skills of democracy, whether directly or indirectly in their classrooms. And if we can attack the skills of democracy, then we make it far easier for authoritarians to instill fear, isolation, to plant the seeds of everything else they need.

The us versus them mentality, we shouldn't get along with those people. Those people over there are bad. Why would we want to include those people? They're not part of us. It makes it much easier if you can't critically think. If all you know how to do is parrot the party line, if all you know how to do is memorize a set of pre-approved facts, then it makes it so that when you go out into the world,

you don't actually have anything to draw on other than what you're being spoon-fed by the authoritarian regime. Exactly right. And let me just say, this is not about teaching my view of the world. This is about teaching how to think. And this is why it's so important to figure out what is a common set of curriculum that we teach. What is a common set of values like in civics that we teach? You know, I'm a lifelong Democrat. If one of my seniors becomes a lifelong Republican, but he's or she or they have been incredibly successful and they're doing what they want to do in life, that's great. Teaching should not be about, I want somebody to be my image. And I think we often get

painted as political when we can be political outside of our classrooms. But in our classrooms, we are really teaching kids how to think. Almost every teacher I know would much rather have a student leave their classroom with great critical thinking skills and still arrive at a different conclusion than perhaps the teacher personally, but be able to back that different opinion up with facts and reasons and opinions that have been considered from every logical angle than they would produce a student who just can memorize a set of facts but falls apart in the face of any kind of incoming storm. And I think it's important to point out that the United States and democracy at large needs more than one healthy political party.

Exactly right. One political party is authoritarianism. We need more than one. I'd argue that we need more than two healthy political parties. And we need critical thinkers from every side of the political spectrum to be engaging in good faith in democracy way more than we need to turn out a little army of people who can memorize a set of facts, but who do not actually interrogate how the world works. Exactly right. I couldn't agree with you more. And part of my choice for the title was, as a warning, I did not actually label anyone as a fascist in this book. I explain and describe

fascistic behavior. And I hope to God, sorry for invoking God, but I hope to God that we never in this country get to a place where we have a fiscistic government. It doesn't just happen like with snap of the fingers. You're not a democracy one day and not a democracy one day. You know, the backsliding happens over a course of time. Authoritarianism happens over a course of time. So that's why I use that term in the title as a warning. I mean, I don't think most Americans want to lose our democracy. But we need to. to actually see the warning signs, but it's teachers who actually, for kids at a young age,

teach the habits of democracy. I've written extensively about book bans. I have very serious concerns about book bans. I'm on all of the book banners lists of dangerous Americans. Yes, you two are very, very, very dangerous. I've noticed that. You can tell just by looking. Oh, one of the leaders of one of these book banning groups

made a video calling me an ignorant pimp, Randy, which I was like, that is fascinating. Yeah, kind of the opposite of who you are. Yeah, ignorant is not a word I would use, but okay. I wouldn't use either of them. Thank you. Thank you, Randy. Appreciate that. One of the things I'd love to hear you talk about is what's really behind bookbands?

What's really behind these ideas that people, children, students shouldn't have access. to age-appropriate books. Right. Nobody is saying, let's put Playboy in the kindergarten classrooms. Correct. Zero people are saying that. Largely what is being banned, and there are organizations like Penn America that track these types of bands, largely what is being banned are books written by and about people

of color. There are books written by and about people from the LGBTQ community. They're books written by and about people who were change makers in history. they are not books that are like how to have porn for first graders. That's what I think people think is happening. And that is absolutely not what's happening. So what is actually behind book bans? So one is they want to create the sense of fear of the other, the somebody who's different. But the second, I think is even more venal, which is why would you ban a book for young people about Roberto Clemente, about Rosa Parks, or Ruby Bridges, or Anne Frank,

why would you not want kids to have a sense about other kids and other kids' aspirations? And the story of struggle. Why is the story of struggle so scary? And so it's a matter of a fear of knowledge. Frankly, a fear of pluralism, a fear of inclusivity, a fear of diversity, and a fear that we will, get this, embrace the other rather than demonize the other. I can see why everybody thinks you're so dangerous, Randy. These are very dangerous ideas you're talking about. Like, not dehumanizing people. What a dangerous idea. really dangerous. I want to say to people who are religious, that's what we say in church or in synagogue so many times during the year. How is that so dangerous? It's foundational to all of the

