Raging Moderates with Scott Galloway and Jessica Tarlov - Trump's Election Plot Gets More Dangerous as His World Cup Intervention Leaves Everyone Stunned

Episode Date: July 7, 2026

Jessica Tarlov is joined by Marc Elias, America's foremost election attorney and founder of Democracy Docket, to talk about the recent Supreme Court term, Trump’s efforts at voter suppression, the throughline of corruption in the administration, and more.  First, they discuss Trump's rain-delayed America 250th speech, which he delivered late Saturday night in D.C., after severe thunderstorms forced crowds to shelter in nearby federal buildings. Trump used the moment to push for the passage of the SAVE America Act, a bill he claims would end election fraud — and, saying the quiet part out loud, deliver Republicans 100 years of victories. Marc breaks down what the bill actually does, and why Trump is still pushing it hard enough to torpedo the housing bill in its favor. Then, Marc reflects on two Supreme Court cases that he helped litigate — he scored a significant victory in Watson v. RNC — a case to determine the legality of certain mail-in ballots. But the Court’s ruling in NRSC v. FEC, which struck down coordination limits between political parties and campaigns, is a major blow. Why did this Supreme Court so readily overturn precedent in this case? Marc gives his thoughts about potential reforms needed to safeguard the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as an institution. And, the confusion about the health of Senator Mitch McConnell, coming so soon after the monthslong disappearance (and sudden reemergence) of Rep. Thomas Kean, leads Jessica and Marc to talk about how to better “keep track” of members of Congress. Finally, Trump claims he personally lobbied FIFA president Gianni Infantino to intervene in the automatic red card suspension for U.S. striker Folarin Balogun, clearing him to play against Belgium in today's World Cup last-16 match. What is the appropriate patriotic response to this intervention? Get your tickets now for our live show at 92NY: https://www.92ny.org/event/scott-galloway-and-jessica-tarlov For ad-free episodes, exclusive livestreams, and to connect with Scott, Jessica, and the Raging Moderates community, join us at ProfG+ on Substack: https://ragingmoderates.profgmedia.com/ Get The Monday Rage newsletter: https://profgmedia.com/s/monday-rage/ Follow Raging Moderates on IG, Tiktok, and Facebook: https://www.instagram.com/ragingmoderatespod/ https://www.tiktok.com/@ragingmoderates https://www.facebook.com/ragingmoderates Follow Jessica Tarlov on Instagram, Substack, and Bluesky: https://instagram.com/jessicatarlov https://substack.com/@jessietarlov https://bsky.app/profile/jessicatarlov.bsky.social Follow Scott on Instagram, Substack, and Bluesky: https://instagram.com/profgalloway https://substack.com/@profgalloway https://bsky.app/profile/profgalloway.com Subscribe to our YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@RagingModerates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Thank you for calling the Bombas comfort line. Bombas make socks, slippers, teas, and underwear made with the highest quality materials. Press 1 for comfort. 2 for style. 3 for donation. You chose style. Bombas is styles for whatever you enjoy. You can run in bambas, lounge in bambas, dress them up, dress them down, but always give back in bombas.

Because with every item purchased, another is donated. Bombas, comfort worth calling for. Go to bambas.com. And use code audio for 20% off your first purchase. That's BOMBAS.com and use code audio. Support for this show comes from Fetch Pet Insurance. Do you have a pet? Every six seconds, a pet owner in the U.S. gets hit with a vet bill of over $1,000.

And it's almost always an unwelcome surprise. That's where Fetch Pet Insurance comes in. Fetch is the most complete pet insurance. Get paid back up to 90% of vet bills. You can use any vet in the U.S. and Canada. All vets are in network. Go to fetchpet.com slash save right now for your free quote. That's fetchpet.com slash save. Support for this show comes from fetch pet insurance. Do you have a pet? Every six seconds, a pet owner in the U.S. gets hit with a vet bill of over $1,000.

And it's almost always an unwelcome surprise. That's where Fetch pet insurance comes in. Fetch is the most complete pet insurance. Get paid back up to 90% of vet bills. You can use any vet in the U.S. and Canada. All vets are in network. Go to fetchpet.com slash save right now for your free quote. That's fetchpet.com slash save. The Supreme Court in 1976 upheld the basic framework of our campaign finance laws, this contribution thing. Like, we're going to limit the amount of money that can be given to a campaign. But the RNC said that's not enough. They want that to be unlimited. This was a case where the court had ruled on this question before.

