7/28/26 Panel

Please, please, please do not think that it is commentary that we are starting the show off with Crazy Train. God knows that would not be commentary. No, we're playing that because the artist, the artist providing the bagpipes, Allie the Piper. Allie the Piper, and Allie is going to be at The Egg tomorrow night at 730. And you can find out more information by going to theag.org, theeg.org, theeg.org, and we'll be hearing bagpipes this morning, and it's great. Good stuff. Allie the Piper, tomorrow at the egg. Our playlist posted online, wamc.org slash roundtable. Good morning, all. Welcome to the program. 14 minutes past 9 o'clock on this 28th day of July. It is a Tuesday. And we're thrilled that you are here. We are very happy that you are with us as we meander our way through the morass of stories that are before us and try to make as much sense as possible without getting our shoes dirty. Now, we want to, of course, welcome all of you to the program and welcome our wonderful guest to the show. A quick thing that I want to tell you about is that... I mentioned this yesterday, but we have, I now have a newsletter. Yeah. And because we went out, we brought this out to committee, and they had a focus group. And they put people and they said, well, what's the problem? What's the issue? And they said, you know what? I don't think Joe gets enough email. So they, so, oh, I know, let's, we'll have them do a newsletter. It's great. So yesterday, we launched this, and I got to tell you, and I mean this, truly, I'm not joking. I would have him blown away. So many people wrote, and it was lovely, just absolutely lovely. And I'm working my way through them and responding and stuff, which I know I can't do for everybody, but I'm having fun with it, and it's an awful lot of fun. If you would like to join in and subscribe to the newsletter, it's at wamc.org slash roundtable, and there's a link right there to subscribe to it. And it is an awful lot of fun. It's a lot of fun to write. It's a lot of fun. fun to put out. A great group that I'm working with to get it off the ground and get it going. And again, the listeners have just been lovely. So it's very nice. But if you have a chance and you'd like to join in, please, we'd love to have you along for the ride.

Let me introduce our group to you. Robert Brigham is here. Professor of History in International Relations at Vassar College. He is a specialist on the history of U.S. foreign policy. Good morning, Bob. How are you? Good morning, Joe. Always good to be here. Wonderful to have you here. Fatta McGilliam joins us. Author, lawyer, consultant, public speaker, and entrepreneur. Her most recent book is Race Rules. What Your Black Friend Won't Tell You. Fatima, thank you very much for being here. Always a pleasure to have you on the program. Yeah, good morning, everyone. Happy to be here as well. I'm excited to dig in. Yes, we will dig in momentarily. Judy Patrick is here, former Vice President for Editorial Development at the New York Press Association. Good morning, Judy. Good morning. Can I just say I'm a bagpipe officiano? I love bagpike music. Yeah, it's good. It goes right to your... Not everyone does. No, I understand. Yeah. But it's very halting, isn't it? Yes. Well, just wait. There's more coming. That's good stuff. We also welcome Larissa Phillips, founder and director of the volunteer literacy project and a columnist for the free press. Good morning. How are you? Good morning. I'm great and always happy to be here. Good to have you here. We appreciate it. All right. Let's go to... The news and find out what is happening in our world and, you know, quite a bit. So we go to this story. The administration is asking the Supreme Court to allow new limits on mail ballots. The appeal to the justices is part of a high-stakes push by President Donald Trump and his allies to put fresh limits on voting ahead of pivotal elections where control of the House and the Senate is at stake. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to clear the way for a sweeping executive order. that would place major new restrictions on mail-in voting in time for November's midterm elections. A divided panel of a Massachusetts-based appeals court last week upheld a federal judge's block on the order, finding that it would sow confusion, quote, unquote, and, quote, threatened disenfranchisement of many eligible voters, end quote. Judges appointed by Joe Biden and George W. Bush voted for the block, while a Trump appointee voted against it. In the administration's filings with the High Court, the Justice Department said the executive order lays out general policies that agencies have yet to finalize rules based on it, so it was premature for courts to block it. The Supreme Court appeal is part of the push by the president and his allies to put fresh limits on voting ahead of the midterms, where control both the House and Senate is at stake. Trump claims that voting irregularities are widespread despite a lack of any evidence showing that.

The president has been pressing the Senate to pass the Save America Act, which would require voters to prove their citizenship to register and to show photo identification when voting. He also gave a primetime television address. Last week, I believe, reiterating debunked claims about vulnerabilities in election systems and he fired members of a bipartisan elections commission. Trump has long made false claims that Malin voting is rife with fraud and has blamed it in part for his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election. He unsuccessfully demanded that the counting of mail-in ballots be suspended in that contest. This reporting from the Washington Post. Judy Patrick. So this goes to the Supreme Court to decide whether or not to take it up on their shadow docket. They may just pass and then the appeals court decision will stand. You know, when I was a journalist, I always thought that there were certain things I could advocate. And one of them was literacy. I thought that was a fair thing, you know, an American thing. The other thing was... voting, you know, to get as many people to vote as possible that that was safe territory for people, journalists to advocate for, because it's kind of the American way. And we look to states like Washington, I think, that had opened up its ability to vote. In New York State, it's kind of harder to register to vote. Every state does this. differently, and that is the way it has been set up that the states administer the elections. You know, as this has developed, I've looked at other countries, and not every country offers mail-in balloting, and they do make it more difficult. But the people in my life who do not have photo identification are many. And I... I believe that only citizens should vote. And, you know, this issue in Pennsylvania last week where the governor stepped up and said, we mistakenly registered 400 non-citizens to vote. I think that will be used as a political weapon by people who advocate for photo ID. I think the assault on this 2026 election is intense. And I... The idea that the Supreme Court would intervene with just, I think there's 98 days until this election, it seems like it would spark chaos in terms of voting. So I love the idea of the more people vote, the better as long as their citizens. I think we should work harder to register people to vote and to make more people, even those without photo ID, eligible to vote if they're citizens. So, Bob, I think also the point of what I read, too, is that we have rules that aren't really fully gelled yet that we're having the court decide on without really knowing what their full impact is. And the court does that.