world's major religions. And all of the world's big moral frameworks, if you're not religious, the philosophies by which most people live under, there is some version said in different languages or different ways of saying it. There's some version of love your neighbor. And that's what embracing the stranger means. It doesn't mean let murderers move into your house. It means loving your neighbor, wanting for your neighbor the good things that you would want for yourself and your own children. That's what that means. Okay, very quickly, last question. What do you want the American public who's listening to this to know about American education in this moment? In the year of our Lord 2025, what do you hope they will know? I hope they'll know three things. One is the nature

who teachers are. The most important driver for me in writing this book was to be able to lift up who teachers are in America today. And not just America, but throughout the world. But I know American teachers more than I know others. With their connection, their basic humanity, they MacGyver better than McGiver did, this is who teachers are today. And they should not be smeared. They should be supported. They should not be reviled. They should be respected. I want people to know who teachers are. That's number one. And number two, I love our country. I'm a patriot. I want our country to be better. So this notion that education is different than what the founders wanted, the framers wanted, I really wanted to not just make the warning about fascism, but lift up the promise of America.

And number three is I think we all have something to learn about how we speak to each other and how we listen to each other. And what the book has allowed me to do is have conversations with people I would not normally talk with and listen to because it is, It's not what's said. It's what's heard and what's felt. And we need to bring America together again. That was the promise of our republic 249 years ago. And I want to do everything I can to make that promise of America real for the next generation and the generation after that. Randy, thank you so much for being here. Thank you. Every week I endeavor to answer some of your most pressing questions. And today we're diving into why the U.S. is giving Argentina $40 billion.

What will happen if the president tries to run for a third term and whether or not Biden's pardons can be overturned? More on that next. Now let's get to your questions. I had so many this week. It was hard to narrow down the list. So let's start with this one. Why is the United States paying $40 billion to bail out Argentina?

You've heard about this bailout, I'm sure, but what you might be wondering, is, why are we doing this? What's in it for us? Why would President Trump, the America First President, want to bail out another country? And the short answer is money, markets, and power. If Argentina's economy collapses, it could be because of runaway inflation, a rapidly falling peso, unpaid debts, and political uncertainty that could scare investors. These problems could combine to make it hard for the government to pay its bills and keep businesses running and maintain confidence in the markets. Because of these things, American investors could lose billions of dollars.

U.S. banks and pension funds and companies hold Argentine bonds and other assets. A crash in Argentina could ripple through Latin America and shake confidence in emerging markets everywhere, and that could hit U.S. markets hard. There's also another strategy beyond the immediate financial one. Argentina is one of Trump's key allies in South America. Its president, Javier Millet, has been openly critical of China's growing influence, including its investments, loans, and trade deals in the region. China's involvement gives it economic leverage and political influence in Latin America,

and the U.S. sees that as a strategic concern. By helping Miele now, the U.S. keeps a friendly government stable. It limits China's influence, and it positions itself to get valuable resources like lithium and uranium from Argentina, and we need lithium and uranium for things like batteries and nuclear submarine energy and medical imaging. So from Trump's point of view, this isn't like a charitable donation. It's a deal that protects American money and American influence. That's why Treasury Secretary Scott Besant called it America first because we're supporting a U.S. ally. Now, let's talk about what this bailout actually is. In October 2025, the Trump administration and now

a $40 billion rescue package for Argentina. Half of that money, $20 billion, comes from something called a currency swap. A currency swap is basically a short-term trade of money between two countries. The U.S. gives Argentina United States dollars. Argentina gives the United States Argentine pesos for the same amount. Temporarily. It's kind of like a short-term loan. So how does this help?

If Argentina's economy or the peso collapses, American investors could lose billions. So this isn't meant to be a gift. The idea is that the United States is just temporarily making this trade and then Argentina pays it back with interest. And if it goes, well, the United States can make a small amount of money on this swap, but there is always the chance that it could not go well. And the United States could be out $20 billion if Argentina fails to pay. the other $20 billion in this $40 billion deal comes from private banks and sovereign wealth funds. A sovereign wealth fund is like a big investment fund that is owned by the government of a country. In this case, the United States government isn't directly giving any of this other pool of $20 billion. It's using its own financial systems and backing to encourage other private and foreign lenders to participate in this bailout.

So the United States is not necessarily handing Argentina taxpayer cash unless, of course, Argentina fails to repay on the currency swap. It's giving them access to dollars and using its financial system to rally private lenders behind the deal. But critics do see it differently. Senator Elizabeth Warren had this to say. Donald Trump is trying to jumpstart the economy. Oh, not the U.S. economy, the economy in Argentina. Yeah, you heard that right. The U.S. government is shut down.

