7/15/26 Panel

Good morning. Welcome to the roundtable and to our panel discussion. See, we have so many things that we like about you. And we're going to, we're going to share them with you over the next two hours. We have a wonderful panel to do exactly that. Hearing the music of the Romantics, kudos to Robert Pandizio, who nailed not only song artists but date of release. Very, very good. Well, well, well done. The Romantics and Christopher Cross, we're going to be playing music from both artists this morning. Romantics and Christopher Cross are going to be. Yacht Rock on WAMC. We're going to be. They're going to be. It's coming up next. Oh, good. They're opening for Toto. at the Saratoga Performing Arts Center. And that is tomorrow night at 645. And you can find out more by going to spack.org. And we'll be hearing from those artists this morning. And yes, we'll be hearing from Toto tomorrow. So there you go. Toto, too. Yes, Toto, and your little dog, too. Welcome, everyone. I hope you're having a good day. So this was my morning. It's an odd morning, but here's my morning. So... occasionally I go into a world of I collect odd stuff and especially stuff regarding late night television and so there's an item that is up for bids now at an auction site and it is the it's the the mug that was on Johnny Carson's death oh you want that I want that so bad there was only one there were 10 there were 10 And from 1962 to 1992. And so currently it is at $1,800. Okay. So I'm trying, this was the conversation I had with my wife. I was like, look, so we take money out of the savings.

And if it goes off, how far back in her head. And if it goes for like five or seven thousand, like that's an investment. That's, I mean, that, that is, we'll probably do better on that mug than we will in the market. You might be bidding against the Smithsonian. Yeah, I don't know. Well, anyway, she said no. So it's really, it's not a, it's not really, it's not really. So then yesterday, Mayor Kathy Sheehan was in here and she said, Joe, here's an idea. Because she was definitely on Kelly's side yesterday. And she said, I'm on your side. Thank you. You know what? Weirdly, most of the men have been. So I said, Kathy said to me, just go out, take 20 bucks, buy five or four or five dollar. lottery tickets and if you get it that'd be great like you have five thousand dollar ticket so this morning i stopped off i got four five dollar hot dog lottery tickets hot dog lottery tickets okay and i won 20 bucks all you need is a dollar and another dollar and so i'm i am i am not in the whole I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not in debt. So, so Kelly says, what's happening? So is there going to be a go fund me to help you buy this mug? I'm thinking of a public radio fund drive. No, we can't do that. No, no, no, no, no, no, don't even, don't even, don't even, don't even, don't even joke, but, but I, but I, you know, so I don't have to give this up. It doesn't sound like you're giving it up, Joe. It's like a public plea to Kelly. Is that what it sounds like? A little. Maybe that's what it is. Yeah. Well, we'll see. So she said what time are you coming home tonight? And I said, well, I want to see how the auction turns out. But we'll see. Honestly, I think it's going to go for more than 1800. Oh, it'll go more. I'm guessing it'll go for four or five thousand. That's my guess. That's a pretty cool thing. What did the other scoff? go for well now see that's a good that's a good point so a year ago um or two years ago one went up for auction and it sold for a thousand dollars okay all right um so there we go Can I give you my version of this, Joe? My daughter, who knows I'm a rabid Buffalo Bills fan, just sent me a small, dormant-sized piece of the turf from Highmark Stadium. There you go. That is my version of the Johnny Carson bag. Yeah, absolutely. A lot less expensive. Oh, well, yes. But I will not be wiping my feet on it. It will occupy a revered place in my home. I have some wonderful things from the Tonight Show. Mementos. The women in this room are shaking their heads.

Yes, they just don't. They don't get it. That's what Kelly said. It's so emotional. Kelly said to me, first of all, what are you going to do with it? And I said, well, drink my coffee out of it. Well, no, I wouldn't use it. But I would place it. And she said, and then the dog comes by and knocks the bookcase. And then the whole thing goes and your investments out. And I said, well, I would make sure that didn't happen. But anyway. Give it on loan to the Smithsonian get a tax break for doing that. Right. Right. You know, they have the desk. New York State Museum. They have the real desk at the Paley Center. They have another desk at the... Aren't we really talking about this? Yes, we are. The shows actually started? At the... We're on the air. We're on the air. People are really listening to this? In the Chicago Museum of TV, they have all of these TV. late night sets. Now, so Kathy Sheehan, you know, a very smart, intelligent, incredible woman. So we're going around the room and everybody's like, oh, my mug, oh, how do you have it? So Kathy looks at me and she says, I just want to point something out because you think this is going to be worth so much in the future. She said, I'm thinking that in 10, maybe 15 years, nobody is going to know who Johnny Carson is. And I really couldn't argue with it. Good morning all. Welcome. You know, I said this yesterday to someone, one of our guests. I said, you know, in this time where we're dealing with all of these weird stories, we just look for diversions. And I just brought you into mine. So there we go. So we've been mugged. That's really good. Very well done. All right. Let's go. We have a lot to get to and we have a wonderful panel, so let me introduce all of them to you. Theresa Borgia is here, a public policy and communications expert. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. There was a parade yesterday, very important parade. This was the... Paris, France. Oh, yes. Bastille Day. Yep. And how'd that go? Well, they began the parade with 35 Allied nations. And then 25 Ukrainian soldiers. So they began with the Coalition of the Willing. And then followed by Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky was there, was the largest military parade in recent memory. And who was absent from the Coalition of the Willing? The United States of America? They have moved on. Yeah. They've moved on. There we go. That's my thought for the day. President Emmanuel Macron's his 10th and final Bastille Day parade. And they even had two Ukrainian pilots doing the flyover along with the French pilots. 35 nations, 35 flags. The U.S. flag was not among them. I don't think there would be anything more of a bummer than me not getting my mug, but I guess that's it. Anyway, that's my thought. It's something to contemplate as we think about what our standing is in the world. Very good point. Extremely good point. Bob Griffin is back in the studio. This man is one of our favorite panelists, and he hasn't been on for a while, and we're thrilled that he's back. Dean of the College of Emergency Preparedness, Homeland Security and Cybersecurity at the University at Albany. Hello, Bob. How are you? Good, Joe. It's great to be back. Serendipity. Today is actually National Hot Dog Day.

