The Daily Signal - Newsmax’s James Rosen Takes You Inside White House Press Briefing Room

Episode Date: December 13, 2023

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre doesn’t often call on James Rosen to ask questions at her briefings. But when Newsmax’s chief White House correspondent gets an opportunity, he makes the most of it.   “If you can do it well, you can make news,” Rosen explained to “The Daily Signal Podcast.”   The veteran reporter, who got his start in local news before becoming a national correspondent, has covered his share of Washington, D.C., press conferences—from the State Department to Congress and now the White House.   Just days before Thanksgiving, on Nov. 20, Rosen was pleasantly surprised that Jean-Pierre called his name.   “I might regret it, but go ahead,” she told him.   Rosen proceeded to ask about President Joe Biden’s “dismal job approval ratings.” Jean-Pierre’s answer surprised members of the White House press corps, Rosen said, because she admitted that “we’re not going to change the minds of Americans.”   The Daily Signal Executive Editor Rob Bluey asked Rosen about that exchange and other topics on this episode of “The Daily Signal Podcast.” Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I doubt that President Biden when he dispatched Ms. Jean-Pierre to the podium that day to brief the press on his behalf. It expected that when Jean-Pier strode to that podium on that day, she would tell the press we're not going to change the minds of Americans. It was almost an acknowledgement of defeat. This is the Daily Signal podcast for Wednesday, December 13th. I'm your host, Rob Blewey. And those were the words of James Rosen, Chief White House correspondent for Newsmax. The longtime Washington reporter joins me in studio to talk about what it's like to cover the Biden-White House. House and the biggest stories dominating the headlines.

We also discuss the House's plans for an impeachment inquiry of President Biden and how this move will affect the White House in the weeks and months to come. Finally, Rosen gives me his take on Biden's age and mental acuity and shares his thoughts on why the president won't subject himself to tough questions like his predecessors. All that and more coming up next on the Daily Signal podcast. But before we get to our interview, I'd like to ask for your support today. As we approach the end of the year, the Daily Signal is counting on Dono donations from listeners like you. We are the nonprofit news organization of the Heritage Foundation and rely on your generous gifts.

You can ensure that we continue producing cutting-edge journalism and investigative reporting with a gift of $25 or more. So please consider making a tax-deductible gift to support us before December 31st. You can go to dailysignal.com slash donate to make your gift. Corrine John Pierre can always count on tough questions from a few journalists at the White House, and one of them is joining us in studio today, James Rosen, Chief White House correspondent for Newsmax. James, thanks for joining the Daily Say No. A pleasure for me, Rob. Thank you. Well, you are a busy man, and you have covered a number of federal government agencies,

including the State Department, the Pentagon, Congress, White House now. You're also the author of the book, Scalia, Rise to Greatness, 1936 to 1986, Chronicles Justice Antonin Scalia's early life and time until he was on the Supreme Court. Thank you for this contribution. It's fantastic. Thank you. But let's start with, let's zoom out. We can get to the book in a moment. But let's start with some of the bigger issues that America is facing today. There's so much in the news.

And as a newsman yourself, I mean, I would imagine that it's quite busy ancient every day. But if you're an everyday American who's trying to keep pace with the geopolitical scene, What are the big stories that you think Americans should be paying attention to today? Certainly the ones they're probably already paying attention to from the Israel Hamas War, which, you know, has stakes not just for the immediate combatants and participants and victims, but for the entire world. The same is true for Ukraine and Russia. You know, technology drives so much of what happens in everyday life today, almost no matter where you are, with certain. exceptions around the globe where perhaps cannibalism is still encouraged, but in most places you're dependent on technology. And technology is accelerating so rapidly now, more rapidly

than at any point in human history, that one doesn't really have to be a Kurt Vonnegut sci-fi fruit loop in order to wish to pose sensibly the question as to when this technological progress will outstrip the human ability to control it. Some of us may feel we're already there, just in all the texts and emails that slip through the cracks. But so I think Americans are attuned to all of these different things. Obviously, we have an election coming up next year, and they will be very engaged in that. You started with national security and foreign policy. That's obviously an area that's dominating the headlines today.