And the Supreme Court just sort of like drove through that as if it was just air. And that is a really big deal. And so the question is like what campaign finance law is this court going to uphold if it is not this one? So put it this way, if you were Supreme Court trying to look partisan, these are probably some of the things you would do. Welcome to Raging Moderates. I'm Jessica Tarlev. And I am very excited to be joined today by America's foremost election lawyer, a Democratic savior, or he's trying to save us as much as he can. The deck is stacked against him

sometimes, but he's still notching up big wins. Democracy Docket founder, Mark Elias is here. I'm so excited. How are you? I'm okay. You know, had a good few days. It was weird. It was like a long, long weekend, you know, between Donald Trump's craziness in Washington, D.C., which was really crazier than it seems. It's where I wanted to start. So I'm glad you got us right in there. So I was in D.C. just on Thursday. We did an outdoor show in the 104 degree heat, which was a hellscape beyond imagination. Now, were you at the thing on the mole where nobody went? Until Saturday. The internet is dunking on me a lot because I made a video on Thursday when there was no one there. I said, hey, there's no one out here. And you should be inside if you are here. It's like there was a little baby, which is a very unsafe.

to have them out on those conditions. Then by Saturday, there were hundreds of thousands of patriots, including white nationalists. I'm sure you saw that as well. I did. So I have surrendered. People showed up on Saturday to see Donald Trump. But yes, I was on the mall.

So I wanted to ask you about this. So, like, did they think people would show up? Like, do you know what I mean? Like, because nothing about it seemed to be set up to be all that enticing for people to show up. Like, of course, people show up for fireworks. but like the little like mini arch and like the ill-constructed sets. Like did they think people were going to show up for this? Yeah, definitely.

I mean, I guess not enough to actually spend the appropriate amount of money to ensure that the thing didn't break. But yeah, I think that they expect or Trump tells them rather if this has my name on it. And it was Freedom 250, right? It wasn't America 250. It wasn't the bipartisan commission doing something to celebrate. our 250th birthday, I think he says, you know, prepare for the biggest crowd you've ever seen and no one can push back on it. But with that weather, how could you think that you are going to have the thousands that you expected? Apparently, he was very upset by it. Was New York there? New York was

there. It was. But for everyone who was just watching it on TV, it was a completely dismal rating, I would say, for his fare until Saturday. Right. But then they were there and then they left and then he came back, right? Yes. So the weather got really bad. Yes. So they all had to leave. The process for getting in was very Trumpian and difficult to get through.

Then they were seeking refuge in all of the federal buildings. And I am not in any way saying that Trump supporters in general are racist. But the scenes of them taking cover in the African American History Museum, you know, I just wanted them like the MAGA hats right below the Barack Obama. display would have been kind of just perfect serendipity. I want to play this little clip of Trump speech, which finally kicked off after 11 p.m. And then we had the 850,000 fireworks. I think you guys have the worst air quality of any city in America now as a result of it.

But let's listen to Trump quoting the Declaration of Independence. And as our Declaration of Independence tells us, we are all made in the image of one almighty God. And a communist will never say that. That's for sure. Is that what the Declaration of Independence says? Okay, so Declaration of Independence doesn't say that.

Yeah. But the part that I'm like just marveling at with like all of this communist stuff is this is a guy who spends a lot of time talking to Vladimir Putin. I mean like we we don't need to like speculate who communists are. Like literally, you know, Vladimir Putin. is the head of Russia and is an avowed and, like, proud communist. So if Donald Trump has any questions about communists, maybe he should, maybe he should call his buddy, buddy over in Moscow.

I kind of love that to say, like, let's take our attention off AOC and Mom Donnie, and we could just direct it to the guy who he had, I don't know, like six to eight private conversations with when he was even out of office, you know, while he was the four years when Joe Biden was in there. The communist point, though, obviously speaks to their campaign line, right, and what it's going to look like as we head into the midterms. And then the 28 presidential. And there's another big piece of it, which he mentioned when he was speaking at the dedication of Teddy Roosevelt's library when he brought up the Save America Act, claiming that it would end cheating on elections. And I think even, yeah, he said, if we terminate the filibuster as we should do and immediately vote for the Save America Act, then we will not lose.

an election for a hundred years. Which is what a normal leader would say in a democracy would say. A normal democratic leader, yeah. Right, right. I mean, like, after all, like, I mean, let's see, which sounds more like a communist? I don't think that he even knows what communist leaders look like or what has happened to their countries or how many tens of millions have died at their hands. I think it's, it only looks like Bernie.

Sanders to him. Yeah, like, so for for for for him, you know, the emptying out the prisons and putting them on the front lines to be cannon fodder and no free and fair elections and, you know, jailing political opponents. That to Donald Trump is not communism, but you know, health care for all that that that's where that's where Trump has drawn the line. The free bus rides, I think are really what gets him. I want to ask you, though, about the Save America Act. Because last time that you were on, we talked a lot about it. And it was when it had first started percolating in earnest, I would say. They've had major setbacks in terms of getting it. Major setbacks. Major setbacks is kind of like, you know, the situation with the algae in the,

in the reflecting pool. Like, like, it's had made, yes, it's fair to say the Save America Act has had major setbacks. I'm just waiting for the president to say it's the result of a 350-foot-long gash. Gash, that an Olympic canoeist did while wearing his gear. But what, you know, as someone who is deeply entrenched in what's going on with all of these election lawsuits, what do you make of the fact that they keep bringing it up, even though they know that they don't have the votes to do it? And do you think there is any workaround or way that they are going to be changing?