Oh. So you picked the right scratch ticket. I think I got scratched ticket. And I haven't been on so long. My voice is out of wax. Like, wow. Okay. I feel 90. I didn't think I could sound it. But it's also a gummy worm day, too. So if you have a hot dog on a gummy worm, you wouldn't have to be embalmed. So something to think about. That's good one. Not as depressing as Teresa is right now, but. Still kind of dark. I can't. I was looking like, what am I doing here? Poor Donna. I thought you were going to talk about your bear this morning. What have I done in my career? It is, it's great to have you back. I really appreciate you, always appreciate your input to this program. Robert Pondissio joins a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a dear friend of this program, and we thank him, as always, for being here. Thank you. Thank you, Joe. The Romantics music reminds me that I'm not going to go in jeopardy, but if I ever did, I want my category to be 80s music because that's when I worked in radio. So whenever an 80s song comes on, I know exactly where I was. I know exactly what year it came out. I just had that one kind of like frozen in amber memory about music. This is the game that my wife and I play besides. You know, how do we squander? Your legacy. Yeah, our retirement fund is the 80s on 8. I was listening to it this morning on the way up here. So they'll do the song, and there's a way that we can configure it. Yeah, you cover the year. Yeah, the year, and then you guess the year, and then you guess the year, and that's, yes. I'm not sure if it's a good thing or a bad thing that we have the exact same games that we play in the car. Well, it makes the time go by, right? And poor Donna Welton is here. Diplomat. Enjoying myself immensely. Lock the door. Do not let her leave. Ever the diplomat. Ever the diplomat. Exactly. Diplomat in residence at Bard College. She retired from the U.S. Foreign Service in 2025. And after over 30 years in public service, amen. Wonderful to have you here as always. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you. All right. We'll get started and we welcome your letters as always. Panel at wamc.org panel at wamc.org panel at wamc.org.org. Okay, so just because of the time, and I want to hit the break at the bottom of the hour, so I'm going to do a story that I don't think is going to take us a long time here. Not necessarily the most important thing of the day, but is something to think about. That is the president planning a prime time address that will use findings from reexamine government files to argue that the country's election infrastructure has vulnerabilities. He told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday that the speech would concern voting machines but declined to elaborate. It will concern that subject and will have a couple of other things to say, he said, but I'd rather save it because it's really big news. The president could use the address to press his longstanding allegations of foreign interference in the 2020 election, the results of which he never accepted.

Bob Griffin, it's been so long. What do you make of this story? Not long enough, Joe, because it's the same tired song from this guy in this administration. You know, it's the constant festivist pull of complaints and how poorly he's been treated. My initial reaction when I saw this was, wow, the war's not going well. The polling for the midterms is not going well. He's looking for some way to put his fingers on the scales and on the elections. Take everybody back. There were at least 60 different court challenges to the 2020 elections, and not a single one of them was upheld through the process. So I expect a lot more of the tiredness where... Where I'm a little bit more concerned is, you know, I don't trust what comes out of Donald Trump's mouth. I also don't trust what comes out of Kash Patel's mouth or the Department of Justice. And I was concerned about what was going to be done with the ballots that were taken from Georgia in that raid. And this is part of what I think we're going to see.

It's going to further cast doubt and... in people's minds about the veracity of our systems. And if we go back to 2020, I want to remind everybody that Chris Krebs, who was Trump's appointee over at critical infrastructure, who is sort of the cyber, you know, control over cyber and the election systems certified the election as one of the safest in history. So I think there's... there's going to be an awful lot of uproar. I also think that this is designed to hide a lot of problems that are going on in society right now. I mean, I I think people should watch the speech. They should listen and hear and pay attention to how the president uses what I think are classical disinformation, disinformation tactics, particularly how he mixes false content. What he does is he mixes legitimate things. Obviously, we have to be concerned about outside actors and... and our election. reliability, but he mixes that in with false stuff to give credibility to the false stuff. And it's a good lesson for people in listening hard to how people mislead in the political realm. The many layers of election safety that we have in our system is remarkable. And it's something I hope people don't lose the trust in that system.

about I'll wait and hear what he has to say the piece that we were reading this morning seems a little bit speculative about what he's going to say so boy I hope he's not relitigating the 2020 election yet again because there's two different things here Joe I mean I think it's worth remembering that And to your point, yeah, we do have security in our elections, but that has not resulted in public confidence in it. So that's a good issue, not just for this president for the country. I mean, people do want election integrity measures, including voter ID. They've consistently enjoyed broad public support across party lines. I mean, this polls very well with Republicans and Democrats. But, man, I think I'm equally certain that both parties have just moved on from 2020. And so if you're going to conflate those two things yet again, then you're taking what should be an important issue when you're cheapening it. And you're also completely forgetting that the system that was in place in 2024 got you elected. Yeah, right. There's that too. I want to save time for Teresa. So I'm going to take a break. And when we come back, we'll continue. And we welcome your thoughts as well. Panel at wamc.org, panel at wamc.org. And we'll continue our conversation on this and move on to other topics as well. All of this after a short break in news from the BBC.

Christopher Cross and we've been playing the Christopher Cross and Romantics, and they're going to be performing at SPAC tomorrow night at 645 with Toto. And you can find out more at SPAC.org. I had mentioned this earlier, and when the music came on, Donald looked up and said, oh, you weren't kidding. No, we were. wouldn't joke about such things. All right. Let's, I want to hear from Teresa. We've been talking about the president of the United States planning a primetime address to, we believe talk about 2020 election allegations and it is a primetime address. So your thoughts? So usually primetime addresses are used for. notable monumental occasions. So that's interesting that he would do this. I think it's important for taxpayers to remember that enormous amounts of taxpayer dollars have been spent on trying to... proof that Trump, in fact, did win the 2020 election. And over and over and over again, it has been disproven. I mean, he did not win the election. He was told that that night. He's been told that repeatedly. Yet still, it continues. But the other thing that's equally concerning is that the Trump administration has... dismantled some very, very important systems that do protect our elections. You mentioned that Chris Krebs and the cybersecurity infrastructure and teams of people. People have been laid off. Infrastructure has been dismantled. And that goes in many directions. He just fired a group of people who were assigned to work with state elections folks to share information and improve the way that our elections are held and to make sure they're secure. And there's a long list of doge-related cuts and other cuts that impact the security of our elections. And Robert, you mentioned the confidence in our elections is waning. Well, yes, over the last 10 years it has because Trump, I would argue, Trump and his ilk as the people who surround him, have sown distrust in our elections by their incessant rhetoric and challenging the veracity of how these elections work. And I think that the Save Act, which he, you know, even just after. he learned that Lindsey Graham had died.