You also have a situation where President Trump is so often comparing his record in the White House to that of Joe Biden today. Given your coverage, how much responsibility should the Biden administration bear for the turmoil that's taking place overseas. I don't think anyone can lay at the feet of Joe Biden responsibility for the attacks of October 7. Certainly, President Biden has insisted that the U.S. will play an active role, all being an indirect one, in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. And to the extent that there was success on the part of the Ukrainian forces and pushing back

Russian aggression, which we witnessed for some portions of this conflict, the administration would deserve credit for that, for rallying. NATO for rallying the EU nations. The EU nations have contributed more to Ukrainian defense assistance collectively anyway than the United States has, although we are obviously the largest contributor. The question, I suppose, is raised in the sense that were former President Trump still president, would we even face some of these situations? And of course, that plunges us into what the historians like to call the counterfactual, the playing of the irresolubble game of what if. So it requires speculation clearly labeled here as such. But former President

Trump can and does point to the fact that no such instances of Russian aggression, let alone on the scale that we've seen in Ukraine, occurred under his watch. So I guess it will be left to the voters to decide in the end how much responsibility to the Biden administration bears. Were you surprised at all about some of the reporting that's come out recently, including a very public letter from the White House interns, which took issue? with some of the administration's approach, particularly when it came to Israel. I'm not surprised. There is a strong anti-Israel sentiment that courses through younger generations, regrettably.

And I think that's what we saw play out in that incident you referenced. From your seat in the White House press briefing room, what stories don't get the attention that you think they deserve or the questions that may never even come up or you're not called on to ask? We can certainly establish that there would be a category of very important questions that never come up at the White House press briefing, simply because they really aren't directly related to politics, the federal government, or let's say the priorities of the Biden administration. So if scientists should discover that a woolly mammoth can be unfrozen after 64,000 years or something like that, I think that's very important, but it's not going to come up at the White House press briefing. All right, that's that category. I gather you're asking about categories that should come up but are neglected. And I'd have to think about it. Well, you're thinking, let me just say this.

I ask that question in part because it seems to an outside observer that there's a pack mentality that exists in journalism. Those journalists who are sitting in the front row tend to support each other and tend to focus on things. And it takes people like you and others who maybe not, you know, don't have the opportunity every day to raise topics that, that the American people care about, but otherwise aren't asked. It's no question. There's a PAC mentality in journalism. Probably there's a PAC mentality in other disciplines as well, maybe dentistry. But science.

Sure, there's PAC mentalities in academia. I think we're seeing that play out. You know, I occupy the Newsmax seat in the White House press briefing room. It's not my seat. It's Newsmax's seat, and I'm privileged to sit there. It is dead center, even with the podium, in the sixth of the seventh rows. There are 49 chairs in that White House press briefing room, seven rows of seven. I have at different points in my career occupied the front row real estate.

The press corps in the White House is not significantly different from, let's say, the press corps on Capitol Hill or at the State Department. Reporters there, first of all, these press briefings were always opened up by the most senior wire service reporter. You may, if you're watching briefings, wonder, why does that person get to ask the first question? and traditionally in this town, that's how it's arranged. The senior wire service reporter goes first. The biases, the institutional biases or the substantive biases of the, or let's put it differently, the methodological bias of the wire service reporter is to advance what are the known stories of the day incrementally, okay, and get a new lead out of it and keep it going, right?