Our law, as it relates to what you're going to have to present when you vote, or when you register? Yeah, so I think it's two different questions. The first is, why are they bringing up to Save America Act? The second is, are they done? And the answer to the first is the bringing up to Save America Act because Donald Trump believes that by repeating a lie over and over and over again, he can affect public opinion, right?

Donald Trump's whole vision of this is that you tell a lie, you double down on the lie, you move, you shift the overton, window in kind of where the debate happens, when all of that isn't enough, then you go to court. And when that doesn't happen, you incite a violent insurrection. Like, that's, that's, that's the, that's the pathway from 2020. And like a version of that is, is kind of where we are. They are in the losing in court phase of this right now. But the rhetorical point is, you know, captured by this bill, which, by the way, you know,

doesn't even contain in various versions, all the things he talked. talks about, sometimes he adds things, sometimes he drops things out, right? It's just kind of a catch-all for a rhetorical device of if you let me, Donald Trump, run these elections. If you let Republicans do what they want with the elections, then we won't lose. And if we don't do those things, then Democrats will win and we'll call it fraud. So that's what I think is going on with the Save America Act. It doesn't have the votes to pass. It's not going to pass. Like I said, depending on the day, it includes or doesn't include different provisions. But the second question is, beyond the rhetoric, is Donald Trump going to do more things?

And is he going to try to weaponize the government against free and fair elections? And there, the answer is yes. He's right now trying to get the postal service into the game to try to have them refuse to deliver mail-in ballots. He tried to get the courts through a lawsuit the RNC brought that my law firm and I litigated against and won in the Supreme Court, tried to get mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day, but received afterwards thrown out that would have disenfranchised hundreds of thousands. And, and, you know, look, we're only four months out. He's going to continue.

They're continuing to try to get access to state voter files. They're 0 and 11 in lawsuits there where my law firm's undefeated, right? But we haven't seen the end of his efforts to try to rig the outcome of these elections. I wanted to run over some of the big SCOTUS decisions from last week, especially, you know, the two that you were involved and you already mentioned the mail-and-ballot case, I think that was the beginning of the drumpy, at least for this iteration of opinions, that Amy Coney-Barrant was an enormous mistake, right? I guess they're just like singling her out. That's the right. So can you talk a bit more about that case and then, I guess, the implications, starting with midterms?

Like, can they bring another mail-in-ballot restriction case? and are we going to be talking about this again, or does it seem like every state's protocols are going to be in place for this election? On the post office, I saw it seem like a minor detail, but they would have to build a portal, like an online portal to be able to do this, which they can't get done in time. So that might be what saves us on that front. But say more about the mail-in ballot case. Yeah, so first of all, I can't not comment on the point that you started with, which is you can look at the breadth of decisions from this court and say this was a pretty bad, like, Supreme Court term for people who care about the rule of law and, you know, individual rights and liberties. And the idea that the conservatives took away from this to be absolutely over the moon angry at Amy Comey Barrett, right, who like, like honestly, voted with the six-three majority in case after case, but in this one case,

this one case didn't do so, or the fact that, you know, they treat the birthright citizenship defeat that they had as somehow like, you know, a sign that the courts are, are standing in the way of Donald Trump as they are allowing him to fire systematically, virtually anyone in the federal government he wants, is really a testament to the ability of the right wing to have an insatiably unreasonable demand. You know, there was a book many, many years ago. I think it was something like how to negotiate like a two-year-old. Because like toddlers, they negotiate. Like, they're like, I want ice cream for every meal and you're like, no, no, no, you can't have ice cream. And four-year-old's sudden done, you've given them some ice cream. Right. Like, that's literally

how the Republicans think about the courts. And it's just, it's, it's astounding. All right. On the mail-in ballot front, though, this was a very important case in that the U.S. Supreme court said that the effort by Republicans to disqualify categorically ballots cast before election day, postmarked for election day, put in the mail before election day, but received because they came through the mail after election day, that those ballots would not be systematically and categorically thrown in the trash. That's what this case was, right? So the RNC had argued that the 19 states that allow ballots to be counted if they are

postmarked by Election Day, perceived afterwards. The RNC said that there's all need to be rejected. The court said no. And it was a 5-4 decision written by Justice Coney Barrett and with the Chief Justice as the other sort of, you know, fifth vote. And, you know, look, this is a big win for democracy. It's a big win for my law firm and I. This is a big win for voting rights.