once in a while, but I agree with Judy. I think they're going to pass on this because of legal precedent, but also because the logistics of this are just crazy. To have the post office come up with a list, to have the post office help, come up with a list of eligible voters in 90 days is extremely difficult. Add to that the fact that the stats people in Washington are down in numbers by about a third. So those are the people that would usually tally this and confirm with the states that their lists are accurate. The mechanics of this would be so overwhelming that I don't think the court would, let alone the legal grounds, I don't think the court would want to touch this because it's going to be a can of worms. Thetema. Well, you know, I'm... When I hear that this is what this administration wants to do, it doesn't shock me. Like, this is the lane that they're in, that they are engaged in massive voter suppression at every turn, right? So, like, as the saying goes, like, if you don't have a good platform, if you don't have policies that are going to move the people, instead you focus on trying to. suppress votes, rig the game, game the system, and then play on people's lack of knowledge and understanding and ignorance, right? Like, voter fraud is not a thing, right? You have a greater chance of being struck. by lightning literally have a greater chance of being struck by lightning than they're being voter fraud but they're playing into this right we have states where they broadly just vote by mail like places like Colorado and I think Oregon and so they're just trying to Rig it because what they're trying to present to the people from a policy perspective is just utter crap. But to me, when I hear about these kinds of things, what really gets under my skin and really irritates me is like, how many more of these things do we have to hear? Right. Like they've blown up the Voting Rights Act. There are states that are gerrymandering, redistricting, tried to pretend like it's based on politics when it's really just about race. and not wanting to have black people vote. How many of these things need to happen that are a broad attack, a direct attack on democracy, on our most basic right as citizens to engage in the political process? And people don't do anything about it. And that's the part that really bothers me. It's like, you know, this week, this is the thing. Next week, it's going to be something else. And yet... nothing's going to happen on a systematic, you know, strategic level, whether that be from the Democratic Party to try to have some sort of plan or strategy or people in their communities. I'm not trying to say that there aren't groups that aren't trying to fight this in court. You know, what's happening aren't trying to push back. But there's just a lot of like frog sitting in this low boiling pot of water. Larissa.

I just wanted to clarify, if Judy, if we're talking about the same thing, the citizens who are, the non-citizens who are registered to vote, I believe it was New Jersey, and it was over 6,000 non-citizens registered to vote. through a software glitch, 400 of them did vote. It was inconsequential. It was a general election. It didn't matter. But so I just wanted to clarify that. Interesting, you know. And of course, yes, I agree. There's no evidence of mass voter fraud or intentional fraud. But I would maintain that this is still an essential conversation, even though typically from this administration, it's filled with mayhem and chaos and just so many hijinks. But it is a part of the process. Like election integrity, faith in the election process is essential to democracy. We should be discussing it. We discussed it when we were worried about Russiagate, Russian interference. We discussed it when Trump was saying he wanted 10,000 extra votes. You know, it's an essential part of the process. It's a little prosaic. It's a little mundane. It's a little... procedural and kind of boring normally under normal circumstances, but it is an essential part of the process. And but I keep saying this, but it just strikes me, but it was essential part of the process until 2024 when Trump won. You mean it was a cent? Right. It's only when he loses that. Right. Then all hell breaks lose. Like nobody was calling for. Well, right. It's like I think that takes away. Doesn't that take away really the legitimacy of the argument that when you are going to, when you're going to fight this the hardest is when you're losing? Absolutely. Of course. But it's, I mean, Democrats still are concerned with this as, you know, when it comes up. It's we're, we should all be concerned with it. And we should be concerned with people having faith in the election process. And if this is what it takes for, you know, sunlight is the best disinfectant, you know, we should, we should know the facts. Well, that's true. Well, I don't know if somebody is the best disinfectant, but it's pretty good. I like, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's like, I don't know if it's going to take care of the. cyclospora, but you know, give it a shot. But I also think, too, that when we talk about election fraud, but in this particular case, we're looking at mail-in ballots. And what... And what does that count for, account for in the very few cases of fraud that we see? You mentioned the one in New Jersey. I'm just overall how. Which wasn't even fraud, to be clear. It was a glitch. It wasn't purposeful. And I agree that we need to have this be as transparent and as faith producing as possible. But we also want a participatory democracy. We do want as many people.

participating as possible. And mail-in ballots is one of the ways that you can assure that. I think the court is going to punt, and there are several reasons why I think the court's going to punt, but we have to remember that the last time the court weighed in on mail-in ballots, it decided to allow the counting to go on, beyond what the Trump administration wanted. And... When do you think their decision will come? Would have to come soon, right? I would imagine it would be fairly soon. You know, in New York State, we have county borders of elections, and they are the ones that regulate who gets to register to vote. And you have both a Democrat and a Republican chair of those that monitors that, that provides some mechanism for monitoring things. New York doesn't have same-day voter registration. Some states do. I was amazed in the last six months to hear about. what percentage of voters in California vote by mail and wait until the last minute to vote because things are constantly changing. It's state by state, it's different. And we've, as a federal government, we like the idea of letting states decide how they're going to run their elections. And to be sure, there will be some states, particularly those in the South, that will, you know, have more stringent requirements to register and to vote. We're going to take a break. We'll continue this discussion on the other side, and we welcome you panel at wamc.org. We'll come back right after this news break.

Good morning. Welcome back to the roundtable and to our panel discussion for this Tuesday morning. Bob Brigham, Fatta McGilliam, Judy Patrick, and Larissa Phillips. Does anyone else want to, I'm going to go to some letters, but does anybody else want to say anything about this going to the court? I just wanted to say something about in-person voting versus Malin because I know that the parties have kind of squared off, unfortunately, I think, and I agree. I understand the urge we want more people to vote. We want to make voter registration easy and we want to make voting easy. But I just still hold in-person voting as... the golden experience of democracy. Like, there's something really, like, sacred and beautiful about going into, like, the marketplace, basically, and casting your vote among your neighbors and community members who cast different votes than you. And I just think it's, like, the ideal experience, and I don't think voting should be as easy as writing a check, actually. Like, philosophically, kind of, like, I understand that the urge, you know, that we want people to vote, but at the same time, it is, it's special. It's unusual, and it should be... considered and treated as something special and unusual. Well, if you made it a national holiday where you had no work at all and you had to kind of prove your participation that would help along the way. I mean, the biggest block of voters that don't vote are 18 to 25. But their percentage of mail-in votes is among the highest, among with seniors. So you're going to do a trade-off there. If you do move to all in person, you're going to have to fundamentally alter the system and give people time off if you're going to do that. Right. When I was working... Yes. Go ahead. Fatima. Okay, I was going to say, you know, I've worked for, I've volunteered for many years for election protection as an attorney to help people gain access to the polls. I've monitored voting. I've watched the count happen. I've lived in other countries when they've had elections. I've lived in South Africa when they had election. I've lived in France a couple of times when they had, you know, presidential elections. I'm also somebody that wishes that in this country we did what Australia does, which is make it mandatory to vote, to have really high voter turnout. But, you know, to pick up on the thing that I was saying before, that this is a part of a larger plan for voter suppression. And for the people that are listening, right, because you might be thinking, like, what can I do? I'm just one person. And what can you do beyond just voting in this moment, right? When there is this broad attack on our democracy, this broad attack on your ability to vote, here are some things that you can do.

