GET REAL! - January 31st, 2026

Summary

Podcast Summary: GET REAL! - January 31st, 2026

Podcast: Real America’s Voice
Host: David DeRozier (Publisher, RealClear Media Group)
Guests:

• Alan Dershowitz (Famed Attorney, Constitutional Scholar)
• John Yoo (Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Law Professor)
• Tom Homan (Former Acting Director of ICE)
• Ingrid Jacques (Columnist, USA Today)
• Carl Cannon (Washington Bureau Chief, RealClear Politics)
• Kenan Spivak (SMI Group Chairman, Author)
• Joel Kotkin (Futurist, Demographer, Author)
  Air Date: January 31, 2026
  Episode Theme: Polarized America — Protest, Free Speech, and the Immigration Crisis

---

Episode Overview

The premiere episode dives into recent unrest in Minnesota following controversial ICE actions, examining the American tradition of free speech amid crisis and the challenge of finding common ground in a sharply divided nation. Through robust dialogue featuring top legal and media voices, the episode seeks to expose viewpoint diversity, challenge simplistic “two sides” narratives, and illuminate nuanced truths regarding policing, protest, media bias, and immigration.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Challenging the “Two Sides” Narrative (03:48–07:06)

Host David DeRozier opens by emphasizing the show’s goal: real, nuanced debate exposing listeners to diverse viewpoints.

• Alan Dershowitz challenges the binary framing:

  • “I want to challenge you. I don't think that you correctly stated the issue when you stated that there are two sides to every issue. That's been the problem. There have been two sides to issues that require nuance and calibration and multiple sides.” [04:38]
  • Argues that legal, media, and historic truths differ and issues aren’t as “bipolar” as cable news suggests.

• John Yoo highlights difficulty of clear-cut answers in protests and legal cases:

  • “You have a right to protest… but when they go beyond that to where they're obstructing federal officials, then they've stepped over the line.” [12:00]
  • Complex decisions should be decided by juries, not instant public judgment.

---

2. Free Speech and Its Limits in Protest (07:17–10:42, 18:25–23:25)

• Dershowitz on American exceptionalism in free speech:

  • "We are the only country... that permits free speech, that advocates violence, that encourages violence, as long as it doesn't incite immediate violence...” [08:47]
  • Warns against compromising First Amendment protections for expediency.

• FACE Act & Don Lemon Case:

  • Both Dershowitz and Yoo express skepticism about prosecuting journalists under protest-related statutes (the FACE Act).
  • “I think you resolve doubts in favor of journalists.” (Dershowitz on Don Lemon’s case) [18:25]
  • Yoo draws a civil rights analogy: “Dr. King and the civil rights leaders… wanted to be arrested and go to prison under the law to just show that the law itself was unjust…” [21:30]
  • Both agree: free speech cannot include disrupting religious worship and should not shield direct lawbreaking.

---

3. Academia & Media Bias (13:49–16:06)

• Dershowitz laments lack of diversity of thought among academics:
  • “Academics are among the worst people who immediately jump to hard left conclusions... before looking at the evidence. It’s so disappointing… we see a complete skewing of academic freedom in favor of one side.” [13:49]

---

4. National Policy, Law Enforcement, and Civil Unrest (26:58–35:00)

• Tom Homan underscores ICE's mandate:
  • “For the people out there who don’t like what ICE is doing. If you want certain laws reformed, then take it up with Congress… They're enforcing laws enacted by Congress and signed by president.” [26:58]
  • Denounces violence but insists ICE operates under longstanding legal frameworks.

---

5. Panel: Political, Cultural, and Policy Perspectives

Ingrid Jacques (29:25–31:24)

• Criticism of political rhetoric inflaming tensions:
  • Cites Governor Walz comparing ICE to Nazi tactics; warns leaders’ language encourages dangerous moral polarization.
  • “I just think it’s dangerous… And people you would expect to uphold the law…” [29:25]

Joel Kotkin (31:35–33:50)

• Critiques both left and right:
  • “Many of these people clearly live in an alternative reality… There's quite a bit of blame to be assigned to the administration. The rhetoric… the administration went too far.”
  • “Comparisons with the Holocaust… are incredibly offensive.” [33:25]

Kenan Spivak (34:17–37:19)

• Frames the border issue as a strategic, partisan effort:
  • “The decision that was made in the Biden administration was this globalist decision that we shouldn’t have borders.”
  • Asserts immigration policy is designed to shift culture and electoral math.