The fact is the RNC brought this case because they understood that it involved hundreds of thousands, maybe more. than a million votes in a presidential year, that it would impact Democrats more heavily than Republicans. That's actually part of their original complaint as to why they had standing. And that's because more Democrats vote by mail than Republicans, but also younger voters and minority voters tend to have their ballots arrive later than older voters. So this was a big win. It was a setback for Donald Trump and the Republican Party. But to your point, like, no, they're not done. Like, they're not. They're not like.

like, oh, well, you know, now we'll just play by the rules. You know, that will just, we'll just compete on the level playing field of ideas. No, now they are talking about other ways to try to target these ballots and others like them, including by telling the Postal Service not to deliver mail-in ballots unless the names of the voter is on an approved list. They suffer to set back in court on that as well. But look, you know, this is going to be a dog fight between now and Election Day. Yeah, I mean, how are the conservative states that rely on mail-in-voting or believe in our right to be able to vote dealing with this?

Or are they kind of just like standing back and letting it play out? Here's the thing, and Jesse, you see this probably more than I do in up close and personal since I don't hang out with, you know, like Republicans don't call me. I don't, I don't hang out with. You got no crossover friends? No, I really, honestly, I don't. I used to have a lot, but they don't, you know, anyway. But there are only two kinds of Republicans right now. There is proud MAGA and scared MAGA.

So the proud MAGA, they're just like, Donald Trump doesn't like mail and voting. We hate mail and voting. We don't care about anything but being proudly with Donald Trump. And then you have the people who like when the cameras are off, when the TV, when the microphones are off, when you're in private, they pull you aside and they're like, this is that shit crazy. like this doesn't make any sense at all. I don't know why we're doing this. I don't understand why he keeps saying this. I don't, does he not understand?

We have to run an election. Doesn't he understand that Republicans have an advantage in this particular state with this particular kind of voting? But like honestly, they're only doing it when, like I said, the cameras are off, the microphones are off and nobody's there. Because then what happens when the microphones turn on and Donald Trump's paying attention, they're just scared MAGA. And so, yeah, they're less loud.

they're less, you know, they're less strident. But you don't see them standing up. Show me the Republican who stands up in public and proclaims that Donald Trump is lost as marbles and on voting is just being a demagogue. Like you don't find them. They don't exist. And one of the biggest risks, I think, to democracy

is that Democrats keep trying to want to make them exist, right? Like Brad Rastonberger, I wrote a piece saying Brad Rastonberger is just a Republican vote. vote suppressor. And I was way ahead of my time. That is what Brad Rastonberger is. Like, Brad Rastroger has, you know, since people last paid attention to him on the left, which was when he didn't find votes that didn't exist in early January of 2021, after the electoral college already met, since then he has attacked the Voting Rights Act. He has stood by several iterations of voter suppression laws in Georgia. Like, there just isn't this, like, Republican Party that

exists that is willing to say, no, we should be defending the right to vote. Yeah, it has been frustrating for me. I mean, I do get to see moments because of my job where people are caught off guard and literally didn't know details about a thing like the Save America Act and then the on-air revelation. Like, well, that's kind of crazy. But you're so right about Brad Raffensberger. And I was even, you know, Georgia, I think in general is a good state to look at stuff like this because you have Jeff Duncan who actually switched over, right? and just became a Democrat. Right, because that was the only option.

And I was looking at Rick Jackson, the nominee on the Republican side for governor. And he has an amazing story. He's built this enormous business, hugely philanthropic, et cetera. And then, you know, he's an election denier too. Yeah. I guess like Chris Christie couldn't make it through, right? Someone who I guess can still hold up the fundamental principles of what the Republican Party is or was and tell the truth about what's going. on right now. And I don't know when that ends. Like, does Donald Trump leaving the stage

mean that suddenly we're going to go back to normal and Marco Rubio will sound like he did in 2016? I mean, I doubt it. I don't think so. I don't think, first of all, I think that there's a mistake that people make all the time. And it's an understandable one that they think like, oh, we're in a politics, we're in an abnormal political environment. And what I always say is, no, we are in the political environment. We're like, I hear this all the time when I, I hear federal prosecutors, former federal prosecutors, you know, give various interviews. And, like, this is not how the Department of Justice does things. And I'm like, this is totally how the Department of Justice does things.

It may not have been how the Department of Justice did things. Right. But it is how the Department of Justice does things today. And so, like, no, I don't think it snaps back because I don't think there is a back to snap, too. Like, I think this is who Marco Rubio is. It's not, it's not like, like, for a period of time, maybe he was pretending. But, like, do you really think, like, there is this world in which Donald Trump leaves the scene? And all of a sudden, J.D. Vance is like, oh, you know, I really am going back to the whole, like, you know, thing before.

He's America's Hitler. Yeah, right. Like, and Marco Rubin is like, I'm right with you, brother. You know, I'm with you 110%. And then Ted Cruz jumps in and says, oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. This was all crazy. Like, no, that isn't the case.