And you see the White House press do that and you see the congressional press court do it, you see the State Department. So-and-so has said X in response to your latest proposal. Would the White House be willing to go along with that and so forth in trying to incrementally move things along? And there's nothing dishonorable about that. But when you're going to get called on much later in the briefing, or every six months, as is the lot of this reporter, those kinds of questions have already been asked and answered or addressed, let's say, if not substantively answered. And it offers honestly an opportunity for someone in my position to pose questions that move beyond the incremental advances of the day and move

beyond kind of a superficial surface level approach, where you can really just drill down to the basic core of the matter, stripping away everything that's happened in the first 38 minutes of the briefing. And if you can do it well, you can make news. Well, let's go to my colleague John Popp, who has a clip of you asking Corrine John Pierre, a question, and we'll see an example of that right now. The polls that show that the electorate at large and also significant majorities within the Democratic Party believe that the president is too old. The polls that show the American people and also significant majorities within the Democratic Party don't want him to run again. And the polls that show his handling of the economy, foreign policy, all of these dismal polls, his job approval ratings, does the White House have any basis to challenge the accuracy of that polling? I never, we never, I'm not challenging the accuracy here.

That's not what I'm doing. What I'm saying to you is that, you know, we're not going to change the minds of Americans. I get that. Americans are going to feel how they feel, and we're going to respect that. So, James, your thoughts, first of all, what prompted you to ask the question, and then any thoughts on her response? So this was an exchange that got a lot of attention, and I think deservedly so, putting aside the egotomaniacal tend to, of the on-air TV person to think that everything he does is important. But I think this was an important exchange.

I asked the question about polling data because I had seen over time, President Biden himself, when asked about his two plus years of underwater job approval ratings, suggests that polls aren't accurate anymore. Have you seen any polls you believe anymore, he said? And he talked about the difficulty in getting people on the phone at different times for polling purposes. And yet, simultaneously, we see Karin-Jean Pierre, the White House Press Secretary who was just in that clip from the podium tell us that individual planks of the president's domestic policy initiatives are all polling very well, which means the people support what the president's doing.

So I wanted to know once and for all, and this is the way I put the first in that series of questions. We just played this the follow-up. Which polls are reliable and valid, the ones only the ones that support the president and his agenda or the ones that show he's been underwater for two years. Now, I didn't really expect too much from this, honestly. I got more than I expected because for two years, we've been told that these are not the right polls. or that polls don't matter or what have. You know, I expected more of the same.

I never expected Corrine Jean-Pierre A. To state outright that we do not challenge the accuracy of this underwater polling for two years. Okay, that's the first time they have actually acknowledged the factual legitimacy of this sentiment in the country, this thumbs down that the president has received on his job performance from the American people, from large segments of the Democratic Party for two plus years now. What should a talented PR person have done in that moment? to say that Carrienne Jean-Pier doesn't have talent in this sphere. I'm just saying what I was expecting her to do was to sort of pivot away and say, you know what, James, polls are one important

data point about when this president travels the country, he hears and feels the enthusiasm, so forth. That's what you expect a press secretary in such a situation to say. Then even more remarkably, Ms. Jean-Pierre said, we're not going to change the minds of Americans. I get that. Now, I doubt that President Biden, when he dispatched Ms. Jean-Pier to the podium that day, to brief the press on his behalf. Or the re-election campaign manager for the Biden-Harris' 2024 ticket expected that when Jean-Pierre strode to that podium on that day, she would tell the press, we're not going to change the minds of Americans. I get that. It was almost an acknowledgement of defeat. Here is the face of the vaunted White House communications apparatus,

something like a $50 million a year apparatus, basically saying we don't have the ability to persuade anymore. And we're going to have to stand for reelection without turning around those underwater numbers. So it was a lot of a lot of it was a lot of a very striking exchange. It was. I'm grateful that you had the opportunity to ask the question and, as you said, quite a newsworthy response from the press secretary. I may not get to ask another question for six months, as was the case prior to that question. Well, let me ask you this because over the summer, we saw a situation where my colleague Fred Lucas and several hundred others were told that the White House was changing the criteria to even appear in the briefing.

for reporters like the Daily Signal, we don't have a dedicated seat. We will fill in if somebody doesn't show up. And so they've changed that criteria. Fred now is still able to go, but he has to access the White House grounds on a day pass as opposed to what we call it known as the hard pass. Have you noticed any changes in terms of the people who are showing up or a rationale for the White House to make that decision? A, no. I still run into Fred there periodically and enjoy his company, as always.