Carl Cannon (37:34–40:20)

• Decries failures of political leadership and communication:
  • “The presidency is a communications job… Trump hasn’t laid out the case…”
  • Blames both administrations for lack of clarity and national dialogue.

---

6. Public Opinion and Shifting Political Winds (40:48–46:10)

• DeRozier reveals polling:
  • 59% of Americans think ICE is too aggressive; only 45% approve of the president’s immigration handling. [40:48]
• Panel Analysis:
  • Jacques: Trump must focus on border security and violent offenders to regain trust.
  • Cannon: Discontent runs deep with both parties; Americans dislike both the status quo and recent excesses.
  • Spivak: The swing 40% of voters’ views are “in flux,” posing risk to both parties.
  • Kotkin: Latinos, key future electorate, are alienated by current policies and rhetoric.

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• Dershowitz: “The Supreme Court has correctly said that there’s a strong presumption in favor of free speech even when it’s wrong.” [08:47]
• Yoo: “It’s easy to say, oh, I can see a video on cable TV and immediately make up your mind. But in a real trial… it’s a much harder… more nuanced problem.” [12:50]
• Kotkin: “Comparisons with the Holocaust… are incredibly offensive. My mother in law is a survivor... nothing remotely close to what's happening.” [33:25]
• Homan: “ICE is not making this up. They're enforcing laws enacted by Congress and signed by the president. The same laws [have] been on the books for the last six presidents I worked for.” [27:53]

---

Panel Predictions & Closing (46:42–49:47)

• DeRozier: “Hopefully... Minnesota will be calmer... and we’ll figure out really what drove us, our grid and its integrity over this kind of cold snap. And we should say something nice about coal and natural gas next week.” [47:00]
• Ingrid Jacques (Humorous): “Bad Bunny will wear a dress to the Super Bowl.” [47:21]
• Kotkin: “Most important... is what’s going to happen in Iran. Next week, we may be talking about that more than anything else.” [48:29]

---

Summary Takeaways

• The episode models civil disagreement grounded in facts with an emphasis on digging beneath surface narratives.
• Both legal scholars and journalists emphasize the rarity and necessity of protecting nuance—both in law and public debate.
• Panelists widely criticize current political rhetoric and leadership for amplifying division and failing to propose workable solutions.
• Immigration, free speech, and protest are flashpoints not just for policy, but for American identity, institutional legitimacy, and democratic practice.
• The show aims to counteract tribalism and quick judgments by modeling in-depth discourse with viewpoint diversity.

---

Transcript

[Podcast Announcer]

This is an iHeart podcast.

[Public Investing Platform Sponsor]

Guaranteed Human support for the show comes from Public, the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On Public, you can build a multi asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, options, crypto and now generated assets which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index with AI. It all starts with your prompt. From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue over 20% year over year, you can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds a one of a kind index and lets you back test it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like ETFs with infinite possibilities, completely customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's. Go to public.com podcast and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com podcast paid for by Public Investing Brokerage Services by Open to the Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC Advisory services by Public Advisors llc. SEC Registered Advisor. Generated Assets is an interactive analysis tool. Output is for informational purposes only and is not an investment recommendation or advice. Complete disclosures available at public.com/disclosures.

[Show Narrator]

In America, we don't cancel ideas, we put them to the test.

[David DeRozier]

ICE involves shooting out of Minneapolis.

[Show Narrator]

The left sees the world one way.

[Ingrid Jacques]

What we saw today is a murder.

[Show Narrator]

The right sees it another.

[Ingrid Jacques]

It was an act of domestic terrorism.

[Show Narrator]

And when those views collide, things get real. From real America's voice and real clear politics comes a show that pushes bias aside in the search for truth. Two sides, one stage, one question, the center of it all. Where is the truth? This is Get Real with your host, David derozers, and it starts right now.

[David DeRozier]