You know, one thing you can do is you can confirm that you're actually registered, right? If you've moved, then you need to update your registration, and there's a time frame in which you have to re-register before the election. You know, so you should do that and then actually go vote. You can call elected officials to tell them that this is an important issue for them and ask them, like, what are they personally doing to make sure that we can vote? You should stay informed. and then tell people in your circle, your neighbors, what's going on. Ask them if they're registered. You can donate to groups that are trying to protect voting rights. You can also register other people to vote. You can be one of the people standing in front of the supermarket with the clipboard trying to get people to register. Right? Or participate in other campaigns to get people to register and help others get whatever documents that they may need. Research what your own town may be doing. Research what New York is doing. Or if you're in, you know, Connecticut listing, Massachusetts, Vermont. Research what's happening so that you can be informed and keep an eye out for voter suppression because it isn't just something that's happening in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. And you can also organize voter registration and get out the vote campaigns and volunteer to be a poll watcher or work in the poll during the election. These are things that you can actually do today to protect your right to vote and that of your friends and neighbors. Can I add on to that? Because yes, those are beautiful, wonderful suggestions and so useful. And it does add to the question of like how easy should democracy be? You know, like, are we going for a frictionless experience of democracy? I don't think that's a, I don't think that's going to work. It is. It takes investment. It takes work. It takes volunteering. It takes being informed. It takes, I don't know. So I just always wonder about, it's almost like a philosophical question, like how easy should it be to be part of a democracy? Not surprising. It looks like Thomas Paine. Oh. No, go ahead. As I would say, you know, it's like Thomas Payne said, you know, those who want democracy must undergo the fatigues of supporting it, right? You have to be an active participant. But I do think for voting, I think it should be very easy. I feel like people should be able to do like same-day registration. I think we have way too many hurdles. And I think those hurdles are designed to make it so that people can't participate. But if people want a better society, then they have to raise their hand. and be boots on the ground to drive for that democracy. Lots of letters on this subject. We begin with Rick, who says the post office is extremely understaffed and can't get all the regular mail on a random Tuesday in July. It probably wouldn't be wise to task the post office with finding eligible voters. Kathy says, yes, there are many people who are so overwhelmed or apathetic to stand up against this administration. the frogs, but there are also many young and old, I'm 83, who stand out in the street every week to tremendous supportive honking, I would add. There are many groups working on many levels who stand in opposition, who organize and who register folks to vote and encourage them. I think it would be helpful to remind folks of the many opportunities to resist, and that is from Kathy.

NIL says, why do we need to be concerned with domestic voter fraud when it does not exist? I'm fine with more concern paid to outside influences like Russia or China or whatever country is behaving badly. But this is such an obvious ploy to keep voter numbers down by creating fear that it makes me crazy and it's just so disturbing. Tristan writes to us from Grafton and says, Good morning panel. Why don't Democrats embrace a national ID and insist that it be something issued free of charge by the federal government to all citizens? They can make it mandatory for voter registration, voting, and purchasing a firearm. I'm 61 years old and vaguely remember Democrats pushing for a national ID and Republicans pushing against it. When and why did that change? Yeah, a lot of countries have a national voter ID. Which without sounding deeply cynical, which sort of would indicate to you that maybe that's not the problem they're trying to solve. Right? Okay. Yeah. Well, even when we all had to go to that real ID, right, so that you can fly or do other things. Yes. There's still tons of people that have not gotten the real ID. And then in terms of the way that they're trying to structure it for identification to vote, it's I see it as a poll tax effectively, a de facto poll tax like it's the 1950s or something because, you know, you've got, you know, millions, millions of Americans don't even have IDs. I mean, there was one data point that I saw, like, in 2019, at least 17 million. Or, no, it was, let me not misspeak. But it's like... tens of millions of people, maybe 20 million, I can't remember the data point, that don't have IDs. And then there's the cost of the identification. So I'm only giving the making the point, like I don't have a general problem against there being some kind of like national ID system, but I'm talking about like IDs to vote. It's a hurdle. It's just another hurdle for people to be able to vote and participate in democracy. You know, I find like 10 million people don't have it and the rest can't find it. That's the other issue too. We got this from Sean. Why is gerrymandering considered okay if it's about politics? Why do we accept a system that allows any intentional tipping of the scales? Shouldn't the goal of elections be as accurate? to be as accurate a representation.

I'm just adding words now. Let's try that again. Why do we accept a system that allows any intentional tipping of the scales? Shouldn't the goal of elections to be as accurate a representation of the people as possible judge by as independent a body as possible? I know true neutrality is impossible, but that should be the goal, not just an acceptable level of bias. That from Sean. Then we go to Carrie. I've always wondered, does Trump truly, honestly believe he won the 2020 election, or is it just an act? Is it just meant to sow chaos and doubt? What do you think, panel? So the reporting on this is that initially he did concede that he internally that he had lost. But over time, he has come to convince himself that he did indeed win. The people around him. think that this belief is genuine on his part. But again, there were people early on in those first six weeks maybe after the election that, yeah, he conceded that, yeah, he did lose and he was annoyed by it. I mean, you saw the efforts he made to try to turn those votes in Georgia. So I think people can convince themselves of anything, especially if it's to their benefit. I don't know if he believes it, but Donald Trump is a performance artist, right? And every single day he's doing his best to get a daytime Emmy, a Tony Award, and an Oscar. So whether or not he believed it, I don't know if he does, but it's irrelevant because he's engaged in a dangerous game. And what he's trying to do is erode confidence in the system. so people check out and don't participate or let them put forth all of these rules and policies that place roadblocks in front of people's ability to participate in the franchise and vote. I found the data point that I was trying to say before, just for the people that are listening, that... you know, a data point from a couple years ago, but 29 million citizens, 29 million citizens don't have IDs. And that's 12% of the voting age citizen population. Why don't they have IDs and why isn't this a problem? Like it makes me think of those, like in the city you see these signs that say checks, cash, no ID needed, which I was thought were funny. Like how can you survive without an ID and why isn't this a big problem? Like why aren't we doing more to get people IDs? For some people, it could be a cost issue, right? And then you've got to compile all the documents and probably have to go from like one office, from one government office to another government office. Maybe you lost your Social Security card along the way and maybe you need to get that and compile all of these things that take days and time off from work.

to collect all of this documentation. You know, even if they had something like where you have to have, you know, prove your citizenship, depending on where you were, when you were born, like somebody like, I mean, my grandfather is now, you know, passed away, but when he was born, like, he never had a birth certificate. Right? He was born... Does that mean he just can never have an ID? Like, I feel like this should be an issue that we're addressing. No, he had an ID, but my point is, is like, some... There are a multitude of reasons. I don't know what all the reasons are. No, I'm not doubting that there are reasons. I just think this should be an issue that we address. Right, but I'm saying it's significant... It's got to be a significant and a hurdle to have nearly maybe 30 million... eligible voters that don't have identification. But there are other ways that people do, you know, identify themselves and other, like if you go get a library card, like, you know, maybe bring a bill, like your phone bill or something like that. I don't know all the answers at the moment for that. But to me, I'm less concerned about that, and I'm more concerned about the roadblocks. to people participating in democracy. And I feel like they get us talking about things like IDs, you know, the mail process, gerrymand. They want us to talk about all of these other things as opposed to the fact that it is an overarching strategy to distract us from a direct... threat to democracy. And that is the core topic on the table. That it is about not making, it's about making sure that people are not participating. that we do not have a system where people are voting and choosing who is going to represent us in elected office. And therefore, it's pulling people away from participating in shaping policy, in shaping rules and regulations that guide our society and create our social fabric. One letter before we take a break, this from John who says, Dear panel, as I build my arc, I thought of a great campaign for the DNC. Do an AI of the speaker in his blue suit and red tie, nervously adjusting the tie on stage. I'll tell you, we don't get any respect. Everyone is ripping us off. No one trusts us. No respect. No respect at all. The GOP and Rodney, the perfect image for the gang that couldn't shoot straight. Bunch of losers. That from John. We'll be right back after this.