Air traffic controllers aren't getting paid. Americans are getting letters in the mail, that their health care premiums are doubling and tripling. But one of the functions of government that Trump has left open is the office that signs a multi-billion dollar check to Argentina. Senator Warren and other Democrats introduced a bill to block the bailout, arguing that American taxpayers shouldn't have to raise. their money to protect foreign investors. But the Trump administration says it's a smart investment.

And there is one other wrinkle involving Argentina for American farmers. As part of the deal, Trump says he will quadruple Argentine beef imports, something that sounds good for consumers, but many U.S. ranchers are not happy about it. It is going to plummet the cost of beef, and that can undercut their own production, and it can discourage further investment in a American farm infrastructure. Let's move on to our next question. Can Trump run for a third term? And what happens if he refuses to leave office?

As you know, Donald Trump has been talking a lot about running for a third term. Even though the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution says no. Since 1951, when the amendment was ratified, no president has been allowed to be elected to more than two terms. In fact, it says that somebody can serve for up to 10 years if they are completing the term of another individual, they can complete up to two terms of that person's term, and then they can run for two more. But if they complete three years of another person's term, like you're a vice president who becomes president, you can't run for two more terms. You can only run for one more. But the fact that we have this constitutional amendment has not stopped Trump supporters and Trump himself from

talking about a third term. President Donald Trump posted pictures on his truth social on Tuesday. in the photos, a Trump-2028 hat can be seen sitting on his desk, teasing a third term. Just this week, he's been saying he'd love to run again, but he also did say that it's pretty clear that he can't do it. However, Trump's former advisor Steve Bannon said there's a plan in place to make this happen. Well, he's going to get a third term. So Trump 28, Trump is going to be president of 28, and people just ought to get accommodated with that. So what about the 22nd Amendment? There's many different alternatives. at the appropriate time, we'll lay out what the plan is. But there's a plan, and President Trump

will be the president in 28. Okay, so if the Constitution says he can't run, why is everyone still talking about it? There are a few legal ways that he could explore. And let me start by saying that these are not easy or practical or really, in most cases, even legal. But let me walk you through them. The first is amending the Constitution to remove a two-term limit. This is never going to happen. but it would require two-thirds of Congress or two-thirds of states to propose an amendment, followed by ratification from three-quarters of the states. That's 38 out of 50 states. So pausing right there, does anyone really think 38 out of 50 states are going to go along with this? Two-thirds of Congress going to go along with this in our current political environment? No. But also,

if the process was even started, it would take years. There's never been a constitutional amendment that we were just like done and dusted, wrap that up in a hot second. No, it takes a long time to amend the Constitution. So that's not happening. Another hypothetical path involves running as vice president and then assuming the presidency. Now, I already mentioned that nobody could be president for more than 10 years. So theoretically, it's possible that Trump could run as somebody's vice president. That person could resign two years into their term and Trump could theoretically assume

the presidency two years into the term, which would give him a total of 10 years. But the 12th Amendment actually does say that no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of vice president. So that complicates matters. And then moving on to the idea of what happens if Trump refuses to leave office after his term ends. The 25th Amendment addresses that. It allows the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to declare a president unfit to serve. If the president contests that declaration, Congress would have to decide the issue,

and that again would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate to uphold the cabinet's decision. So this is the concern that many people have. What if Trump's cabinet in Congress refused to act at all? Would it leave the process in limbo? Would it create a constitutional crisis? Would it create legal battles or political turmoil or public unrest? Probably. But we're also forgetting one other thing, which is that the president is not in charge of the electoral process, and he's not in charge of the inauguration. So the United States does not actually require the president's cooperation to inaugurate a new duly elected president. Now, there could be further issues if one president refuses to leave the White House, but we don't actually need a president's

permission to say they are no longer the president, and this other person over here has been elected. Leaving the White House is a different issue. That's like evicting somebody from a home that they're renting. That's a different legal issue than trying to remove somebody from office. We don't need anyone's permission to inaugurate a new president on January 20th, 2029. There's another potential scenario that's been floated, and it involves the line of succession to the presidency. And again, we all know that if a president can serve and the VP becomes president. But after that is the Speaker of the House. And the Speaker of the House does not have to be an elected member of Congress. That person just has to be selected by Congress. So it's theoretically possible that Trump could be picked as