You know, what was the first thing he talked about? Well, Lindsay really wanted us to pass this SAVE Act, and which, in fact, I'm not sure if that was a political choice or a real choice, because I think his real interest was the sanctions against Russia. And so a lot of attention on the SAVE Act goes to the voter ID. And again, Robert, you mentioned, and I hear this all the time, it's everybody thinks, you know, a high percentage of people think about voter ID. I think the real thing that he's after, or the group of people are pushing the SAVE Act are two other things that don't get nearly attention that I think they deserve. One is he wants to stop mail-in ballots. And he's doing that in every lever he can use around the government, including... trying to sanction states who allow it, and also changing the rules at the post office. But the other and more insidious is this demand that states turn over their voting list to the federal government, and that they run these voter lists through a Department of Homeland Security system. And that system, two states did that, and they found enormous numbers of errors in the result. errors drove 10,000 or more people inappropriately off the rolls. And so if you do that just in advance of elections and you do that in targeted districts, you could really change the outcome of elections, which is why state after state, Republican and Democrat have refused to turn over those voter rolls. And they have been sanctioned. They've been threatened those sanctions of cutting, you know, food programs. They've been sanctioned. There's four or five different... programs that government programs having nothing to do with elections that funding has been threatened if they don't turn over these roles and you know I do think that this is a really really serious problem so the address to the nation there probably should be one on voter issues, but he's not the right person to give the address, and it won't be focused where it should be on correcting these things. And also I think I'm going on. But you make a really important point, though, Teresa, about... the voter rolls because the courts have upheld the complaints from the states the most recent being West Virginia so 13 states have actually pushed back in through the court system on on the DHS grab for for the voter rolls but it's also I think important that we that we make a few comments that elections are

are run through the states. Correct. It's not run through the federal government. And I fully am anticipating some sort of request or demand for federal oversight of state elections to be coming out of tomorrow's address. And that's a fundamental shift in the relationship, in the constitutional relationship between the states and the federal government. So, I mean, this has. implications, not only for the midterms, but has some significant implications about just the foundational elements of how the country was built. It's only a fundamental shift, if it's allowed, Bob, right? If it is allowed, right. You can ask for whatever you want. Well, and that's what, but it's being, it's being enforced in different ways, and Theresa pulls this really important threat about the mail-in ballot, so think about that. Think about the control of the post office, and then the post office actually I think, actively slowing down delivery of mail, which then affects how ballots could be received, or the question of whether DHS and the Postal Service was going to collude in order to affect how ballots of people who weren't on that list, on the official list were being accepted. I mean, there's all of these attempts. Not postmarking it by date. I mean, if you don't postmark it by date, then how do you know if it was footage? in at the right date. I mean, they're doing things. They're using these, and he's not thinking this up. I mean, this is the people behind him. But I'm sorry. No, this is... Talk about the DH list. Talk about the DH list. DHS listed in the problems with that verification list. I mean, they've run it through two states, and it's resulted in court cases, and these are Republican states, and they determine that they can't do that because it's too many errors. Yeah, and one of the states was Texas, so you don't get a friendlier Trump state than Texas, and the number of errors that they found, and the number of American citizens who were illegally removed from the rolls. because of that process was so large that even the Texas officials quietly sort of moved away and did the ooh. And Ken Paxton has no problem, you know, scuba diving in the septic system. He's, he has, I mean, he'll do whatever he's got to do to gerrymander an election. And he even was backing away from this. This should be reassuring. True. But what is the problem that we're trying to solve here? The problem is they feared... I mean, from his perspective, I understand that, but there's no problem with our election. He can't win on the policies. All right. Sorry. Well, I was just going to say, but Bob was some of the problem. The problem is legitimacy. And I'm not trying to carry water for one party or the other here, but I also don't want to pretend that this is a unique... set of circumstances that only Republicans do. I don't remember the particulars, but remember in 2020, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats raised the specter of mail-in ballots being delayed. I just have no patience with either party, right or left, playing with the legitimacy of elections. Amen.

photo IDs, how many times have I been on this broadcast and we've had the same conversation about voter security? Oh, there's no proof, et cetera, et cetera. Fine. What's the harm then? If the American people want photo IDs to reassure them, give them to them. There's no downside to it, on and on. So to me, right or less as long as blocks are free. But they aren't free. But the third rate, Teresa, you know it's going to make it difficult for people to enhance things. Look at the data. Look at the research. I'm making a very simple point, Teresa. No, no, no. Because you say it simply, but it's not that simple. But if it were to be free, would that be... If it was free and accessible. So right now, the way they do it, you'd have to show a signature. As they say, right now in many states, they do the background work, right? The person isn't responsible. They are the system because it's easier for them to do. But if you add these layers that they're demanding, that it... that then it will eliminate a whole bunch of people from voting. One man's demand, another man's reassurance, Teresa. It's that simple. No, he is sowing doubt in the system. The states use different types of ways to ensure that the people who are voting are allowed to vote. but they're not using the system that he's trying to use, and it will make it harder for people to vote. It's not that the Democrats don't want voter ID if they wanted to do it in a way that doesn't disenfranchise people who will legitimately have the right to vote. For 10 years, he's been sowing doubt in our voting system. I understand your point, but when you talk about legitimacy, I mean, to... Also, to Teresa's point, though, if you just hammer away that this is illegitimate, illegitimate, illegitimate, isn't that what you're... Yeah, yeah. You're raising a doubt that the data shows that people are... But what you're saying is, I mean, that's the disinformation thing that I'm saying, right? That it's creating... It's creating a fallacy. A day will come where Donald Trump is no longer looming large over American politics. When that day comes, we will still have an issue of people needing to have full faith in our election systems. And that's what I'm talking about. We always do this on this broadcast. We turn everything into a referendum on Trump. Great. Okay, that's fine. I don't like, I think I was clear in my opening remarks that I don't like the way that he is constantly relitigating 2020. Okay, that is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. You're casting a cloud over the legitimacy of an election and relitigating and relitigating. That cannot happen. And I don't care if it's Trump, Nancy Pelosi, who it is, local, federal, et cetera. It's a third rail. Don't touch it. But his rhetoric. Okay, so here we go. Okay, great. Yeah, that is true. But, I mean, it's fundamental to democracy that if you lose an election, you accept it. That's right. That's right. And you realize that you can try again. I mean. Yeah, and that's, and without that fundamental agreement, we're going to have politics like we have today. I mean, I understand your point.