Good morning. Welcome back to the roundtable and to our panel discussion this morning, nine minutes before the hour of 10 o'clock on this Tuesday, the 28th of July. We are talking about mail-in voting. We do have more letters, and I want to get to just a few of them because there are so many, and I want to respect. the people who have written in and to try to get to, we'll never get to all of them, but we can certainly get to a few, a few more before our break. Let's go to Joe, who says there is one and only one reason why the Republicans are pushing the so-called Save Act, and that is because Trump is still claiming to have won the 2020 election. This is the gaslighting of America plain and simple. All other arguments and factors are distraction from the fact that the Trump Republicans are pushing the big lie, just like the Nazis in Germany. did. But I think also what's interesting here is the Republicans who are not pushing this, who are not pushing the SAVE Act. And I think that has to be taken into account as well. We'll go to Andrew. He says, I know we all try to be polite and nice, especially amongst yourselves as you're sitting around this roundtable. But does it give you any talk? Little does he know? But does it give any of you pause that the voices at the table and around the country who want voters to have to show up at the poll booth where ICE and other forms of anti-democratic forces will be waiting for them? Also, in light of recent news where Donald Trump is withholding money is from states that were blue and supported his rival, it must occur to you that the Republican Party wants registered voters to be listed on a list so they know who the Democrats are and they can be punished. That from Andrew. Then... Martha? Really? A bucolic vision of gathering with neighbors to cast your vote? Hogwash! What about the understaff polling stations where people have to wait in line for three to four hours in the heat? Yes, it could be very hot in the south, even in November. And what about the people in the less populated states where I've heard the nearest polling station is 200 miles away? Really, get a grip on the actual facts of how many people in this country really vote. That from Martha in Connecticut. The...

enthusiastic reading my own. Jerry mandering and unhindered money is the subject line for another Martha's letter. No, same letter. I'll change. This one goes to Dan. We are so entitled that any additional effort to qualify to vote isn't in position. If they don't, see the theft of our personal stuff. We don't act. Then we go to Roger. Good morning panel. Great show, as usual. Voting day should be a national holiday, and employers pay for the day off as other often rotating holidays are scheduled for companies, health care, etc. That can not close. But for the person to be paid, they would have to bring a confirmed note that they actually voted. Also, make voting mandatory, with as I think they do in Australia. A nominal about $20 fine if one does not vote. Our turnout is abysmal compared to other countries, about 50% or a bit more. While most European and other democracies have turnouts 80% plus. Actually, I think it is less than 50%. I think often less than 50%. I think a lot of writers makes a good point. I mean, in many elections in this country, did not vote wins. And that's not the way you want a participatory democracy to run. Well, Peter disagrees with you. He says mandatory voting is a terrible idea. If someone isn't interested or informed enough to vote, requiring them to do so can accomplish nothing good. That from Peter. Then we go to Mike. Voting in person is good unless you have to stand in line for two or more hours, as has happened when voting places have been closed. Although I understand the flexibility that a national voting holiday might afford, says Daniel. I'd guess that many Americans would take that day off to spend it traveling somewhere, likely taking Monday to create a four-day weekend vacation rather than, you know, actually... voting. Our long weekends are intense travel holidays, also forcing people to accept the importance of voting by making them have to do it in person isn't necessarily the way to stress its importance. Education is the route to that end and whether voting is done in person or by mail its importance would be equally recognized. Also, I would say nobody says it has to be on Tuesday necessarily, but still I understand the point of the letter. We need, yes, we need more ID checks, condition on owning a gun. Look at Seattle this past weekend. Voter fraud is not anywhere near the same threat, that from Mary. Then we go to, oh, this one's dangerous, but I'm going to read it anyway. John says, hey, I'm curious. What's more expensive? Tattoos, cell phones, or ID cards. You can't, right? Can't look at it that way. We can't rank that. I don't think.

But I like the point. Melissa says, Beyond All the Obstacles already mentioned, remember that getting these documents, including the supporting documents, you need to get a license, et cetera, usually requires them to come in the mail to you. Many of these will only ship to your address on record. There are so many unhoused and housing insecure people in the U.S. who are then not able to receive these documents because they have no place they can be mailed to. This would be a major obstacle to add to the ones already in place, and that from Melissa. And then we go to... Ray, who says Trumpies don't care about ID at all. They want their hooks much deeper into voter rolls and elections. The voter ID piece is the icing on this cake, that from Ray. We thank you for your letters. We're going to move on to another topic upon our return. We're going to take a break, and we will meet back here in just a few moments after news from... WAMC. Who's doing news? Oh, it's Josh Landy's doing news. Hi, Josh. How are you? Josh Landies with news next on WAMC.

Good morning. Welcome back to the roundtable and to our panel discussion. Judy Patrick is here. We also have Larissa Phillips, Fatima Gilliam, and we welcome Bob. Hi, Bob. How are you? Welcome Bob Brigham to the show. And we had Robert on yesterday and Bob on today. I almost introduced the wrong panelist. I apologize. February 28th, soon after the war began on February 20th, President Trump declared that Iran was totally defeated and wants a deal. Then in March, Mr. Trump said that the U.S. military would wrap up its campaign against Iran in two weeks, maybe three. We will be leaving very, very soon. Now the conflict is entering its sixth month and a period of deep uncertainty. After nearly two weeks of attacks and counterattacks, Mr. Trump has held off a major escalation, but major issues between the two sides remain unsettled. An estimated 1,700 Iranian civilians have been killed in airstrikes, which have devastated Iran's infrastructure and deepened the country's economic crisis. 18 U.S. service members have died in the war, which the Pentagon estimates has cost over 37.5 billion. So... If you look at how the war has unfolded over the last several months, what you see in this account in the New York Times of what I was just reading about is so much of a back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, it's on, it's off, it's on, it's off, ceasefire, no ceasefire. We're going to call it a ceasefire, but it's not really a ceasefire. It's a truce. We're not going to take the straight. We're not going to take the straight. We're going to do this. So I have two questions. One is a journalistic question of when does, when you do the same thing over and over and over and over again, when does that stop being news? Oh, when we're dealing with it of war in Iran, when potential, when people are dying, I think it never stops being news. Yeah. I think it's important to cover the... So it shouldn't feel guilty that we're doing the story for the eighth time this week. But, you know, I think what I'm hungering for is more information or more discussion about how to move it forward in the press. I think there's a lot of talking to... politicians about and blaming people who should be blamed, of course. But what we're not seeing is as much hard data as I would like from the reporting class. And then it brings up a military question, which is, so where are we? And what is it? Here we are in six months that a lot longer than we, than the administration.