Welcome to the premiere episode of Get Real. I'm David derozier, the publisher of the Real Clear Media Group. Welcome and thank you for joining us. Our goal for this show is to Get Real, a show that reflects the bipolarity of the American mind. RealClear's method is viewpoint diversity. And viewpoint diversity is when you're exposed to both sides, right? And if you come to our site, that's what you'll see. You see two rival authorities from different outlets saying the opposite thing about the same reality. And we think that it's important to actually think outside one's tribe, to read what other people are not reading. And what I'd like to do in this show is to kind of show you what that looks like on a screen. First, let's move into the week that was right. Looking at what was going on in Minnesota, you had a sense that we were fast approaching a Fort Sumter moment. Was the match strike that started the Civil War not a good 250th birthday present? You know, it started with the death of Daniel Petty, which was bad tv, you know, a much different sport from the good shooting, which was not good either. We had a side that neither side would blink, that the protesters were pushing Stephen Miller to ask the boss for the nuclear option, and that they would dust off the Insurrection Act. That didn't happen, thank God. Instead, Tom Holman shows up, talking and bringing calm. We start with my two favorite lawyers today, each known in their own lane for pushing the limits. Famed attorney Alan Dershowitz and former Deputy Assistant attorney John Yoo. John is a leading expert in the limits and possibility of state power. He's famous, or better infamous, for being the author of the Bush administration's Enhanced Interrogation Memo. And he has recently argued that the Supreme Court should shut down Trump's expansive use of tatters. Welcome, both of you.

[Carl Cannon]

Thanks for having me, David.

[David DeRozier]

Alan, I'm kind of interested in your read on what's happening in Minnesota. You know, from my perspective. You know, I grew up in the age of Dershowitz, right? When I was, you know, when I came of age, I was reading you to understand what the First Amendment was. And you've been a constant through time, unlike the aclu. But it's like, I'd be very interested in your read of really. I think we've been seeing a new Rules for Radicals, a new playbook, a 2.0 of what's happening and what can happen. And the real question that I'd like to put in front of you to start this conversation is how much of what we're seeing, you know, by protesters really doesn't fit within the parameters of the free speech in any way?

[Alan Dershowitz]

Well, let me start by, in a way, just adopting what your show is all about. Challenge. I want to challenge you. I don't think that you correctly stated the issue when you stated that there are two sides to every issue. That's been the problem. There have been two sides to issues that require nuance and calibration and multiple sides. For example, in Minnesota, the radicals on one side were calling it murder, murder. Both of the shootings, murder. On the other side, you know, they were saying, no, these are terrorists who were appropriately shot. And there was almost no room in either of the shootings for a calibrated middle ground that would say, look, the shooting in retrospect were unjustified. But you have to put yourself in the position of the person who was standing in front of the car, who had previously been run over by some protester, and who honestly, if mistakenly, believed that he would once again be run over. That doesn't look like murder, but it may look like negligence. Let's think hard about these cases and in terms of nuanced third, fourth and fifth level approaches, rather than watching CNN and Fox as if you're watching two different universes in two different worlds. So my challenge is to the concept of bipolarity, that there are two sides to issues. I think when it comes to issues of the kind that we're seeing in Minneapolis, the truth lies somewhere in between the two sides and requires a nuanced approach. Now, the law isn't usually so good at creating nuance. It too, creates sometimes categories that don't reflect human nature. But I think the people on this show, particularly our current guests, who I admire enormously, understands nuance, and his views, for example, on torture, which were somewhat different from my own views, both reflected real nuance rather than the extreme positions that were being advocated on both sides.

[David DeRozier]

John, I mean, let me ask Alan a question again. So how would you describe that common ground, that truth that we should. We should start our conversation with?

[Alan Dershowitz]

Well, first of all, we have to acknowledge that there are many kinds of truths. There are the truths that are established in courts of law. And the adversary system is not designed to produce truth. If it were designed to produce truth, it wouldn't have exclusionary rules, it wouldn't have privileges. It wouldn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt or proofs by clear and convincing evidence. It would adopt the scientific method. So we have legal truth on the one hand, then we have media truth that, you know, if it bleeds, it leads. And ultimately we have historic truth. And historic truth sometimes requires us to step back a little bit, look in context, and the historians can write a kind of nuanced approach to what was going on in Minnesota and what is going on in other parts of the country as well, seeing rights and wrongs on both sides, that's what I try to specialize in, that middle ground of nuanced truth.

[David DeRozier]

But when you look at what's happening, the truth that I'd like to get to the heart of is, you know, what is free speech? And how do you. How does one exercise that responsibly to show protest? And I've just been amazed where I'm just seeing a range of activities that, you know, it's not just. You see legal observers that aren't observing. They're participating. You see Canavans driving around and getting in the way of police activity.