Like, this is what the Republican Party is. and it's moving forward with. Support for the show comes from Article. Think back to your first apartment. Was all the furniture basically reinforced cardboard? Relatable. Well, for those of us who are past that stage of life, article makes it easy to curate your home

with stylish, long-lasting furniture, and an unbeatable price. Whether your personal style is mid-century, modern, coastal, or Scandy-inspired, you'll find beautiful pieces. In fact, they'll look great, mixed, and matched. That's because every article item is thoughtfully designed to make your space feel cohesive

and stylish. I know this from personal experience. I have article furniture. I have a coffee table and I have a lamp from them. And I remember actually back in the day going in and looking at this insane bed that I couldn't afford at the time. Now, actually, I could go back and get it. Mid-century modern is my jam. Article offers fast affordable shipping across the U.S. and Canada with options for professional assembly if you prefer a hands-off experience. With Articles 30-day satisfaction guarantee, you can shop with confidence, knowing that if you're not completely in love with your new furniture, you can easily return it. Article is offering our listeners $50 off your first purchase of $100 or more.

To claim, visit article.com slash moderates and the discount will be automatically applied at checkout. That's article.com slash moderates for $50 off your first purchase of $100 or more. I'm Seth Matlins. My new show, Creator Destroy Reimagining Marketing explores how every decision a company makes, not just the marketing ones, but the HR, IR, pricing, org design, and planning ones. and ones most don't consider marketing at all, contribute to either creating value or destroying it.

Each week I sit down with CMOs, CEOs, founders, cultural thinkers, the people building, breaking, and reimagining how businesses grow or don't, for conversations about what creates value and what destroys it. It's a business show, it's a marketing show. Creator destroys the show that argues. They've always been the same thing from the Vox Media Podcast Network and The Wisdomist Company. New episodes drop weekly on YouTube,

and your favorite podcast app. Another SCOTUS question that I had for you because you had another case which you were not successful on. You were nice enough to start with the one that was successful. Well, that one's really important. And I always want to get in the Amy Coney-Barritt stuff. I'm like, she just voted against Haitians.

And she has Haitian children. Like she has done plenty for you. But this campaign contributions case to me stood out as perhaps the most serious or most dire for the future of elections. And it basically made it. So the last frontier political organizations that couldn't collude with the campaigns directly were political parties themselves. And the R&C brought this case, and they won. Now, Democrats, that means we can spend two. We just don't have very much money.

And I would like to talk to you about that as well, like as we talk about the elections, more writ large. But can you talk about that case and the implications? Yeah. So this is a very important case, and it didn't get as much attention, I think, for a couple of reasons. First is it was expected that it was going to come out the way it did. The second is, I think there's kind of like a sense, well, the campaign finance system is broken, so how much more broken is it going to get? And I get that. But this was a very important case because the, for a couple of reasons. First is that, you know, the Supreme Court in 1976 upheld the basic framework of our campaign finance laws. The idea was, if you are making a contribution to a candidate, Congress can limit how much.

And it doesn't have to be super precise, like whether the limit is $2,000 or $3,000 or $5,000, like, you know, we're going to let them have reasonable contribution limits. If you're trying to limit independent expenditures, then we're not going to let you do that. Citizens United in 2010 extends that to corporations. And then the third, was disclosure. We've seen a lot of breakdown around disclosure. We've obviously seen the, through Citizens Genet's aftermath, this kind of like explosion of the independent expenditure and kind of what is independent. And like, you know, these superbacks are now big, big, not just players, but like in some ways dominant players. But the one piece that it kind of held was this contribution

thing. Like we're going to limit the amount of money that can be given to a campaign or in the case of a coordinated expenditure and in-kind contribution, how much money you can spend where you're talking to the campaign and basically doing what it wants. And the political parties had always been given more special rights there than anybody else. The political parties could give, could essentially spend millions of dollars, for example, in a big Senate race in total coordination with the candidate, totally 100% paying their bills even, right? Just total coordination. But the RNC said that's not enough. They want that to be unlimited. and they tried to do that in the mid-1990s, and they failed.

They tried to do it in 2001, and they failed again. And now they did it, and they succeeded. And so the first reason why this is an important case is that just from a stare decisis standpoint, like just from the standpoint of precedent, and we, you know, we used to do a lot of hearings in Congress when there were nominees in which they talk about precedent or precedent on precedent or super precedent. Remember all these terms, like to try to. get at this idea that like these justices are not going to come in and just like willy-nilly

change what prior courts had said. And what's interesting about this case is that this was a case where the court had ruled on this question before. And, you know, it goes back a long time and it was more recent. And the Supreme Court just sort of like drove through that as if it was just air. Like, do you know, like there was no, there was not like a lot of hand-wringing among the conservators to try to figure out why it was that a law that had been on the book since the 19-7. 70s that had been upheld in Buckley, had been upheld in the early, in the mid-90s, had been upheld in the early 2000s, all of a sudden now was not the case. But the second is that it really undid a contribution limit, right?