B, as for the rationale, the White House justified this revision of the ground rules for who gets a hard pass, which is a swipe badge that you show at the Secret Service entry point, and which enables you access on the grounds whenever the grounds are open, which are pretty much most of every day. They close overnight. In terms of that rationale, the White House said that they had people on the list of hard pass recipients who had not used their pass in six months or more. They had people who were reporting for outlets that are theoretically advocacy driven or aren't technically speaking news organizations, even though they distribute content. And so those were the bases of the White House put forth. Some folks thought that it was targeted at a few individuals. But the truth is, as you just mentioned, that those who were stripped of hard passes still have access to the briefings, they just won't. it's just a little bit slightly more difficult process to get on the grounds, but not insurmountable. Right, right. One of the things that I'll ask you one more question about being a White House reporter, and then we can shift to other topics.

We've heard rumblings that, and we even saw this when President Trump was in the White House, that changes might be in store for the press, perhaps in terms of his dealings. Sean Spicer, for instance, introduced the Skype questions where people who weren't physically present were able to contribute. If you could wave your magic wand, would you make any changes to how things operate at the White House? You know, when I used to fly, when I covered the State Department for several years, and I used to fly around the world with different secretaries of state, whether it was Condoleez-Rice or Hillary Clinton or, you know, John Kerry, they would come to the back of the airplane, just as you see on Air Force One.

These are actually the plane you'd be using as an Air Force II model. You know, it's got the United States of America's the blue and white planes. the secretaries of state get that privilege. And that Secretary of State would come back to the back cabin where the press is and schmooze and maybe be on the record, maybe be off the record. But sometimes they'd hold actual briefings there. And whenever I'd get called and I did this with Sarah, I got laughs from Condi with this. I got laughs from Hillary with this.

Yes, James, go ahead. And they would pass a microphone back so you could be heard over the din of the airplane. And I would say, first, Madam Secretary, will you commit to using the power and prestige of your office to improve my seat on this plane? So when you ask me if I could wave a magic wand and initiate some sort of change for the White House press corps, I think the very first thing I would do would be to upgrade the seat in which I reside there. And I tell you, were former President Trump to be elected or perhaps if Governor DeSantis were to be elected, it would be quite conceivable to me that changes would be made in the way the briefings are run down to those seating charts. Who controls where you sit in that with those 49 seats? The answer is the White House Correspondents Association.

There was an attempt by a reporter from OANN named Chanel Rion to establish a kind of parallel organization to the White House Correspondents Association with the idea of affecting who got a tent out on what they call Pebble Beach, which is the driver of the White House where all the White House correspondents do their reports for TV and also to the seating chart. I'm not sure the status of all of that at this point. Chanel isn't covering the White House anymore. They have a different White House correspondent over there. but I could see where a Republican administration might want to refashion the physical layout of that room by way of having an impact on the discussion and the substance that flows therefrom. You mentioned something that I'm curious about because one other distinction that seems to exist is access. I remember when I was doing the stories about the daily signals access to the White House that some historians had noted that by, Biden has made himself less accessible personally.

And no question about it. Okay, so this goes to the heart of your questions. I mean, given questions about his age and mental acuity, have they made changes that differ from previous administrations? No question about it. President Biden exposes himself to questions from the press with some frequency, but always in the rather limited setting, almost always in the rather limited setting of the South lawn of the White House, where it might be freezing or burning hot.

and where he's on his way to the helicopter and he'll only stay for one or two questions. And, you know, he can end the dynamic at any point. So it's very difficult to pose penetrating questions in such a hurried and compressed setting. When this president sits down for interviews, it's often as likely to be with someone like the wellness guru J. Shetty than it is, say, the New York Times.