[Alan Dershowitz]

But I agree. And remember, too, that the Supreme Court has correctly said that there's a strong presumption in favor of free speech even when it's wrong. So that we are the only country on the face of the earth that permits free speech, that advocates violence, that encourages violence, as long as it doesn't incite immediate violence. So we clearly err on the side of permitting violence instead in order not to censor and prohibit speech. And so I don't want to compromise that. I do think that there are areas, and I'm deeply involved in one of them. New York Times vs. Sullivan and the extreme license that the media today has to deliberately, willfully lie about public figures, we can put that aside for the moment. But in areas like what's going on in Minneapolis, we ought to err clearly on the side of permitting protest, free speech regarding Don Lemon, even though he may be partly an agitator and partly a journalist, err on the side of regarding him as a journalist so he can report the truth. So for me, the presumption is always in favor of free speech and always against convicting people based on evidence that leaves reasonable doubts about the intent or the facts of the case.

[David DeRozier]

John, what advice would you give to Minnesota Waltz and Fry, as well as the Holman on how they can kind of, you know, bring. Bring calm and peace and play within the. In the rules of the game, not only the First Amendment, but this idea that it seems like we're just heading towards a match strike where, you know, the Insurrection act could be applied.

[Podcast Announcer]

David, first, thanks for inviting me, and it's really great to be on this podcast with Alan. Like you, I grew up in the age of Dershowitz, but the age of Dershowitz is not over. Clearly, we are still living in the age of Dershowitz, and it's great that we can have this conversation to figure out with him and the rest of us. He can lead us and think about how we balance two different, competing priorities. And I think of it very much the way Alan does. First thing, to answer your question, what I would say to both the Minnesota officials and federal officials is that, as Alan described, we are balancing two competing, I think, legal impulses. And what you saw with the shootings, what you saw with the arrests is how does our society reach the balance? On one side is, I think everyone would agree the federal government has the legitimate Authority to enforce federal law. The immigration laws are federal law. They've been passed by Congress. The courts have said they're constitutional. The federal government under the Constitution has the right under the summary premise clause to carry them out. Arguments that you hear by opponents that in some way state officials or private people are allowed to impede the execution of federal law. I'm sorry. Those echo the arguments that southern governors made to defense segregation after Brown versus Board of Education. But on the other side, as Alan emphasized, people have a right to protest. People have a free speech right to make known there disagreement with federal policies. That's how we decide what we believe and that's how we make decisions ultimately about elections. And so what you see in these confrontations is people who are exercising the first amendment rights up to a point, but when they go beyond that to where they're obstructing federal officials, then they've stepped over the line. And all these cases we've seen about these shootings, it's a hard question, where is that line in terms of what these people did? Were the officers acting reasonably under all the circumstances as it was known to them at that time? Usually this is such a hard question. We ask juries to decide. This is where Alan is the expert. We go to criminal trials and we ask a jury of people from the community to decide whether ultimately that use of force was appropriate, whether it was reasonable. Because it is such a hard decision. It's easy to say, oh, I can see a video here, I can see a video there on cable TV and immediately make up your mind. But in a real trial, we'll have all the forensic evidence of all the videos from all the angles. And I bet it is a much harder and as Alan said, much more nuanced problem than what you're going to see from people on both sides who are immediately out there in front of the cameras and microphones rendering judgment in the first 30 minutes after the shootings happened.

[David DeRozier]

So what I agree when I'm hearing.

[Alan Dershowitz]

Go ahead, because John and I are both academics, that you don't get this kind of nuanced debate today in academia, academics are among the worst people who immediately jump to hard left conclusions that support their narrative and their ideology before looking at the evidence. It's so disappointing to see professors all over the country use words like murder in order to describe the shootings. In those cases, they know better. And fortunately there are a few people at American universities. John is one of them. There is, there are one or two at Yale. I don't think There are one or two at Harvard right now, but who are prepared to go against the kind of academic consensus. Jeb Rubenfeld at Yale is one, but you can count them. You look at Yale, for example. Today they did a study and they found not a single professor in all of Yale University where I went, not a single professor contributed money to Republicans. The vast majority of them contributed money to Democrats. I don't care. You contribute money to. But when you introduce that into the classroom, as I think so many professors do, we see a complete skewing of academic freedom in favor of one side and against the other. Recently, for example, the rector at the University of Ghent in Europe said that nobody who denies that Israel commits genocide is entitled to academic freedom. You lose your academic freedom if you take that position. And we would see the same thing with these shootings. I think if a professor dared to get up and give a lecture and say, look, I've looked at all the evidence and there is no real proof of murder, but maybe some reasonable disagreement about whether the act should have occurred, I think that professor would have protests today. And most of the professors don't want protests. They don't want to be in the position that John and I are in, having so many of our colleagues criticize us as kind of stooges of the right.

[David DeRozier]

Well, thanks, Al. Thanks, John. If you just stand by, we'll get back. We're just going to do some commercials.