This was the amount that parties could spend in full coordination with our candidates. And that is a really big deal. And so the question is, like, what campaign finance law is this court going to uphold if it is not this one? And so I do think it'll have big jurisprudential effects. And then on the politics of it, you can't. help but ask yourself. You know, here we are this year and the Republicans wanted to be able to unwind the Voting Rights Act in time for 2026. And this court day after day after day in a series

of decisions, the Clay decision being the most notable, but then it's aftermath, allowed them to do that, redraw maps. And they wanted to be able to spend more money at a time when their party has more money in the bank, and the Supreme Court said yes. And like, if you're the Supreme Court and you're trying to, you know, not appear, split it this way, if you were Supreme Court trying to look partisan, these are probably some of the things you would do. Yeah, I don't think that they're thinking about their appearances all too much. I mean, maybe Chief Justice Roberts on occasion, but like when I see Clarence Thomas just like, you know, walking around with Republican lawmakers down on the Capitol, I just think like, I guess we've just moved past it, and it is the YOLO phase of life.

So what do you think actually happened with the NPR leak or not leak, mistake about Alito? Do you think Alito is imminently retiring? First of all, it's the weirdest thing ever. Right? Like, she doesn't make those kinds of mistakes. Like, I get it. She's 82, but, like, she doesn't just kind of hear something. and then hit publish on an article that was pre-written with the Friday date on it.

Yeah, I mean, I would have, I guess I bought the idea that they had a pre-write. The misheard and then somehow someone presses a button is there. Like, if that's how NPR works, that doesn't seem like a great thing. No, and it's NPR, right? It's not like, oh, Breitbart hit publish or something. But look, I think that it goes to a large, question of like how how we cover the Supreme Court. You watch the way that Capitol Hill reporters cover members of Congress, and they chase them down the hall, and they ask them all kinds of

questions, and sometimes they ask them, and sometimes they don't. And, you know, you watch even the way, frankly, the media and conservative media even cover the president, and they still, like, ask them questions. You watch the way the Supreme Court reporters cover the Supreme Court, and it is largely a stenographer's game. Like, it's like, you know, I mean, like, there's not, you know, I know this is not getting directly at your, your, your, your, your, your, your, your, your, your, your, your, your, your, your, your, your, your, your, your, your,

like, what do I think of the NPR error? I mean, I think it's terrible that it happened. But I also kind of like has like there, where's the investigative reporting about the court? You know what I mean? Like, where, where are that? Like, there doesn't seem to be the same effort to. To get sources behind the process.

and tell what's really going on internally. Yeah, I mean, it is interesting. I think, you know, this happening just a few days after regime change came out. Yes. When you see the level of reporting and confirmation that had to go into every piece of that, right? Right, but I keep coming back to this, which is like if they can get, and I don't know whether they had tapes or just good notes or whatever. I really want to know, but they wouldn't tell me. But from the situation room, I just asked myself, like, why is it that when it comes to,

comes to covering the court, there never seems to be that kind of sourcing. Or there has not been for many, many decades. Yeah, it is interesting or that we don't even, you know, know about the Dobbs decision leak, right? Like how that happened. Correct. And I think the answer is, I think the answer is because the media and lawyers and society as a whole until very recently did not agree with something you just said.

And, in fact, even when you said it, I kind of like, even I for a moment, like, sort of like, huh, you said that you don't think the court cares about how it looks other than maybe the Chief Justice occasionally. And like, you're absolutely right, by the way, Jesse. Like, it's not like, it's not like you're wrong. It's just like the problem is there are too many people like me, you know, in my reaction here, you know, and too many people, lawyers, observers, they treat the court as different. Like they think, oh, well, of course they care about the legitimacy of the institution in a way Mike Johnson doesn't.

Of course they care about the appearances of the court in the way that, you know, Donald Trump doesn't. And like, I think your original reaction is right, which is like, no, they're in the, what you called the Yolo face. Yeah, I mean, I think so. Like, if you just think about what appearances are allowed, like how a Jenny Thomas, I'm going on Clarence Thomas a lot for this. but like how she can just be an open partisan like that, right, and do the things that she does. You know that it's fundamentally changed, right? And even from the time that they've been on the court, right? Like I was listening to you talking with Hillary Clinton from a few days ago,

and she's talking about her votes against Alito and Justice Roberts. And if people could get in a time machine and go back and look at, you know, those confirmation hearings versus what we're going to get with Eileen Kamp. or Ted Cruz or whoever's coming next, right? You would pray for nine elitos, right? Oh, maybe that's too much. At nine Robertses, and you're for expanding the court. Yeah, I'm for, look, I think we need court reform in a number of different directions. First of foremost, we need ethics reform. Like, I, to this day, I am baffled by the idea that, you know, if I, if I try to go to dinner with a member of Congress and I pay, pay, I can't. But, you know,

you know, people can, like, give whatever they want, seemingly to members of the court, which makes no sense. Like, everyone's like, well, justice so-and-so didn't put it on their disclosure form. I'm like, why are they allowed to accept it? Like, I don't understand. I literally don't understand. And the justice will be like, well, we're constitutional officers. And I'm like, well, so are members of Congress. But, like, they're not allowed to accept gifts. Like, why can't justices live on their salary the way every other American does? I mean, they've got to, they make a pretty good living. And if they don't, they can. and leave the bench and go probably make even more and they get a pension and they've got lifetime

employment. I mean, like, it's just, it's crazy. So I think that's number one. But number two, yeah, I think that the Supreme Court needs to be expanded for a few reasons. Some of them are just purely logistical. I actually think we need to expand the lower courts. I don't think we have enough federal district court judges. I don't think we have enough court of appeals judges. The dockets move too slow. The Supreme Court only heard 58 cases last term. Like, it's just like not enough to it. Beyond that, I think that we need to be. Beyond that, I think that we need court expansion because I think that the current dynamic there and the way in which we have done confirmations and the way in which they are selected, I think need to be reformed as well.