aspects of it and agree with aspects of it. I do but the White House puts out a press release and says the president is going to make a primetime address to talk about the 2020 election allegations. Bad idea. Was I was insufficiently clear about that? No, I'm just saying but but but to your point it would be if you were saying I'm going to talk about the one thing. I'm assuming he's going to connect the dots to the Save Act, is my assumption. That would be the assumption. See, and I'm assuming I think you're correct, but I'm also assuming that he's going to also try to lay the groundwork for either... National Guard or folks at the polls or intimidative federal presence at the polls, that he's going to use this as the excuse for federal intervention and something that the federal government shouldn't be involved in. And I do worry about this. I'll also, I find that the conversation fascinating because there's positions on each side which are correct. And to me, this is part of the problem of what's occurring in Congress with the lack of capacity to compromise across the aisle that having an ID issued through state and local governments, okay, okay. It has to be, it has to be free, it has to be affordable. It can't be a burden to get. It shouldn't penalize women who have gotten married and have changed their names. There's ways that we could, or in the past, we would have come together as a country to say, we've got to make sure that everybody trusts the system. So what are we going to do to do this without screwing over the population? And right now, neither party, and I believe. is concerned as much about what's happening to the people as is what's happening to the parties. And this is a problem. I mean, and again, I'll start to beat the drum on everything from election reform to term limits to taking money out. I mean, there's so many bad things the Supreme Court have done to our election systems that we could go on with this. But we have to listen to what he says tomorrow. and understands the potential inherent danger to fundamental elements in how the country operates. So let me pause. We need to take a break. We'll do that. And we'll return on the other side. Continue this conversation. We welcome your input. We'll add that to the equation as well. Panel at wamc.org. Panel at wamc.org. We'll be back right after this. Hey!

Good morning. Welcome back to the roundtable and to our panel discussion this morning talking about the president's plan for a prime time address tonight to talk about the election. Tomorrow night. Tomorrow night. Yeah. Tomorrow night. Thank you. Thursday night. I wouldn't want people getting up tonight to try to listen to it. No. Well, which means because I'll be at the romantic. Joe, who's going to be more articulate? Who's going to be more articulate? Is it going to be Trump or Lindsey Graham? Oh, stop. Go ahead. It's a toss-up. Teresa? I was thinking, well, the stations will the ABC, NBC, CBS actually carry it live? I don't know. I mean, that's a good question. I mean, I just... Yes, they're so afraid of the FCC right now? Absolutely, it will. It'll be interesting. But, and I think you made the point, Robert earlier, one. Look at what's the context in which this is being given. And this is what he chooses to talk about. The Iran War. back again, driving up oil prices. There's so much uncertainty in the Straits of Humoos. I know we'll talk about that later. The cost of the military operation is in the billions of dollars. Congress can't seem to figure out how to pass a defense bill. There's ICE officers, you know, killing, there's shootings. Millions of people have lost their health care coverage. The Center for Disease Control, we have this new epidemic that they are way behind on. And so much of the FDA infrastructure and the Centers for Disease Control infrastructure to monitor and track the emergence of these kinds of illnesses has been dismantled and weak. and we're seeing now what happens. It's this parasite that's causing so many people to be ill. It's like 27 times the rate it was in previous years. I mean, the list goes on and on. The Trump administration just gave back the largest amount of preserved public lands in Utah. 90% of lands that have been set aside, and this is an effort to really, they're hoping for litigation that will. and the protections of these lands all over the place. Issue after issue after issue that really impact people's lives. They're just crying. There's a plea all over the country to talk about these livability and affordability issues. And that's not what the address is about. It's not about these costs. It's not about the utility costs. It's not about the protection against AI. None of that. It's about whether or not he can prove that he won the 2020 election. And I think that should be concerning to all of us. Yeah, but again, I think it's a smokescreen for midterm elections. Right, but these are all the issues that should be discussed in the term elections. But people, if we keep saying, well, it's just a relitigation of 2020, that may be where it starts, but that's not what the concern is. The concern is how can, when they're looking at the poll numbers and we're barreling towards the midterms, you know, in another month, we're not going to be able to watch TV without being so inundated with political ads that we're going to want to pull our hair out.

This is setting the stage for intervention into the election. That's what this is about. So in about 20 minutes from 926 to 956, we've received about 60 emails just on this subject. I obviously can't get to all of them. And I'm just going to, I'm going to pull out a few just to give you an idea of the mood in the room. John, so basically Trump is going to vomit out a litany of lies about elections in the U.S., and you in the press are going to breathlessly report every last lie. Aren't you, says John. Then another John says it is Trump that has caused the disenfranchised and questioning of the election system, not. the general public. We go to this from Rachel until someone other than Trump starts and supports an insurrection to overthrow a democratically elected president, I will include other people in a conversation about politicians about election integrity. Until then, it's all false equivalence. Also, no network should err Trump's lie-filled diatribe. He can scream his lies into a void. This whole voter integrity discussion is a solution in search of a problem. Jane says I support and thank Teresa and her concerns about voter IDs. There are many, many people who live in isolated rural communities and or reservations. This would also have to be free and easily available to everyone. Having said this, who's to say that the administration won't claim these IDs are also manipulated and or, quote unquote, rigged? Nancy, the problem with voter ID rules is that too often they are used to prevent people from voting. For instance, you need an official government ID from an office that is not on a bus line and is only open from 9 to 5. If you work and don't have a car, you are not going to be able to vote. Let's see. Then we go to... Carl Rove determined in 2006 that requiring voter IDs would disenfranchised Democratic voters over. And above Republican voters, the primary form of voter ID would be a driver's license which would limit voters in metropolitan urban areas who primarily vote Democratic and do not have licenses as compared to the rural Republican voters who mostly have licenses and do not have mass transit. And get to one more thing here.

The reason some people don't trust elections is because Trump and his minions keep spreading misinformation and lies about the 2020 election. One more thing, says Nick, what about the reflecting pool? That's my main concern right now. And finally, we end with Melinda who says, okay, enough already. Move on to something else. We'll do exactly that. We'll be back right after this. Once in your life you find her Someone who turns your Good morning. Welcome back to the roundtable and to our panel discussion this morning. Panel is being very mean about the Christopher Cross. But good morning. Welcome back to the show. I hate doing things like this because these are just sad things that happen from time to time, and we have to report on them and tell you about them. And it's especially awful when it turns out to be someone that we all care so deeply about and love so much and was such a vital part of this radio station. We learned last night that... Tim Coakley passed away. He was 88, a long-time resident of Schenectady, and a man who gave much of his life to jazz. And he did a jazz show here on WAMC for just decades, so long, and was a wonderful, wonderful presence on the air, but more so a presence besides the Tim Coakley Jazz Show. By the way, 40 years. Wow. 40 years doing that show until he retired in 2024. And but but. Besides that, just his contributions to jazz in the region and a place for jazz and the places and the moments that he brought together are just incredible. I don't think there's a person in this building who did not love Tim and who did not just love his presence and when he would come in to do his show. And he was a dear, dear man, spent a long time. I'm working with the Daily Gazette as well. And he, just to tell you the type of guy that he is, that he decided to donate his body to Albany Medical College for the use by future doctors in training. And so gives you an idea of the man that he was.