Speaker of the House. But in that scenario, both the current president and the current vice president would have to be gotten rid of in some fashion, resignation or I don't even want I imagine what else, which would then make the Speaker of the House theoretically the president. But again, we have a policy of, if you are not eligible to be the president, we skip over you in the line of succession. And then some people wonder if there's any wiggle room with the wording of the 22nd Amendment, which limits a president to two terms. The amendment says no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice. And no person who has held the office of president or acted as president for more than two years of a term to which some other

person was elected president shall be elected to the office of president more than once. So the word elected is the key word here. What if he's not elected? Like in the scenario above, if he becomes speaker or he is appointed vice president. Can he then become president by succession? I mean, I'm certain there are lawsuits that could be filed. But again, it's extraordinary. narrowly difficult to imagine somebody else being elected president for the sole purpose of stepping aside just to try to facilitate all of this and to likely be unsuccessful. So what if Trump just ignores the 22nd Amendment and tries to run for office anyway? The election system itself is a barrier. When a candidate files to run, state election officials are required to

verify their eligibility. And the 22nd Amendment explicitly forbids anyone from being elected more than twice. So there are probably some states that would try to put him on the ballot, and a lot of states would not. And not being on the ballot in a lot of states would mean that Trump could not rack up enough electoral college votes to win the presidency. So let's be clear. We do not need the president's permission to elect a new president. We don't need him to agree to leave office. And there are plenty of legitimate legal barriers that keep him from a third term in office. Moving on to our next question, was Biden's signature forged? And can his pardons be overturned?

There's a new report from the House Oversight Committee, which is led by Republicans, and they recently launched an investigation into Biden's physical decline at the end of his presidency. And this report outlined some of their findings. There's one term in that report that's really getting people talking, though, and that is the auto pen. An auto pen is a mechanical device that reproduces a president's signature on official documents. It's not a digital signature. It's a literal mechanical device. They make a template of the president's signature, and then this pen actually traces it. Autopens, by the way, not new. They are designed to be used with the president's explicit authorization.

If you've ever gotten a Christmas card from the White House, you can hold it up and be like, this is actually signed. But then when you think about how many Christmas cards are sent out by the White House, you know that there's absolutely no way that a president is sitting there signing tens of thousands of Christmas cards. They are signed by an autopen. Courts have consistently said that autopan signatures are perfectly valid as long as the president authorizes their use. So Biden is not the only president to use them. Trump used them during his first term, Obama, George v. Bush, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, have all used autopens. It's to keep the president from having to spend long periods of time every day, just signing things. The House Oversight Committee, though, is questioning whether any of Biden's aides use the auto pen to sign official documents like pardons that he was potentially not aware of.

Like, for example, did Biden personally approve all 4,200 pardons issued during his term? House Speaker Mike Johnson said this. The president was checked out of his job for quite some time, and everybody knows it. And there was a cover-up. Republicans are especially focused on Biden's final round of pardons before leaving office because those pardons included one for his son, Hunter Biden, and preemptive pardons for people like Dr. Anthony Fauci and retired General Mark Millie, whom Trump had suggested he might go after after he won the presidency.

Congressman James Comer, who is the chair of the Oversight Committee, has asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to review every executive actions signed with the autopen. He wrote that without written proof of Biden personally consenting, that those autopen actions should be deemed void. And he also asked the D.C. Board of Medicine to investigate Biden's doctor for possible misconduct. But here's the key point. The report didn't show any direct evidence that Biden's signature was forged or that he was unaware of what he was signing. Instead, they say there's no proof that Biden was the decider. Here's a quote,

there is no record demonstrating President Biden himself made all of the executive decisions that were attributed to him, end quote. Biden has previously said he made all of those decisions. He has called these claims ridiculous and false. Over the summer, a Biden spokesperson dismissed this inquiry as a political stunt. Democrats on the committee issued their own report arguing that Republicans failed to find any evidence of wrongdoing. and that the investigation was meant only to discredit Biden's legacy. And legally, the Constitution gives the president broad power to grant pardons.

Courts have upheld this over and over. There is no president in U.S. history for a pardon being revoked. If you'd like to submit a question, head to the preamble.com slash podcast. We'd love to hear from you there. And be sure to read our weekly magazine at the preamble.com. It's free. And here's your personal invitation to join 350,000 people who still believe understanding is an act of hope. This week, find advice on if you should let your children use AI, the beauty of friction in our lives and relationships, and what's ahead for American schools.

I'm your host and executive producer Sharon McMahon. If you enjoyed this show, please like, share, and subscribe these things, help podcasters out so much. Our supervising producer is Melanie Buck Parks. Our audio producer is Craig Thompson, and you can find our guest Randy Weingarten's book, Why Fascist Fear Teachers, at your local bookstore, or head to bookshop.org. I'll see you again soon.