Do you think, because I need to talk to you about Mitch McConnell too, because I can't think about the Supreme Court without thinking about Mitch McConnell and 2016 and the question of where is Mitch McConnell right now? I just, Fox, know where he is? No, I don't. We don't have a drone on him. I don't know. It hasn't.

I plan on bringing it up today, though. Because what is going on there that the guy has, like, allegedly been in the hospital for three weeks and that his wife flies to China three days after? Right. The normal thing that one would expect a wife of someone whose husband is in the hospital to do. With an elderly husband. It's like an 86-year-old man who falls every other week. And we just came off of Tom Keene disappearing for four months or whatever so he could use paid sick leave to deal with his depression. And I hope he gets the help that he needs.

but don't be such a hypocrite. So what is going on with Mitch McConnell? Do you think this is all about the August 3rd deadlines? Because if he, there can't be a special election past August 3rd, right? It would just roll into the regular November election. But if he needs to resign or if God forbid he passes away, Andy Bashir could call a special election, you know, in the next three and a half weeks. Look, I've got no idea.

I mean, like, all the people who do not, who do not consult with me, I'd say, I'd put. Let's see. Donald Trump on the top, right? Donald Trump definitely does not consult with me. Stephen Miller does not consult with me. Look, I have no idea what is going on with him and his health. Certainly, I hope he recovers from whatever it is. I do think that like the situation in New Jersey, as you mentioned. I mean, as I recall, there was something, what last term where there was a Republican member in a, memory care facility in Arizona or Texas. Like, I don't know. I think Arizona.

Yeah. In Arizona, it feels like we ought to have a better tracking system. You know, like for. Like they all have to get that microchip that people thought Bill Gates had put in them. Or, or, you know, I know this is, I know this is like maybe sounds a little bit harsh, but like someone on social media said this. Like in the, in the NFL, like if a player. is out. They have to, like, give a reason, like, they have a hamstring injury. Like, do you know,

like, you know, so-and-so in long-term memory care facility suffering from Alzheimer's? Like, do you know what I mean? Like, I don't know. Like, it just feels like someplace, there is certainly a certain amount of privacy that you want to give members of Congress. But on the other hand, like, the people of Kentucky and the country probably have a right to know a little more of what's going on with Mitch McConnell. They currently do. I think they did, frankly, with Tom Keene in New Jersey had a right to know more. Maybe they didn't need to know everything, but, but, but like, these are full-time jobs. I think that somehow we've, there is this sort of expectation that like, oh, you know, if a member of Congress just is not, you know, seen for a while and not appearing in

voting, it's like, oh, well, oh, well. So, you know, I don't know where to strike that line, but it does feel like there is a line to strike. Yes, I'm all for striking that line and would just also add that what it is someone like Mitch McConnell, who is one of the more ruthless legislators, certainly in the modern era, right, with a capacity to do anything, thinking about you, Merrick Garland, like they don't call him the Grim Reaper for nothing. Like, it feels like something more nefarious is going on. And it would be nice to get an answer on that. And if he can't do his job, there should be a special election. You know, Jesse, it's interesting. I've thought about, I've actually thought about this before.

Do you think McConnell is going to benefit from the fact that Donald Trump came along? Because, like, Mitch McConnell, like, you're right, was the Grim Reaper and was viewed as ruthless and willing to do anything. But, like, he is now even viewed as someone not as terrible as Donald Trump. Like, do you think— I mean, I haven't fully gone, like, George W. Bush with him, where I'm like, hey, I'd love to have him come over. And maybe he could draw a picture of my daughters or something. something like that. But like, I'm getting there, right? And that members of his staff, and this relates directly to the kind of lawsuits that you guys are litigating, you know, people have worked for him

are speaking out publicly about making sure that our elections can't be federalized and saying things like, guys, this is not what the Republican Party stands for. Like, you are doing everything that we said we would never do. So yeah, Mitch McConnell, like, I don't know, have a beer, hang out, maybe, if he's feeling well enough. I'm not sure I'd give him a beer. Okay. Well, whatever his drink of choice is, on my list of people that disturb me on a daily basis, I think very little about him.