We don't have, as far as arrangements, we don't know that quite yet. And I don't think there was a... a funeral plan, but I believe it was going to be a celebration of life at some point. And when we know that, we will certainly pass that on. And you can, his request for donations is for A Place for Jazz Scholarship Fund, and you can find out about that by going to a place for jazz.org, a place for jazz.org. Again, Tim Coakley. A legend in this region and certainly a jazz legend and certainly a WAMC legend passed away yesterday at the age of 88. So I'm sorry to pass that news on to you. A dear friend of his Bill McCann who now does the jazz show for Tim on WAMC will join us in the coming weeks to remember Tim and play some music and we'll. will honor him correctly. But in the meantime, I wanted you all to know that and pass that word on if you had not received it yet. So our condolences to the family and to his friends and to the jazz community in this region and know that we share in your love and that Tim rests in peace. Okay. We're going to move on to other topics and move on to talk about other stuff, making news on this Wednesday morning. And by the way, we did get a lot of letters on the last topic. And we are going to move on. I think we get the mood of the room pretty much. And so we're going to start. We're going to move to other topics. But if you want to keep writing on that, that's fine. And if we have time at the end, I'll try to get to more of those. So let's talk about ICE for a moment. ICE is halting most traffic stop arrests in the wake of fatal shootings. The pause comes as the Trump administration scrambles to respond to incidents in Houston and Bidford, Maine, in which officers shot and killed immigrants. U.S. immigration and customs enforcement has temporarily instructed officers to refrain from making traffic stop arrests in most cases. According to several people with knowledge of the directive of policy shifts spurred by a pair of fatal shootings over the past week, the pause comes as the Trump administration scrambles to respond to the incidents in Houston last week and in Bidford, Maine on Monday in which officers...

fired into vehicles and killed immigrants from Mexico and Columbia, respectively. Three former federal immigration officials said they were informed by current Department of Homeland Security officials of the pause, which one person said covers vehicle stops and pertains to officers within ICE's enforcement and removal operations division. Robert. Well, ICE is never not going to be controversial, obviously. And I don't want to be naive about this, but I think it's a healthy sign in any law enforcement agency that it's capable of learning. So if ICE is temporarily suspending one of its tactics after two fatal shootings and reviewing its procedures, that's not necessarily evidence of failure. It's evidence that they're trying to reduce unnecessary risks while still carrying out their mission. I mean, obviously that mission is going to be very unpopular with listeners to the roundtable. But it is possible to believe in two different things at once that immigration laws should be enforced and also expect that enforcement should be carried out professionally, proportionally. And without violence. So this is not to say that I'm, you know, a fan of what, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, but, I certainly applaud the idea that they're showing themselves to be a little bit more introspective than they were at one point. I respect what you have to say, but from the outset. I've worked with law enforcement and federal marshals around the world, and you have very specific rules of engagement. I know that there's other professionals at the table. And one of the constants is that you don't fire on a vehicle. And the fact that you have a group of law enforcement, federal officers who... apparently have not been trained in the very foundational fundamentals of using appropriate force. Yeah, I don't think that's at odds with what I said. I think that's an illustration of it. But I just, it speaks to a larger problem with immigration enforcement is that it's become much to, it's gone beyond the role it's supposed to play. in the country. And also, I think it also raises bigger questions about our immigration policy enforcement that it's way out of whack and balance between... I know, the costs and benefits of how this is being handled. Immigration is an important part of the United States. Immigrants are important part of the United States, and this is way beyond what is healthy for our society. Yeah, slightly different question, though, immigration versus enforcement. There was a terrific column some years ago. I used to teach it to my high school civic students.

written by Stephen Carter, who I think is a Yale law professor, about how any law that you pass, you must accept the inevitability that at some point it will be enforced with deadly force. And the lesson there is this should make us judicious about the laws we expect to be passed and enforced. Yeah, and I certainly would be the last person to tell you that our immigration law is what it should be. It's a mess. Bob? Yeah, I mean, I think there are a number of really important points that have been raised. Both ICE and Customs and Border Patrol CBP have grown too large. I've really changed my thinking about the Department of Homeland Security, and actually I think there needs to be a thorough review of the role of DHS in our society. And again, it's not that the elements within DHS go away, but are they in the right department? Do we need a department? And where are the basic safeguards around our civil liberties? And there is no greater impact on civil liberty than the government's use of force against its citizens. So, I mean, this is sort of, again, becomes one of these fundamental issues. And again, it goes back in my mind to the lack of congressional oversight. Bad laws make bad enforcement. And I think we're seeing elements of that. I also think that this story when I... was coming into the Studio Joe, the president actually came out and contradicts the position of DHS. Yes, he did. So what the president said is that he didn't want them, he didn't want ICE stopping this in their enforcement, despite the fact that there are. this isn't the first times this occur, right? This is, there's a track record with this department. In a normal times, there would be, there would have already been congressional inquiries. We should understand better what is the training, what has the department done to ensure the safety of the public, but also the safety of its own officers, putting undertrained, untrained, officers into the field is a danger to both. So there are multiple issues here, but again, this is also a frustration for me is that the administration is not speaking with one voice on this. If ICE and DHS had said, yes, we're going to stop, we're going to review our policies, we're going to bring experts in, we're going to take a look at what we're doing, we're going to fix this because this isn't the way it should operate. I would appreciate that position. But when they say, okay, well, we've killed two people, so we're going to stop this right now. And the president says, no, we're not going to stop this.