anticipated and got the public ready for. So how do you then... move things along because are they trying at this point? Yeah, I'm not sure you do move things along. I think that that's one of the reasons why there's not hard data on the reporting. I mean, this is the way asymmetrical war goes. When there is one power that has, you know, predominant power, the lesser powers chief weapon is time. And the Iranians understand this very clearly. They understand that Trump has to go out. on the stump and say, oh, we're having good talks. And then what they do is counter that the very next minute and say, we're not having talks at all. And this is the way asymmetrical conflicts are absolutely fought. The Iranians are trading almost anything for time. Time is their key to getting what they want, which is now greater control over the strait than they ever had before. And maybe. They end up with a better deal on their nukes than they had under the 2015 deal that Trump ripped up. I bet they do. I bet at the end of this, that's the only way out. You trade the straight for a nuclear deal that will allow civilian enrichment program to begin. But my guess is it won't end up being anywhere near as good as the 2015 deal that we already had. And Iran can play this long game because they can look out on the horizon and they can see that this is a very inexperienced administration when it comes to fighting asymmetrical warfare, perhaps the least amount of experience in history of modern warfare. They also understand that RTX, Rayathon, Lockheed Martin, they have a backlog to 2029. to fill stockpiles that have now been 50% depleted in this war. And Trump is saying he's going to put pressure on these companies to speed up production. You can't speed up production. It's in their best interest to get product to market, but they're private companies. And they have intellectual property rights that are involved. And so this is not going to be something that's going to go away overnight. I do think it's interesting that Volodymyr Zelensky is at the White House today for Lindsey Graham's funeral and for other things. and that now you as well, because they're also partners in this because a lot of the interceptors, Tomahawks and crews have gone to Ukraine. Taiwan is concerned that their safety net is depleted. Trump's got himself backed into a corner and I don't think there's a way out without giving Iran more than it had before the war started.

I'm interested in how you said I wanted to talk about how you said it was asymmetrical warfare. And I just kind of want to push into that a little bit. Like I don't know if it is so asymmetrical because they do have the great advantage of time. They have the Strait of Hormuz and they have the willingness to suffer. Well, asymmetrical warfare is always about kinetics who has more kinetic power. Time is not part of that. Right. But we can't use our kinetic power and we haven't because. popular opinion about the war and general ethics. I mean, we're not going to, you know, totally flatten the country despite Trump's occasional threats to do so. We're just not going to do that. And I would argue even that the on again, off again, the nature of how this is unfolded is better than if we were using all of our kinetic power. It's, it is like... Well, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. The nature of asymmetrical war is that the power always thinks it has that power, that kinetic power to use at its disposal. And the reality is there are enormous limits to that power that the lesser power can exploit to its advantage, one of them being time. But there's lots of other things. And I think from 1945, when we've entered a world of asymmetrical warfare, the superior power very rarely wins these long. duration, high intensity conflicts. And that's the lesson that we should take away from asymmetrical warfare. Yeah, then we're in agreement because I think we are sort of hamstrung right now. And that's the problem, like how do we get out of this? I also just want to make the point that I'm just always pushing this idea that this is not, in my opinion, in my view, Trump's creation. The last several administrations have been dealing with the threat of nuclear arms in the hands of the Iranians, and it's gotten to be a steeper and steeper slope. But the 2015 deal had Iran in a box. I think the problem was more their supportive proxies. But their nuclear capabilities, there were inspections, there was an agreement. It wasn't perfect, but it was a start. I think we're going to end up with something less. Well, the proxies were a big deal, the fact that they weren't being helped back. But that didn't have anything to do with the nuclear agreement, really. No, the JCPOA didn't include any kind of holding back of proxies. It also allowed them to continue building their ballistic missiles. And it was also really just a, it was just buying time. I mean, it wasn't a solution. It was just buying time. But ballistic missiles weren't. Ballistic missiles weren't the problem. The state has, you know, state capacity to manufacture ballistic missiles is not part of a nuclear agreement or is it part of a nuclear inspection. And, you know, those are two separate things. Fatima? You know, if I could, yes, I was going to say, you know, I think it's important to continue to keep an eye on what's happening in Iran and what's happening in the Middle East, right? Like we get, it's true that we, there's fatigue.

and then people want to look away or they move on or they're like, oh, is that thing still happening? Like, you know, there's the quote-unquote ceasefire in Gaza, but, like, people are still dying every day, and people think that's all. Here with Iran, we need to continue to keep an eye on it because, I mean, we're approaching $40 billion in cost, and that's just what they're willing to tell us at this point. And I see that this war is just a massive grift. You know, not just in terms of what we may try to financially leverage for the United States when we attacked a country that wasn't attacking us, but it's a grift for the Trump family, right? And Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, and they're monetizing this. And people, and definitely the oil companies are making a ton of money. But. We need to look at this and take this as an opportunity to evaluate relationships that we have, right? We are here partly because of the relationship that we have with just blind allegiance to Israel. And what does that do for our economy? What does that do for national security? I mean, I fear for what's going to happen for a chickens coming home to roost situation that may happen because we attacked a country that was not attacking us. And so we should discuss it so that we can apply pressure to politicians so that we pull away. Because there have been votes in Congress, and they haven't stopped this right when the president needs authorization to engage in war with the foreign nation. And I think people should think about this every time they get gasoline. Every time they hit a pothole, every time they pass a bridge that's crumbling, or they recognize that our health insurance system needs massive overhaul, or there's some problem with the education system, or they get sick from eating lettuce, right? We're not paying attention to the things that are happening. in our country. And we should apply that pressure so that we can then shift away from spending all of this money. And I will just add this last part, you know, Iran didn't have nuclear weapons, right? And we've been using this excuse decade after decade for them to come for them, claiming that they had nukes when they didn't have nukes. And now, boy, do they have a reason to want to have nukes. We created a reason for them to want to have nukes, not just because we, you know, ripped up the agreement that Obama negotiated, but because we're attacking them and then they're being attacked by Israel. And so from a national security perspective, from Iran's perspective, we now may have incentivized a country that didn't have nuclear weapons before to now want to have nuclear weapons. As we then...