I don't think he's sat and done a New York Times interview except perhaps with Tom Friedman. You know, I think back to Richard Nixon when he was president in his first term on January 2, 1971, he sat for a live one-hour interview with the CBS News White House correspondent who was named Dan Rather at that time. Okay, think about that. Richard Nixon took whatever Dan Rather had to throw at him for an hour on live television. Former President Trump, to his credit, did the same with Caitlin Collins on CNN. It's an attribute altogether lacking in today's political classes beyond just Joe Biden that political figures seem to think they are, they and their agenda, are better serviced by avoiding engagement with people who are going to hold them to account than by, in fact, being strengthened by that kind of challenge.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg used to say that Antonin Scalia, and I'm not saying that just to get to segue to the book, but she used to say that she dreaded when a Scalia dissent would come into one of her opinions would come into chambers because she knew she was in for scathing criticism, but she also said his dissents made my opinion stronger because he forced me to reckon with things. And I say that to Carine Jean-Pierre, and I say that to Joe Biden. and to all the modern political figures who speak for a living, in a sense, engagement with those who will ask you the toughest questions will strengthen you and strengthen your agenda if you have what Tom Wolfe called the right stuff. Well, some of those tough questions that Biden may be forced to answer,

well, could come to ahead this week. The House is planning to move forward with an impeachment inquiry vote. How big of an issue do you think that will be for this president? Obviously, former President Trump has faced two impeachments when Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House. Now you have a similar situation where it appears House Republicans will go down that road as well. On the most basic level, even if it were entirely meritless, an impeachment proceeding exacts a toll on any White House because of the availability of man hours and resources that have to be diverted to it. So on that basis alone, it's a significant problem for him. What interests me about this drive toward impeachment most is that it proposes, I believe, that an impeachment process and ultimately, in theory, a conviction, could flow from acts undertaken by the targeted individual, the President of the United States, prior to his or her presidency.

Now, that's never happened before. There's nothing in the Constitution about it. What is in the Constitution suggests a proceeding that would be focused on acts during the pendency of the administration, high crimes and misdemeanors. So it'll be interesting to me to see how the Republicans justify going forward with an inquiry that is focused on acts that took place either during the man's vice presidency or during the period when he was out of office. It's not to say that the evidence isn't there for it. I'm not making a judgment about that. I'm simply saying it would be the first time that the impeachment process is focused on pre-presidential acts. And I would like to see that addressed. Yeah.

Well, if nothing else, hopefully it sheds light on some of the unanswered questions that we're looking for. I do want to shift to talk about the book, but also to give you an opportunity to share a little bit about how you first entered journalism and what prompted you to go into this career in media. I grew up fascinated with those clashes on television between President Nixon and Dan Rather. You know, I eventually worked for Dan Rather a little bit and still am in touch with Dan Rather. And, you know, I also was reading Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by Hunter S. Thompson, which was about a magazine assignment. And the freedom and the glamour associated with just those two figures right there, Hunter S. Thompson and Dan Rather. It was also larger than life. Tom Wolfe, I became obsessed with.

M.F. Buckley, both of whom did not share the politics of Dan Rather or Hunter S. Thompson. And so I began, and I was thinking I would discuss this later with some of our guests. I began as a press secretary to a political figure on Staten Island, which is my hometown in New York. And I came to understand that when you do PR for a politician, you are no longer engaged in the business of giving voice to your own ideas and sentiments and thoughts and agenda, but rather to those of the person you work for. And you have to be willing to accept that in order to be good at that job. And I decided that, you know, I wanted rather than to promote the specific agenda of a

specific individual to train my misanthropy on everyone equally and become a reporter. So I went back to graduate school in the 90s to Northwestern University, Middill School of Journalism. Right out of there, I, you know, I got my first small market TV job, which was market number 137 in the great grid of local TV news markets. You start with New York is number one and Los Angeles is number two. And you work your way down to 137 and that brings you to Rockford, Illinois. And I spent a great year there in Rockford covering local news there. I worked my way back to my native New York. I worked at New York One for a little while.