His word is what drives the policy through the executive branch. And again, it shows that they're sort of fumbling their way through this. And I think there are so many issues that they continue to aggravate me with the fact that enforcement on people who are here legally or are already American citizens is something that all of us should be concerned about. I mean, again, you know, sort of one of my core beliefs about the country is that, you know, you should expect to be able to walk down the street in a peaceful way without having police or government officials coming to you demanding your papers. And again, at least from my standpoint, this doesn't represent a core value of where this country needs to be. I'll go back and just repeat one thing I said. My position on DHS has changed so fundamentally I think the department probably needs to be put down and that the elements put back in other departments. And if you want an efficiency in government, that's one of the things that we should be talking about. Once again, maybe this is the theme for the morning conversation about institutional legitimacy, Bob, but what you're saying reflects on that. So the rule of law depends not only enforcing the law but on enforcing it well, right? And that's what we're talking about. So, yeah, it's an open question on DHS on immigration law. To me, the question is not whether immigration law should exist. The question is whether or not it's enforced in a manner that strengthens rather than weakens legitimacy, public confidence. Yeah, and it also gets to a frustration on my part. And, you and I have been involved in a number of conversations on this. Congress has gotten incredibly lazy in the last 30 or 40 years about not... being willing to take hard positions when they're when they're creating when they're creating laws and instead passing the buck on to the bureaucracy in order to fill in the nitty gritty details which is not what we elect these people to do and and so so I mean this is this is not just an executive branch problem this is this is a legislative problem but it's it's also part of the ongoing malaise and what we're seeing in Washington and you've spoken Tracy you've spoken to this on a number of occasions what you've seen even your time on the hill. Right. And on immigration, I mean, when I was working in the Senate in the 90s with Senator Robert F. Kennedy Jr., he was working with Barbara Jim Jordan, who was a champion of immigration and tough immigration. I mean, she really wanted tough, clear processes. And there have been a number of occasions where they've come close. to putting together and getting bipartisan support for an immigration package. And it hasn't gotten over the line. But remember that there was a bipartisan effort not long ago. And it seemed it was going to move through Congress. And the Trump and Trump and the Trump administration, I think, led by Stephen Miller prompting Trump to dismantle it. And it wasn't going to fix everything.

but it would have fixed some things. And in fact, Trump did. today's post that, quote, we cannot give up one of ICE's most important and effective crime fighting tools, the traffic stop. He posted on social media. And when I heard this on the way in, to me, it said that there's this ongoing dispute within the Trump administration between the Stephen Miller group and other more traditional. law enforcement folks about how this is going to, how this deportation campaign is going to be run. And it seemed that it's spilled out in public through this social media tweet, through the combination of last night's announcement that I think Holman and others who are real law enforcement people. said, okay, we're going to pause. We're going to do some training. And it's not that we're going to stop it. We're going to pause and do training. And it's no, we're not going to pause. But I think it's important to pull back the lens a little bit wider and realize that there have been more than 50 people killed who died. Let me use the right words. Sorry, that was incorrect. There have been more than 50 people who have died. in ICE detention in the last year plus, year and a half, and under the Trump administration, which is far greater numbers. And there was a new report out yesterday about... the inhumane conditions in a number of these detention facilities. And remember that most of these people in these facilities, their case has not been adjudicated. They have only fewer than 5% by ICE's own data. Remember, Trump said, worst of the worst. We're going to get these violent criminals off our streets and we're going to deport them. That's what he keeps saying. These are the worst of the worst. Violent criminals. We're going to get them out of our country. Fewer than 5% have been convicted of any crimes. Only about 30% convicted of violent crimes. Fewer than 30% convicted of any crime whatsoever. And most of those are low-level traffic. violations and such. The vast majority have no record whatsoever, including the two people who were killed and the person in Maine. He, Social Security card, right to work, legal person here legally.

So I think there, what seems to be one of the experts seem to think that the problem now is that there's this pressure, you know, 2,000 people. You have these quotas, quotas of people who need to be detained. And when you push for these quotas, then the experts say Brennan said and others that you, you know, this is what. you end up with. Human rights goes out the window, basically. Human rights, because there's so much pressure. They've brought in many, many, many new ICE officers without the typical length of training that law enforcement folks get. Or vetting of the buyers. They haven't been vetting. They haven't been trained. They're put in difficult positions. They haven't been trained on traffic stops, which are tricky to do. And it's just literally a lethal combination. And then also these detention centers, you turn them over to private companies, two key ones, Core Civic and Geo, who have a reputation in other private prison work that they've done in the past of many, many violations. And you have them overcapacity. There are about 75,000 people right now in detention and about 43,000 available beds. So by definition. it's overcapacity this is just a recipe for a problem and in many cases these are these are people who are here legally they're here legally What are we doing, folks? And Joe, to me, it goes beyond just ICE and DHS. And this is something where I've argued with Kathy Sheen in the past, too, is I don't even like the idea of the camera systems that government have put in, even the speeding cameras. And I get, you know, we're, you know, we don't. You're saying, Bob, that people should be allowed to speed through the school zone. No, I'm not saying that. It needs to be enforced. My problem is the use of technology that... reduces our civil liberties or gives government more control or information about us. And we're not having enough conversations at any level of government about those civil liberties and what we want government to do and be able to do. So to me, it's a broader problem in this country is that... A, we don't have clear policies. We don't have clear laws. But we also haven't kept up with changes in technology that are being put in place right now that are having huge impacts on us. And we don't even recognize it. And as soon as government takes power away from the people, it is very, very difficult to get it back. But also...

As you push people, like you have the Haiti decision, right? The Haitians need to go, right? The courts, high courts decision about the Haitians. The protected status. Protected status, right? You change the status. What's the economic impact of that decision? In Massachusetts, they're saying, wait, you know, the hospitals and health care systems are saying, wait, these people are here with legal status, and they are the backbone of our health care infrastructure. You remove all these people, and what do you do? And so, I mean, and, and. Agriculture, right? As having, I mean, their agriculture community being hit in all these different directions, right? But with the tariffs, with the USAID cuts that were a source of their fund, you know, their markets, and then deporting and making the people terrified of people who were here with legal status. And so when we. come to some conclusion. You know, the Trump administration, if they're worried about not legal status, they could fund the system so that there was quicker review to get people to their legal status. But instead, what are they doing? They're going to places where people go in and go to the required check-ins, right, to keep their status legal. And they are... detaining them and then trying to force deportation of them, providing a disincentive to keep your status legal. We're going to pause there. We have to take a break, and when we come back, we'll... Continue. We welcome your letters on this and other subjects. Panel at wamc.org. Panel at wamc.org. And we'll wrap this conversation up and then we'll go through our lightning round to get in the last topics of the morning with Teresa, Bob, Robert, and Donna. We will do all of that after this short break.