toy with or advance opening the door possibly for Saudi Arabia to have a green light to have nuclear weapons. So we've put ourselves in a worse position, not just economically, not just in terms of giving Iran leverage to control the state of Hormuz and have a toll to go through that they didn't have before. But from our own national security perspective, and we need to exit stage left, even if it means we walk away like we did from Vietnam with our tail between our legs. You know, the danger today is that Benjamin Netanyahu is visiting. Trump's approach to things usually is to listen to the last person he's talked to. And I am concerned that there will be a reactivation of active war after today. Looking back, I tried to find parallels with other wars. And I think about Vietnam, even though we're not having the loss of life that we had in Vietnam, is it the same military-industrial complex that's benefiting? Or what was the reason we stuck with Vietnam? so long. Was it the hubris of our military complex? Who drove the conversation there and are there parallels or am I just way off? I don't think there's straight parallels. Is around another Vietnam? I don't think so. But there are some similarities and some of those similarities are this belief that American hard power is going to solve political problems alone. And here it's even more finite. It's American air power is going to solve political problems. And it just, there's not a history that shows that. Our bombing surveys from World War II show just the opposite. The bombing survey from Vietnam, the Jason Studies, the barrel roll studies, they also just the opposite. You're not going to bomb your way to your politics. I just wanted to go back to something Fatima said. I've never heard anyone saying that Iran actually had nuclear bombs. I haven't heard anyone say that. But I think it's widely acknowledged that they've been trying to build. They've been trying to enrich uranium in, I think it was 2002 under George Bush. The nuclear enrichment sites were revealed. And it was in response, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, to the Iran-Iraq war and the fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons. So I think it's a reality acknowledged across the political spectrum that Iran has been trying to build a nuclear program. Vladimir Putin? Well, what I was trying to say, I wasn't saying that they actually had weapons. What I'm saying is for decades, we keep complaining that they have them when they don't have them. And I think that's a false narrative that gets... you know, spewed by the United States. It's a false narrative that gets spewed by Israel that they, when they don't have the capability at the time. And we have the agreement in 2015 that we ripped up. And even right before this, they didn't have the capabilities. I'm just talking about how I believe that we make up reasons to come for Iran. And then in doing so, we put ourselves in a worse.

position or that becomes the catalyst for them to try to do the very thing that we claim that we don't want them to do. And we've now given them the biggest excuse for that. But this continual, continual, like, oh, they have weapons or they're going to have weapons or they have the capabilities for weapons, when they don't. And then they're surrounded or they're being attacked by countries that actually do have that capability. We have nuclear weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons, right? In their region, Pakistan, India has nuclear weapons. And we keep complaining about Iran and playing in their country. Like a lot of the things that people don't like about Iran right now, we created, right? We propped up the Shah, right? We went against Mossadegh. We were the catalyst for what happened in 79 and 80, when they had the hostage crisis at the embassy. That is all by our own making and design and nefarious participation. We need to stop trying to play empire in other people's backyards and mind our own business sometimes. And in not doing so, in this instance, now we have crazy high gas prices, right? Now maybe some people are going to lose their jobs because of the impact on the economy. Now we have exposed ourselves to a threat to national security by being an aggressor. in a place where we weren't attacked. Here in New York City, right? They're now burying one of the soldiers. that was killed in the Middle East in connection with this military exercise war that we are engaged in in the Middle East. And I think this is the opportunity to really say, why are we blindly following everything that Israel wants us to do in the region? Is that really in the best interest of the United States? Does that really make us safer? Does that really support our economy the way that we need it to? No, it does not. And so the only positive to me coming out of this terrible situation where we've killed a ton of people over there is for us to finally take a fair critical analysis. of our relationships in the region and what are we really trying to achieve in the long term and also refocus on the people here on the homeland and trying to make their lives better, more affordable, healthier, happier, and where we are all safe. Bob. Judy asked earlier, I mean, how does this end, essentially, and wire and throw more data points? I mean, I think Pete Hegseth's $67.5 billion request is really going to, for more supplemental funding for the Defense Department, I think that's going to have the rubber hit the road in a sense. In Vietnam,

What ultimately happened was that Nixon and Kissinger and Mel Laird rationalized that Vietnam was not in America's top national security priorities anymore. Volodymyr Zelensky visits today, Taiwan visits next week. America is not going to be able to meet its other commitments if it's going to pay $67.5 billion more dollars on top of the $38 billion. It's already spent in Iran. At some point, it stops being a national security priority, even for this administration, because you can't do all the things that you want to do. So, you know, I think the process itself might lead to reordering priorities. And there's talk of Cuba as well. And so there's other things that this administration wants to do. So maybe reality will come into play. And Molly. And Molly. And Molly. Do we know, we talked a little bit about that on the show, but not a lot about that on the show. How serious should we be taking that? I don't think serious yet. But you never know when this administration. I mean, the international system likes two things. Stability and predictability. This administration is neither. Right. When it comes to foreign policy. All right, we just have a few moments before we go to a break. We'll go to some letters and then we'll move on to other topics before we go to our, let's see.

Threatening to bomb them, says Barbara, and now bombing them only justifies the pursuit of enriching uranium for the purpose of building nukes. Is that true? Well, I think that was Fatima's point, that accelerated their interest in nuclear production. I think they have had an interest in nuclear weapons production all along. I think that's why you had to have a 2015 agreement. I'm not sure that you – I mean, I don't know. I don't know what Iranian internal politics would be. It wouldn't be the decision I would make because of resources. They're doing quite well playing the long game with really, in a sense, the weapons of the weak, the contact mines, you know, their short-range missiles. They're defending themselves in a way that's cost-effective when the United States is not. putting the pain that they want to put on, which is not cost effective. So I don't know what their decision, internal decision would be. Mitchell writes to us, says, I've been listening for decades, the last 10 Trumplican years. You've started the show saying good morning and then followed by two hours of terrifying reports of... premeditated, murderous, perverted schemes of the most vile, soulless ghouls assembled since the Nazis war, starvation, disease, corruption. On and on. Stop. No more. Then it's, have a great weekend. Exactly. How do we do that? That should be your show. How to end the reign of terror. How do we actually move on? That's that. Okay. I understand. Believe me. I understand. And then finally, we have this letter about...

Actually, I'm sorry. This is about voting. The current issue of voting is simple. Trump can legally run for president again. His obsession over, cannot legally run for president again. His obsession over voting has to do with this. Republicans will lose the midterms badly. If they base the election on their performance and the happiness of the electorate, they cannot win unless they somehow rig the next election. That from Jeff will pause there. We will come back with new topics and finish up our half hour together and do all of that right after this break and news from the BBC next. this morning. Allie the Piper is the music that we are playing and it's just great bagpipe music and Allie the Piper is going to be performing at the egg tomorrow night 730. You can go to the egg.org. I love that the egg is now fully embracing being an egg. They're just all in their marketing and they're rebranding. It's just the egg. And that is great. I love that. So theeg.org, theeg.org. We're talking to Paula Poundstone and she says, have I ever, have I performed? And I said, I don't know the answer to that. But it does seem to me if you. If you did, you'd remember it. And she said, oh, why? And I said, because it's an egg. It's a real, it's an egg. And she said, oh, okay. And, but anyway, 730 tomorrow night. Allie the Piper at the egg, you can find out more, the egg.org. And you can also go the playlist posted online at wamc.org slash roundtable. And that should be a very exciting event. And thanks to our friends at the egg. All right. Let's move on and go to other topics making news or should be of interest to us on this. Tuesday morning. I want to talk about, we talked about this yesterday. And it was fine. It was a good discussion. I liked it. But it just, it didn't feel right to me because Judy wasn't here. And so I want. I want to talk because there's really two issues. And the one issue that we talked about yesterday was the, the.

