Firehose #139: So Say Goodbye, it’s Liberation Day
Also: “the story is even worse/more insane than you think”
The above image, of podcast-namer and Welch-manager Katherine Mangu-Ward (veteran of Episodes #75 & #395) modeling a T-shirt popularized by #499 & #479 guest Scott Lincicome, illustrates what for some of you may feel like an over-tilt around these parts toward tariff-reduction. Fair (trade) enough! So let’s hear from the opposition.
* Attracting mucho attention-o these days is the Comments section’s favorite MAGA lefty, Batya Ungar-Sargon (#451). Here she is on Just Asking Questions this week with Zach Weissmueller and Liz Wolfe (the latter of whom also just guested on Smoke ‘Em If You Got ‘Em):
* One of the key intellectual architects of Trump’s controversial tariff formula is America-understander Oren Cass. Here’s Cass’s victory lap this week, plus a pre-Liberation interview with Jon Stewart:
* And hell, supporters and detractors alike can groove to this latest iteration of “Happy Liberation Day” from A.I. bard Eli Lake (#52, #65, #141, #174, Special Dispatch #51, #326, #368, #407, Members Only #184, M.O. #244)
* OK, back to your protagonists. Here’s the other two dudes talking Thursday afternoon about Liberation Day, and then (w/ Gerald Posner) the JFK files:
* On Wednesday, hours before Trump’s tariff announcement, we made our monthly appearance on The Megyn Kelly Show, where we talked about Ron Klain’s coverup of Joe Biden’s cognitive decline, GOP setbacks in Wisconsin and Florida, Cory Booker’s non-filibuster speech marathon, rumor of Elon Musk’s imminent departure, and that deportation-to-El-Salvador case. Whole thing:
* Speaking of deportations, our Email of the Week comes from Marcia, under the subject line: “Kilmer Abrego Garcia -- the story is even worse/more insane than you think”:
Guys,
I'm a subscriber of many years, think you're fantastic...yadda yadda, let's cut to the chase:
As a lawyer, I want to tell you that the legal story is so much crazier than people realize. You guys have probably already seen so much coverage of the latest court proceeding regarding this saga of unfettered and outrageously despicable disregard for the rule of law, but just in case, here's the link to the Politico piece that gets closest to exposing the horrifying insanity.
Two things to point out:
1) The judge accurately called bullshit on the administration's claim that they can't get Garcia back now. The truth is, they won't do it, because that would force them to admit they could bring back others who were wrongfully deported.
2) In all my decades of experience as both a trial and appellate lawyer I have NEVER seen a defense attorney stand up and tell a judge he doesn't know why he's there, that his "client" won't tell him why he should be arguing for his position, and that his position is obviously untenable. Politico calls it a "rare" exchange. Let me tell you, it's not just rare, it's fucking unheard of. Here are a couple of excerpts:
In a rare courtroom exchange at Friday’s hearing, the lawyer defending the government in the case expressed exasperation with the administration’s approach and its refusal to respond to his queries.
“I am also frustrated that I have no answer for you on a lot of these questions,” said Erez Reuveni, an assistant director in the Justice Department’s Office of Immigration Litigation. “The government made a choice here to produce no evidence.”
!!!!! "Made a choice? Motherfucker, are you fucking kidding me? And the ASSISTANT MOTHERFUCKING DIRECTOR says this??!!!
So the judge then (very reasonably) asked why -- since we're paying the prison in El Salvador to take everyone we chase down and round up like cattle -- we can't just pay to get Garcia back, or even just demand that they send them back -- because, you know, we're PAYING THEM, the DOJ lawyer said:
“When this case landed on my desk, I asked my clients that very question. I have not received to date an answer that I find satisfactory,” he said.
I mean, I guess points for honesty?
All joking aside, this is a level of lawlessness and insanity way beyond anything I've ever seen, and please believe me when I tell you I've seen a lot. This is the very picture of an administration thumbing its nose at the judiciary, saying, "We don't owe you any explanation -- deal with it." We're sliding down a very slippery slope and the yawning chasm of authoritarian hell isn't far below. Someone needs to stand up and reign in these clowns. But who? And how?
Sorry to harsh your mellow. Love you all.
And we love some informed email. Thank you, Marcia!
* On Tuesday, Moynihan did his Report w/ actor and ex-fatty Ethan Suplee:
* And last Saturday, with the aforepictured Mangu and a cupla other lunkheads, we taped a live Reason Roundtable episode in Austin, with an audience including Andrew Heaton, Jack “The History of the Americans” Henneman, Busty Wimsatt, and the great, mysterious Iowahawk:
* Comment of the Week comes from JM:
Union of the Snek is such a weird tune and even weirder video. But I will say- 80s Duran Duran totally holds up! Simon LeBon is one of the great underrated singers of that era. But yeah- what was all the obsession with borderlines in the 80s? And the international spy motifs? I call it ‘cocaine espionage music’. Glenn Frey, Christopher Cross….nobody’s hands are clean on this one.
I’ve been listening to the podcast since the beginning. The Thad Russell days.
Favorite episodes? The one with Jesse Singal talking about the “American Dirt” controversy was absolutely hilarious. As were many others of course. But my favorite would have to be the one from 9/11/21. According to the show notes, Moynihan sent a text saying “I feel like talking about 9/11”, and a few hours later a new episode dropped. I had a really tough drive that evening and was grateful to have some company. Thank you for that.
Walkoff music … is about daddy issues and deindustrialization! And, as ever, independence:
Springsteen's dad would have been so MAGA.
I am generally pretty anti-alarmist. I think most stuff is overblown (see: nearly the entirety of Trump #1), and we are generally better off ignoring most national news/media.
But re: the email about the deportations: how close are we to an actual honest-to-god constitutional crisis? If the the administration is just straight up not answering court questions, and (seemingly/allegedly, I would like to get more confirmation) pretending that it does not have the ability to follow court orders, what happens next? If we assume that the situation is exactly as the emailer describes, what does the court do next? I can't imagine that whatever that next step is, the administration finally says "ok yeah, you got me, I'll follow the order and go get him back".
How do we know if we are in one? What does the escalation look like? Is the Executive branch deciding to ignore the judicial branch only solveable by impeachment? Because that doesn't seem very likely.
Basically, all of this is to ask: from the perspective from someone who usually finds that things are less bad than they initially seem/sound, what does it look like in the near to medium future if this _is_ actually as bad as is seems/sounds?