Sleep, sleep. It's so happy right now. Yeah, it's all good stuff. Listening, listening to the Romantics, and along with Christopher Cross, going to be at SPAC tomorrow night at 645, opening for Toto. And you can see that video, if you are our age, right? You can see that video in your mind's eyes when you listen to the song. Absolutely. Like it was yesterday. Absolutely. Amazing. Okay. I guess I'm a little too old for you guys. We were talking before the break about ICE. And before we move on, I mentioned the lightning round. Before we move on, does anybody else have anything that they want to say in regards to that? I just wanted to compliment Bob Griffin. My big takeaway from that conversation is he's exactly right. It's Congress's responsibility to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Until or unless that happens, you will continue to have imperfect laws enforced imperfectly. All right. Let's move on to Todd Blanche. And what is happening, the AG nominee is facing scrutiny at a Senate hearing. Jay Clayton, Trump's nominee for Director of National Intelligence, is also appearing before senators this morning at his own confirmation hearing, but it is Todd Blanche who is making the most news. to see if his, on the nomination to make him the permanent attorney general, Democrats have criticized Todd Blanche over the Justice Department's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, the administration's proposed anti-weaponization fund, and President Trump's settlement with the IRS over leaked tax filings. All of those issues have already come up during this hearing that is underway. Teresa. I think that the question that reporters should ask every member of the Judiciary Committee and any senator voting on his nomination is, do you think that Todd? Todd Blanche's behavior, his record, his record on these issues is something that law school students should study and emulate. Is he somebody to be looked up to? Do you think that line prosecutors in the Justice Department should model and mirror the behavior of Todd Blanche in terms of the kinds of thinking about what the judge just admonishing him for the putting together the proposal of the slush fund, for example. And if they can get to yes on that answer, then, okay, vote for his nomination. But if they can't get to yes on that question, how could they possibly get to yes?

on supporting this person's nomination to be the Attorney General of the United States. Is his track record of the last few years really a role model for how lawyers and Justice Department lawyers should act? That's my question. Anybody else want to weigh in on that? You know, I have no faith in. And Todd Blanche, but what I'm watching with great interest is how the vote's going to split, especially given Graham and in Mitch McConnell's health. in the election and sort of the tightness of some of the elections. It's going to be very interesting to watch how the vote goes down. There's a certain degree of Kabuki theater about this to me. Again, I can already hear, you know, Susan Collins, you know, pounding the desk and then, you know, at the end, I would fully expect her to vote for. But it's, it's... the balance of votes in the Senate right now are now are now sort of unknown. And that's what's really interesting about this particular nomination. Yeah. Conservatives view Todd Blanche through a fractured lens, I think we can say. The MAGA folks love the guy, more traditional establishment Republicans and libertarian-leading Republicans less so. But Bob, I think you're exactly right. The death of Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell's, what's the word, being sidelined for the moment, do make it, in my mind, an open question as to which way this is going to go. I don't know. I mean, most likely it's going to go along party lines. But I would say that the interesting thing about watching a confirmation hearing is the airing of certain issues. I mean, even if he is confirmed. Seeing how he responds to questioning is an interesting indication of how the next two years will go. Do you think so? I hope I don't come across as cynical, but, man, I think I've watched my last congressional hearing. It's just all performative. It's a confirmation hearing. Fair enough. I mean, it's a hearing hearing, but, you know, I still think seeing how he behaves in the face of some of the democratic questioning will be interesting. And if you don't come across as cynical, I'm not sure we want you on the show. Come on, Jill, the Boy Scout. We want all the citizens if we could get on this show. It's also really interesting to see who asks what questions. Well, that is fascinating. Yes, absolutely. Go ahead. But the IRS agreement that he negotiated with himself and the judge excreted him for that and some may lose their law licenses for? Right. I mean, is that really the...

modeled behavior of an attorney general? Seriously. To the interactions on the Epstein case, by all accounts, he's led the review, the quote-unquote review of the Epstein files. And is that transparency? Is that upholding the legislation that the, I mean, Congress can pass legislation? We're all just talking about how Congress has to pass legislation. It's their responsibility. In this case, they did. But the Trump administration is just ignoring the legislation they passed, just like they're ignoring appropriations bills that were passed and authorization legislation that was passed. So is that really? The behavior that should be modeled for how you want law school students to learn that this is what you do as a lawyer or prosecutors in the Justice Department that this is how you operate is trying to find funding to give reparations to those who. the insurrectionists who went to the Capitol and viciously beat police officers to try in every different direction to find a way to compensate them. Is that the model behavior for Attorney General of the United States of America? I think you're describing why traditionalists, Republicans, and conservatives are opposed to his nomination. I think National Review, in fact, wrote an editorial coming out against him. So John Cornyn, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Thom Tillis. I mean, what are John Cornyn and Thom Tillis going to do? They're on the Judiciary Committee, right? What is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. going to do? Nothing. John Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from Louisiana. But why not? Nothing. And why? I mean, he will say something funny. Well, last time we saw his backbone was on a milk carton. I mean, they, come on. I mean, they haven't, I mean, they've, they've. Leadership in Congress has not stepped up to their responsibilities. And it's not just right now. This has been an ongoing slide. But we, you know, this is the naivete that and I, I. buy into this, Teresa, is that I keep waiting for them to do their job that they're elected for and to actually have sharper elbows to protect the power of their own position and the fact that they're representing the power of the people in...

in their seat and what they're supposed to do, and they haven't done it. To protect the integrity of the Justice Department, that's what they should be doing. They're members of the Judiciary Committee. They should be protecting the integrity of the Justice Department. And this guy has gone in and driven out how many thousands of frontline prosecutors? Why? Not because they did anything wrong. but because they legitimately prosecuted January 6 cases. So he's driven people out of the Justice Department because Trump didn't want people who legitimately prosecuted January 6 cases. That's what this guy's done. And as angry as I am about the January 6th, the one that bothers me even more with Todd Blanche is the sweetheart deal that he cut the Trump family. Trying to give them a get-out-of-jail-free card under the... Forever. Forever. Which is garbage. Right. I mean, to me, that's the one that should disqualify him for it. And so... Okay, go on, but just remember, you're taking away from our lightning rounds. Sorry. No, go ahead. I just think that they have to be asked the question. We can't just presume, oh, well, it's politics and they'll do it. Well, maybe they will, but they should be asked the question. The reporter should be asking every single one of them. Is this really the role of an attorney general? Well, I think those questions are being asked, but nobody else is taking it seriously, right? Well, I think we're all, oh, well, it's just politics that are going to do that. This is so outside the norm. That agreement, that agreement for the IRS to give the Trump family a free pass, that is so outside the norm. It's Donna said this is along party lines. I mean, I think that's where you see the divisions, right? Yeah, let's talk presidential pardons too while we're at it. But party lines, what happened with Nixon, right? It wasn't Democrats who went to Nixon and said you have to go. It was Republicans. It was so 1972. 74. 74. That's right. Yes. Thank you. He's so young. He's so young. Lightning round. All right. We'll take a break. Lightning round. He's so young, he remembers Toto. We'll be back right after this.