correspondence dinner and that took place on Friday night and the oddness of that event. But then also the separate question, which we talked less about, which I'd like to talk more about today, which is, should we keep on doing this? Is this necessary to keep this moving forward? The Washington Post has an article today Trump's fresh mocking of CNN, specifically CNN's Caitlin Susan Collins, who was a guest last night on John Stewart's Daily Show. It renews calls to end the correspondence dinner. The president posted a doctored image of CNN's Caitlin Susan Collins as the network's future and that of... of the correspondence dinner is in limbo. President Donald Trump escalated his attacks on the news media over the weekend following a blistering address of the rescheduled White House Correspondents Association dinner by posting an edited image mocking CNN's Caitlin Susan Collins, a personal jab leader amplified by an official White House social media account. Trump posted the edited image-to-truth social on Sunday, replacing transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney's face in a mock Bud Light advertisement with Susan Collins' and a nod to the beer brand's 23 partnership with Mulvaney, a campaign that triggered a right-wing boycott. Trump's broadside against the press inspired a new round of calls from media critics to end the dinner, arguing that the president's particularly contentious relationship with the news media exposes incongruities surrounding an event designed to honor reporting on the executive branch. Trump, who, after gunman, interrupted the initial dinner in April, had promised to deliver a speech of love. critiqued a litany of journalists in his address Friday night, including CNN anchors Anderson Cooper and Jake Tapper and the aforementioned Caitlin Susan Collins. But he... He really did focus his eye on the Chief White House correspondent, telling her to just smile and playing a common misogynistic trope, before likening her appearance to that of Mulvaney, a figure who has dominated the culture war headlines. Trump's personal attacks on reporters have been a defining feature of its combative style of politics since he came on the scene in 2015 during the... 2016 election campaign, he said then Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly had blood coming out of her wherever when she aggressively questioned him during a presidential debate. He also mocked Serge Kovaleski, am I right on that? A New York Times reporter with a disability. More recently, he referred to a female reporter as Piggy.

That from the Washington Post. There is more, but let's go to the question of, are we done with this event? I'm done with it. I've been done with it for a decade. But apparently they're already talking about next year's White House Correspondence Dinner. I hate the White House Correspondence Dinner. I especially hate. hated this year. Trump was more than rude, obnoxious. He was dangerous in his comments because, and he follows it up with actions. He's threatening, he threatened to sue the networks that didn't carry his, you know, speech a week ago. He threatened, had the FCC look and he sued networks. He's filed lawsuits against newspapers. He's subpoenaed reporters for just doing their job. So we hate, we, we do. not like inviting the president to come and just insult them. I'm also very angry at the reporters, the other journalists, the people who own those organizations for not standing up and walking out of the room, for not protesting, for not challenging the disparagement of our fellow journalists. Now, I don't like the White House correspondent, even under Biden, even under Obama. I just think it's wrong for reporters, working journalists, to schmooze with the people they cover. You know, they do it. It's supposed to be a celebration of the First Amendment. It's supposed to be to honor journalists. I love, that's fine. And to raise money for scholarships. But this thing has become a red carpet, glitzy event where they pretend to be celebrities. Oftentimes, the majority of people there are not even journalists. I went and looked at the White House Correspondents Association as a nonprofit. So I went and looked at the 990s, their tax form, to see how much money they actually raised for scholarships in this thing. It costs a million dollars to put on. And so it's $600,000 they get in tickets, another $400,000 they get for, like, add-on contributions. When you... subtract the costs of the event. The ultimate raising of money for scholarships is $28,000. It's like ridiculous. Have a luncheon. You know, we often think fun of journalists because they love to give. Have a coin drive for God's like. Yeah, you know, have a luncheon. You know, we give ourselves too many prizes as it is. Maybe it's just my bias because I never got that Pulitzer I wanted. But, you know, if you If you need to have a First Amendment celebration, do it. But don't do. This has gotten way, way, way too much, too non-on topic and too contentious. So let me come back real quick before I go to the rest of the group. But I do want to... You used the word dangerous. And it just seemed what he has done, what he is doing, and what he continues to do to Caitlin Susan Collins in particular, but to other journalists as well, is dangerous. It is because, and I'm sure they get spoofed. I'm sure they have death threats. And.

I always look to the people that run those organizations that own them, their editors, their supervisors, they too need to stand up. I think the New York Times has done this to some extent, but we all need to do it. We can't just let the New York Times carry this ball. Yeah, I had always understood, I mean, going back to college in my Kristi Noem Chomsky class that I took, you know, that the revolving door between the media and the politicians was really suspect and not a great idea. And so I always have looked at the correspondent's dinner with a little bit of suspicion. And I did notice in the article, it says the Times has long sent journalists to cover the event but does not let them attend as guests. And I wonder what other publications have made that distinction. So I feel that. On the other hand. Don't we need more congeniality? Like, you know, like we want the left and right, the bipartisan kind of softball games and dinner parties and, you know, train rides home and whatever. But I don't know. Does that apply at all to journalists and politicians? Need to be respectful. Your sources don't need to be your friends. You don't need to get invited to their weddings. Yeah, I agree. It's a conflict. Yeah, go ahead. The main thing is that, yeah, the main thing is it's a conflict. I mean, I agree that. This is too chummy-chummy. And I think it's because you have a group of people who are, like, thirsty for some kind of glitz and glam and their own red carpet moment, I guess, hoping that, or wanting to feel like they're at the Oscars or something like that. But, you know, we're talking about people whose job and profession is to criticize and hold accountable people with power and that are guiding. our legal system and our policies. And that becomes increasingly difficult if you're, you know, having a meal with them. If you're saying, you know, please pass the water and the rolls, right? And you're not going to be able to be as hard as you need to be. If those kinds of people become your friend circle, your acquaintances in this kind of way, it's very, very dangerous. But on a broader issue, you know, I also think this shows just like the weakness. that a lot of people in media have with wanting to appropriately criticize what Trump is doing and what this administration is doing, right? You've got these endless attacks on women, right? He mostly comes for marginalized groups. He comes for women. He comes for disabled people. He comes for black women. He comes for black people. And it's rare that you see across media them showing some unified...