Then there was a startup where I was an anchor and a reporter called News 12, the Bronx, where I had my own camera. I was a one-man band shooting in the Bronx, day and a day and a day. night. You know, I remember Mayor Giuliani showing up for something in the Bronx, and I had to cover him myself, so I had a camera on my right shoulder. I had the microphone in my left hand, but I crossed my chest with the left hand to hold the microphone from an angle as if it appeared that there was actually a reporter standing next to the cameraman in this instance. And then I would say, Mr. Mayor, if you would just look that way when you address my question. And, you know, you adapt. But, and after that, I got my big break, which was through Britt Hume at Fox News. And I joined the Washington Bureau of Fox News and

became a Washington correspondent on February 22, 1999, which was the first business day, a Monday, after the acquittal of Bill Clinton, President Clinton, in his impeachment trial over the Monica Lewinsky matter. So I missed all of that craziness, but boy, I've certainly encountered a lot of it since then, too. Yeah. Amazing. Thank you for sharing that story. Now, of course, years later, you would go on to write the book, A Scalia Rise to Greatness.

you have covered the Supreme Court. So what was the inspiration behind this book? And I should say that we'll make sure we leave in the show notes, links to the event we did here at the Heritage Foundation and the interview you did. That's very kind of you. It was a great honor to appear at Heritage to discuss the book back in March when it came out as it is today to be here today. One of the first things I did when I arrived in Washington to be a Washington correspondent at the age of 30 in 1999 was to write to Justice Antonin and, Galea seeking an interview on Fox News stationary. And I got a reply from him, where in essence he said that he's a fan of Fox News, which was striking to read in 1999. Fox had not yet overtaken CNN in the

ratings, and a lot of people at that time confused Fox News for Fox 5. Are you the local? They hadn't, and so he was a fan already, and he said that he couldn't do an interview because it would violate his personal principle that a judge should not make a spectacle of himself in that way. So I wrote back to say thank you for your letter and to remind him that he used to sit regularly as a justice on the Supreme Court for PBS programs where they had panels of eminent minds, him included led by like a Harvard professor or Fred Friendly, the former president of CBS News, in hypothetical situations to which they would contribute with three cameras. And I said, what is that if not a spectacle? And but I offered the off ramp of a lunch together. And so Justice Scalia and I had lunch at his favorite place off the record. And that was in November 1999.

I made detailed notes to the file as to everything we discussed, although those matters remain off the record and will. I'm at liberty to tell you about one element of the lunch, which is that when I got there, I was there first. This was a very modest place called A.V. Ristarante Italiano in what was then a fairly modest section of Washington, let's say, outright sketchy at the time. And, you know, it had like plastic grapes on the wall. It was not, you know, sort of high cuisine, you know, but it had been his place since the 50s when he was valedictorian at Georgetown. And suddenly, you know, there was brilliant sunlight shining through the door. There was a long sort of shaft or hallway to get to where the seating was. And suddenly I see this silhouetted sort of portly figure coming in through the door, through the sunlight, strolling towards me.

And it's him. It's Justice Santon and Scalia. And he very jauntily strolls up and introduces himself. He sits down. Our waiter was a young guy who was really Italian. barely spoke any English. And Scalia looks at the menu and he says, pulpy, what is pulpy? Scalia had a sort of grandiloquence about him. He always knew he was putting on a show, but it was a great show, as his daughter says in the very first words in this book, sort of a Jackie Gleason grandeur about him. He said, pulpy, what is pulpy? And the waiter says, octopus. And he says, Octopus. I'll have the pulpy. And he hands the menu to the waiter. And now I had rules that I like to follow in these situations, Rob. You know, you're meeting an important person. You want to make a good impression. I was 30 years. old. I'm not a lawyer. I'm still not a lawyer.