Good morning. Welcome back to the roundtable and to our panel discussion this morning. I started off the show, crankly discussing about wanting a... my Johnny Carson Tonight Show mug at this auction. And I just want to report that my wife is still against this. But I also want to report that when I told the story, the mug was, what did I say? 1800. 1800. Now at 2,400. You've driven the price up. Driven the price up. You drove it up. It's not good. Maybe a loyal listener has decided to buy it for you, Jeff. I highly doubt that, but, well. So. All right, let's go and do the lightning. What did you say? To the straits? Yeah. Oh, sure. Yeah. Let's go. As Teresa goes, so goes the world. So let's let us go to those stories. That was the clearest articulation of our policy in Iran so far. Let's go. Yes, that's right. Okay. So a couple of things I want to get to real quick. One is the straight and where we are in that and a flip-flop in the back and forth. And Donna, if you can describe where we are right now because I don't really know. Yes. Yes. I think that we're still in this flailing around trying to figure out. I mean, we've moved from nuclear weapons to a Manhattan-style protection racket in the strait of her moves. You mean Queens. Queens. Okay, Queens. I'm sorry. Good fellas. Sorry. But I think, yeah. Well, I said Manhattan because that's where the buildings are. But anyway, I mean, it's, it's, it's very concerning because it threatens global shipping. It threatens a system of transportation and logistics that. That keeps the global economy afloat. And I, yeah, that's a pun. But, okay, keeps it on afloat. 80% of everything in the world, all the goods, go on shipping. And so if you are talking about a major corridor of shipping that can be in contestation between the United States saying it's now going to be the protector and Iran using it as a newly discovered weapon of mass destruction, this can be translated to a whole host of other choke points around the world. So in the cover? Yes.

Go ahead. Well, I was just going to read from the New York Times. One day after proposing a fee for ships transiting the straight of... Hormuz, President Trump on Tuesday said the United States would instead guarantee safe passage to vessels from Persian Gulf states that agree to invest in the United States. It's not clear how Mr. Trump's plan would play out, and the president's latest comments left. Many questions unanswered. But the flip-flop shows how far the debate over the strait the vital waterway of the Middle East is straight from longstanding practices in the shipping industry and underscores the level of unpredictability that businesses working in the region are... facing. So my question for you is I guess not even a question. in the coverage that I saw of this yesterday, I heard it described three, I heard it described on three different programs, one of them being the news hour, yesterday, that it seems that the president is making this up as he goes along. I totally agree. But, Joe, wasn't there a piece over the weekend? I can't remember if it was Axios or Reuters that described efforts underway across the Middle East to build pipelines that are fairly far along. And also too. to build new ports on the east side. So what we're doing is where people are having to invest an enormous amount of money and who's going to pay for that? Well, but that's a long term. That's a good thing, right? Madam Ambassador? In other words, you don't want Iran to have this stranglehold over the straits of war. But Iran only chose to use that. Yeah. when it was attacked. We could argue that one round or flat. I mean, I think that's just an inevitability. I think they didn't see it in their economic interest to assert control in that way over this trade of her moves. And so what we're doing is now we've elevated the cost. throughout the world. Yeah. For now. For, well, for the future. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, I've been, you know, on the roundtable, I think, alone in supporting the war aims, the denuclearization, the destabilizing the regime. What I find ironic now is it seems like the administration is stumbling forward into a coherent... idea of how to prosecute this war, which is basically an economic one. You want to starve the regime of the resources it needs to be a bad actor in the region, to have a nuclear program, etc.

Anyone else on that? Well, I thought we were doing that with what Obama had put in place. I also would like to ask the administration, before you start dropping bombs, know what it is that you're trying to do. And it's still the problem. As I've said before, it shows the limitations of America's technological military capacity. And at some point in time, if we're going to get into a war, then there has to be a conversation, illegally with Congress, but be about putting troops into the ground. You can't bomb your way out of every situation. And I think this situation in Iran continues to spiral out of control because we have no strategic vision. No strategic vision. We have a military that I have have less faith in today than I did, you know, talk about institutions, Robert, than I did 10 years ago. And I certainly have less faith in the Secretary of Defense and the president to articulate a cohesive policy position right now. Issue four. Morton? Permanent daylight savings time. Oh my goodness. Yes or no? Yes. Can I just make one point about this? There are two reliable things that set everybody's teeth on edge on social media. One is whether or not die hard as a Christmas movie. And the other is this. What is it about daylight savings time that just makes people lose their minds? Every time the clocks go back. Just pick one. I don't care which it is. Pick one. You don't care. Well, first of all, die hard. Definitely Christmas maybe. How dare you. But at least I watch it every Christmas. But what is? By the way, this auction that I'm interested in also has Bruce Willis's gun from that also up for auction. I really can't afford that. So you don't care or you don't think that... Well, if you make it up to me, I'll say, sure, let's have permanent daylight savings time. I'd much rather, you know, wake up in the dark than eat dinner in the dark at 4.30 in the afternoon. Does anyone disagree with that position? I think it's better for farmers, maybe because farmers to have daylight and children going to school daylight. But I live in a community where kids walk to school. So I don't have a... dog in this fight but so but i just think it's i think it's silly well we only have a minute but here's the part that i find interesting is that it's past the house but it the way i read it was that it faces an uphill battle in the senate so

What is it about this? What is it about diehard that has both the House and Senate at such odds over this issue? And believe it or not, I actually agree with Tom Cotton is that they haven't looked at all of the impacts of turning this back. And that's why he blocked it in the Senate before. And again, I'm not a Tom Cotton fan, but I think this is one of these things again. Take a little bit of time. You've got staff. Let's look into it. Look at all the pros and cons just to make sure that the unintended consequences aren't worse than the pain right now. And there really are, I mean, years ago that I had to pay attention to this, but there really are a whole series of serious issues that need to be discussed about this. I'm making light of it because I can't remember all the details. But there really are serious issues. There's traffic safety issues. There's school safety issues. Wildlife. But there really are important issues associated with this discussion. We're late to get out. But my thanks to all of you for being here, there are great things about this job, and one of them is getting to spend time with all of you in a room and to talk about the things that are going on. Like the auction. May you all have a beautiful day and get the mug of your choice. We will continue our conversation after this short break. Next.