solidarity in terms of walking out. You had the Pentagon situation where there was like a walkout. But for the most part, They've given this person so much deference. And then that just led to a broader erosion, not just in decorum, but in what we think is acceptable and what are appropriate relationships. And I'll also just, you know, add this in terms of these people that just take the insults. I mean, it's a good thing I'm not one of the people that he's like insulting in front of his face because, you know, it's like, don't step to me because I'm going to step back, right? Like he's just. saying these disgusting things to people, and I'm not saying they should say something like, you know, he calls them Piggy, and then they say, hey, back up like your hairline. I'm not saying they should say something like that, but there still needs to be more accountability, more solidarity, more pushback, and to do that, you can't be rubbing elbows. On the other hand. The White House Correspondence Dinner of 2015 gave us one of those rare, beautiful moments that will stay with us forever when Keegan Michael Key became Obama's anger translator. Yes. That was gold, just solid gold. And I don't know that you can't have one without the other, right? Yeah. I mean, the thing I keep, and I don't know how many people will get this reference, but. Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheep Dog. Does anybody know what I'm talking about? So the Looney Tunes, there was Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheep Dogg. And there's Ralph Wolf who looks exactly like Wiley Coyote. The difference is the color of the nose, which in this case is red. That's the only difference. And then there's Sam Sheep Dog. And they... They... go and at the beginning of the cartoon, they walk to the pen where they're mining the sheep. And morning Ralph, morning Sam, and there's a collegial relationship. Then they hit the time clock, they walk in, and then all hell breaks loose, and they're going after the... They go to war. And then it's predator and protector. And you can decide... which is which, however you want to look at it. And then at the end of the cartoon, after this, the whistle blows, and then they leave. And once again, there's collegiality and friendliness as they leave and say, see you tomorrow, Ralph. See you tomorrow, Sam. Classic. It strikes me for cartoons, Chuck Jay Jones, 1962, please watch them. I am fascinated by this because it seems what's, like that is a, that seems to be what maybe the design was of this, but we don't have the collegiality before or after.

And this comes at a time when trust in the media is diminished. And I think the average American looking at this, that does not build the trust in our reporters. to see them trying to get a picture with the president and to use it as their Christmas card, which I've seen. I think that chumminess does not translate into greater confidence into their non-biased reporting. And you get the stars of journalism to be there. And are they there because they want to be there? Are they there because their bosses made them be there? The time for this has come to an end, but it does not look like that's going to happen. But what about, I'd like to hear your opinion on this, what about if it just was separated from? the White House from the politics. I mean, there's nothing wrong with wanting to dress up and have like a ball and have a party. And the journalists should have a night to celebrate themselves. But what if it just wasn't connected to the White House? And then we could still have not only the event you mentioned, but remember Stephen Colbert? It was that 2012? Just absolutely brilliant when he just in character thanked the media for doing such a fantastic job at covering the Iraq War. So there could still be events. like that and roasting or whatever. Oh, yeah, I totally agree. I think that would be fine. Just get the politics out. Yeah, get the politics out of the dinner. Or maybe, or maybe instead of like all the suits and the flowers and the steak and that guy that just even when there were shots being fired, he just kept eating a salad. Maybe, maybe they could just give that money to the scholarship fund. Good idea. And maybe they could make more than $28,000. Because at any... The bailings don't work that way, right? They always wanted to be, like, at the Waldorf or Chippriani or wherever it's going to be. And these glitzy glam events, and it's true. It's like you look at how much was raised net, you know, for the underlying purpose versus how much the event costs. I'm not saying like before that there shouldn't be gala and that people shouldn't have a moment to celebrate. It's to me very dangerous the way that it's currently structured. where there's this blurring of the line, and then you're not able to hold people accountable, especially in a time when we need the media and journalists to be even more vigilant than ever in their careers for what is happening. And it's just, like I said before, it's just to me a sign of this broad erosion and sort of, you know, spineless, weak inability to criticize.

That's the lane that we're in, and more than anything, I want us to get out of that lane. We'll take a quick break, catch up, and finish up the program on the other side. We welcome you. Last Call for Letters, panel at wamc.org. We'll be right back. Good morning. Welcome back to the roundtable and to our panel discussion. Very nice to have you with. There's just a few minutes left. We have some letters regarding the correspondence dinner. I want to get to those. Edward writes, keep the dinner. Ditch the president. No reason for him, whomever that is, to be there. That from Denise, actually. Leah writes to us and says, Dear Panel, the way Trump speaks to journalists is stunning and infuriating to me when he treats... Members of the press, usually women, no surprise, with jaw-dropping disrespect, often within inches of their face, insulting anything he can get his revolting mitts on. Their performance is journalists, their intelligence, even their appearance, as we saw and heard with the quiet piggy comment he made to report her Catherine Lucy. Nothing happens. Zero. I understand that the protocol for journalists is to remain nonplussed and professional ignoring the disrespect completely, but isn't Trump's behavior crossing a serious line? Is there really nothing we can do? Sheesh, says Leah. lines been crossed it's true and again the supervisors the editors the producers the owners of the company need to get on the phone and and complain to the press secretary they i mean they need to stand up i'm not sure that that's not happening but um and the best weapon you have is to talk about it on the air and that happened and that's happening here as well but i don't know how much good it does this this man is not going to change his uh demeanor or his approach to women. I should say that he mostly attacks women. He did, however, recently accused David Sanger, the White House correspondent who covers, you know, international affair. He accused him of treason, so he can go anywhere with this. One accused Jonathan Carl, of the White House Correspondents Association, of ruining the, helping to ruin the reflecting pool. We go to... They're not going to criticize them when you have this massive media consolidation, right? And you have companies like ABC and, you know, that effectively entered into these, quote-unquote, settlement, a.k.a. bribes with the president. Or you have these mega-mergers, Paramount, Singe, Tango, whatever it is, all these major media companies that want...

to want to merge, so they want to be on the president's good side. And then there are the messages happening internally within these organizations to not go hard with the president. I wonder if that merger doesn't have something to do with this as well. You know, the courts now have paused the merger for a year. It's going to cost, Ellison, about $2 billion. Part of that was to include the purchase of CNN. So I wonder if there's a little undercurrent. of Trump's particular attachment to CNN reporters here. Well, I'm sure. And also, and now we just sort of see, we don't sort of, we see this whole deal on hold and after state's attorney generals have filed suit. And so to see where this goes now will be really interesting. And not only. nationally, but internationally. Yeah, that tick clause in that contract is going to cost him, you know, about $2 billion for this delay. That's significant. Yes. Edward writes, so many people have taken up residence in the head of this distortion of a man. He is truly the antithesis of what it means to be an adult and to be a mature human being. We go to Nick, who says, sensationalist is the new political party name on ballots. I blame TV and video games, especially. Let's all breathe. Love will prevail. The rock in space that we live on just keeps floating.

Okay. And I got this note, too, and I got it from a couple of people. I didn't fact check it, and I should have, but I didn't. But we got two people from it, but we got two people from it, and it's, but I think it's accurate, which is Allie the Piper, who we're playing, is apparently from Colony. is a local person. So that's wonderful. Wow. I'm going to be playing the egg. And that is very cool. So thank you very much for letting us know that. Cheers for featuring a local Piper Joe and that from Dan. Well, we are out of time. My thanks to everyone who took part in this exercise. And I appreciate you being here as always. Thanks to our panelists. Judy Patrick, Fatima Gilliam, Larissa Phillips, Bob Brigham, thank you so much for being here. It's a delight to have you as always. Thanks for having it's true. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We will continue. We have a whole other hour of stuff. We'll talk about an event coming up at Tanglewood called February 1933 as well as book picks. All of that and much more coming up at the next hour of the roundtable.