But if I look at the long game, then W. and Mitch McConnell are still up there for me, for sure. Now, can I be honest with you, you are probably exposed to some of the worst of the worst. I mean, like, there are members of the House and Senate that the rest of us are probably immunized from even being aware exists, that you probably, given your job, have to know who they are. And you're like, whoa, Mark, you don't even know. You think McConnell's bad. You should learn about these other people. Yeah, I mean, I mentioned this earlier about, you know, sometimes when you show up with the facts about, you know, something that's going on or the details in a bill, like the Save America Act.

And you get this look like, well, that's, you know, that's batch it, right? Like, it can't possibly be this way. Like, people didn't know about Congressman Max Miller. and pouring scalding water on his wife, right? Like that just doesn't turn into something that is, I guess, discussed within the Republican caucus or that his wife, or now former wife, is Bernie Marino's daughter.

But they know, you know, what AOC had for lunch. Very frustrating. Before the next track starts, have you ever wondered, who are the people in my old family photos? Or what brought them to Canada? With ancestry, you can start finding answers. Start with a name and we'll guide you from there.

For just 499, try our new 30-day beginners pass and uncover generations of family stories. No experience necessary. You've got questions? We've got ancestors. Offer ends July 22nd, 2026. Visit ancestry.ca slash beginners for details. Terms apply.

I want to end on the World Cup. Are you into it or? I have become mildly into it. Like I'm not a, I'm not a soccer. But I am not a fever. But I am now. And of course, we would not have any good or happy thing in the United States without Donald Trump ruining it. Well, this is what I want to talk to you about.

So Donald Trump was just in the Oval before we got on here to record talking about his call into FIFA. So let's play a clip of that. I understand sports really well, really well. And that wasn't a foul. No, these were two great athletes that got tangled up. Then I started hearing that that means he can't play in the next game. Yes, I asked for a review by FIFA. The referee's decision to red card.

I didn't know what the hell of a red card was. When I found out, I said, you've got to be kidding. This guy just hands up, okay, your best player is not going to play next week or in the next game. I said, wow, that's a lot of power. That's terrible. I know sports really well. I didn't know what a red card was. That's the best part, right?

It starts with no sports really well. It ends with that red card. Didn't know what that was. But boy, that's a lot of power. It's a lot of power and I'm jealous. And some place in between was, and that wasn't a foul. I know, like, you know, now he's like, he's gone from, I know a lot about sports. I know what a foul is in, in, in World Cup soccer.

And that's not one. But man, that red card thing? I mean, where the hell did they find that from? So Belgium is appealing this. I don't know where it goes. I imagine the FIFA is not going to overrule their changed decision. France is still favorite. I think Cal she has it at 34%.

But, like, is everything Trump touches just kind of destroyed? I mean, I've seen a lot of people digging in. Like, I prefer if Baligan can play. Right. Like, I don't think that he should have had to sit out the 35 minutes. I don't. I actually knew what a red card was. I didn't think it was a red card.

I saw, you know, what other players had done and hadn't been. hadn't gotten anything called on them, but now it's turned into this big hoopla and a test of our patriotism, apparently. At least that's what I've seen on the internet. Look, I think Donald Trump, it's not that everything he touches goes wrong. I mean, a lot of what he touches goes wrong. Everything he touches goes corrupt. And that's the, that's like the through line.

Like everything about Donald Trump is corrupt. And he actually prefers it that way. Like if there's a way to walk from point A to B that is strong. great and narrow, or a way to do it that cuts corners and is crooked. He wants to cut corners and crooked way. And that is his governing philosophy. It's his political philosophy. It's his business philosophy. It's apparently his sports philosophy. And so what it does is it cheapens everything around him. And it doesn't just cheapen in the way in which we sometimes visually see it cheapen, you know, the gold crap and all that. But it cheapens it because he cannot

tolerate their being, anything that is pure, anything that is on the level. There can be no, there can be no election that he loses that is not rigged. There can be no sports that does not have some type of phone call made to the governing authorities. And it's bad for the country, it's bad for society, it's bad for democracy. And in this case, it's bad for American soccer. It is a good argument for birthright citizenship, though. And that's how we brought it full circle because we would not have valid. I am waiting for you to see what the crew at the five thinks of that. Oh, I'm pretty excited. I'll make sure to send you any highlight clips. Please do. I think it's going to be good. Though FIFA, you can not be that surprised at the guy

who gave him the FIFA Peace Prize also gave him this or whatever Howard Lutnik did. Can you imagine the payoff or what's going on with, you know, his Lutnik was making calls to, and Andrew Giuliani, who I don't think everyone should be judged by their parents. Oh, I think Andrew Giuliani can be judged by Andrew Giuliani. Okay. Fair enough. Mark Elias, it was so great to have you. Thank you.

Same here. Hey, y'all, it's Kelly Clarkson with Wayfair. Ever order furniture online and wonder what if? Like, what if it doesn't hold up? That sofa was four days old. You should have ordered from Wayfair. With Wayfair, there's no what if. Just style you love and quality you can trust.

Visit Wayfair.cair.com. Way fair, every style, every home.