You know, this is the Supreme Court Justice, one of the most brilliant minds in the history of the United States. So, you know, I'm not going to eat anything that requires me to eat with my hands. I'm not going to eat anything that's going to splatter all over me, like spaghetti or salad or any, you know, just something that's easily manipulable with a knife and fork so you can

maintain eye contact and nod at the so I, and I come from Staten Island, which is 66% Italian, or it used to be in my heyday, and I said, Veil Parmesan, right? Perfect. And the guy's writing it down in Justice the Sclee, says, no, no, no, give him the rabbit. And the waiter and I look at Scalia in unison and we both say rabbit.

And he says, yeah, he's going to like the, you're going to like the rabbit. Give him the rabbit. And the guy takes my menu and walks off. Now, I had never had rabbit in my life. I did not want to have rabbit. When it came, you know, and I'm struggling to hold my own in this conversation and just, you know, stay with it. Although I think the justice had a good time.

You know, the rabbit is served. I don't know anything about rabbit. Do they serve it like with the heads? still on, like a fish or something? I have no idea, you know? And so there was this dollop of green material on the plate. In my mind, looking back, it's sort of like guacamole, although I know rabbit is not served with guacamole, but that's what it looks like in my memory. And I made the mistake during the eye contact of like just shoveling a fork full of this green stuff, of which, the substance of which I had no idea what it is. And it was one of those moments where it's clear

to you in an instant, a nanosecond, that your only course of action here is to shove this unknown substance into your mouth, swallow it swiftly and just keep nodding, you know, and get about your business. To this day, I don't know what that was. Oh, geez. So what happened here? In short, the country's foremost opponent of judicial activism overruled my lunch order. Yes. Not even Mrs. Rosen does that.

So anyway, but we had lunch once more thereafter. We had this very humorous correspondence that went on for about two years, and that I will be able to publish in volume two, which will treat the justices' years on the Supreme Court, 1986, to his passing in 2016. We're so excited that you're embarking on that project. It's obviously incomplete if you don't have that second volume. I wasn't really able to celebrate that much in March because I have this hanging over me. Right, right. True. True. Well, it makes a great Christmas gift for those of you who are still

looking. James, as we wrap up here, obviously the media landscape is changing so rapidly. And Newsmax has had great success within the last couple of years to really build a much larger following. What's the best way for our audience to learn more about your work, but also to keep tabs on what your colleagues are doing? Thank you for asking, Rob. You can watch Newsmax. You can watch N2, Newsmax 2, which is our streaming service. And on Newsmax.com, there's information about how to sign up for these various things. You can also follow me, not only my reports from the White House every day on Newsmax, but also on my Twitter feed or my X feed. One day we'll get past the site formerly known.

as thing, but, and that's at James Rosen TV. Excellent. Well, James Rosen, thank you again. The book is called Scalia, Rise to Greatness, 1936 to 1986. James is a correspondent for Newsmax at the White House. We are grateful for the questions you ask when you get to ask them and appreciate you being here in studio with us today. Thank you, Rob.

And that'll do it for today's episode. Thank you for listening to The Daily Signal podcast. And be sure to check out our evening show right here in this podcast feed. We help you cut through the clutter to bring you the top news at 5 p.m. each day. Also, please subscribe to The Daily Signal wherever you prefer to listen to podcasts. And help us reach more listeners by leaving a five-star rating and review. We appreciate all your feedback. Thanks for listening. Make it a great day.

The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. Executive producers are Rob Luey and Kate Trinko. Producers are Virginia Allen and Samantha Asheras. Sound designed by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. To learn more, please visit DailySignal.com.