[Show Narrator]

Don't go anywhere. We'll be right back with more.

[Public Investing Platform Sponsor]

Support for the show comes from Public, the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On Public, you can build a multi asset portfolio of stock, stocks, bonds, options, crypto and now generated assets which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index. With AI, it all starts with your prompt. From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue over 20% year over year. You can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds a one of a kind index and lets you back test it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like ETFs with infinite possibilities, completely customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's. Go to public public.com podcast and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com podcast paid for by Public Investing Brokerage Services by Open to the Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC Advisory services by Public Advisors llc, SEC Registered Advisor. Generated Assets is an interactive analysis Tool output is for informational purposes only and is not an investment recommendation or advice. Complete Disclosures available at public.comDisclosures welcome back.

[Show Narrator]

To Get Real, brought to you by Real Clear Politics and Real America's Voice.

[David DeRozier]

Welcome back to Get Real on Real America's Voice. I'm David derocha, publisher of the Real Clear Media Group. We're here to cut through the noise and get to the news. I'm joined by two of America's most esteemed attorneys, Alan Dershowitz and John Yoo. Welcome back. If we could return to where we ended off, I'd like to. You mentioned Don Lemon, and you know, Don Lemon is now being charged with. I believe it's the Face Act. Right. You know, I'm surprised he's being charged because he is a reporter. But might you tell us a little bit, Alan, about the Face act and how this applies and whether or not you think it's a good piece of legislation?

[Alan Dershowitz]

I have problems with it. I have problems with it's applying to Don Levin. Look, I know Don. I was on his show many times before I was banned by CNN and before he was thrown off cnn. So we both have that in common. I think you resolve doubts in favor of journalists. Now, look, it's abused. In Gaza, for example, it's claimed that many journalists have been killed by Israel. Yeah, they were Hamas operatives who were wearing journalist jackets to give them protection as journalists. But some of them were carrying guns. Others were providing information to Hamas. We don't know what Don's status was, and maybe it was a mixed status. Maybe he had sympathetic views toward the protesters and he went in there to give them the benefit of his reporting. That's. That doesn't disqualify him from being a journalist. So in the end, I don't think this prosecution of Don Lemon is going to succeed unless there are facts that I'm really unaware of.

[Kenan Spivak]

As he.

[David DeRozier]

Has he called you. Are you. No.

[Alan Dershowitz]

He has a very good lawyer. He has Abby Lowell, who's been extraordinarily successful, and I've worked with. With Abby on a number of cases over the years. And Abby's the right lawyer for this because he has good connections within the Justice Department, and he's a. He's a brilliant lawyer. But I really interested in John's views on this because he is such a. An expert on these issues and on freedom of speech. So I'm curious whether he thinks Don Lemon is a journalist or is an agitator or both.

[David DeRozier]

Please don't.

[Podcast Announcer]

Of course I don't want to ever say I know more about the First Amendment than Alan. I mean, Alan not only knows a lot about the First Amendment, but he's been there litigating the real cases that get up to the Supreme Court. I just hope if I ever appear in the Supreme Court courtroom, I'm just not a criminal defendant there. Alan's a real lawyer arguing there.

[Alan Dershowitz]

Yeah.

[Podcast Announcer]

So this is, again, it's just like what Al talked about in the first segment here. Again, we have a conflict between different priorities, and we need to really think with a lot of nuance and care about how to resolve it. On the one hand, you do have the right of people in churches to exercise their freedom of religion and the FACE Act. There's still a lot of constitutional arguments about whether the FACE act actually falls properly within the First Amendment. Where does the Congress, for example, get the power to pass something like the FACE Act? But in general, these are people who want to hold a religious exercise, and you can't allow people who just want to come in and disrupt the exercise. That's a violation of their freedom of religion. On the other hand, as Alan says here, you have an individual who is exercising the right of freedom of press. Now, maybe in some kind of proceeding, you could dig in deeper into whether Don Lemon should be covered by the First Amendment. Is he really legitimately there as a member of the press? It seemed to me he was. It seemed to me he was following along. It doesn't seem to me, from what I've seen, that he was co conspiring to actually violate the laws. But then I also want to point out, and maybe recall us to, I think, the outstanding moments of the civil rights movement. If people like Don Lemon or people who are with him think that what's going on in that church is unjust, if they want to, I think recall the image of Dr. Martin Luther King in the civil rights movement. Dr. Martin Luther King and the civil rights leaders, they were arrested to show that the laws were unjust, but they didn't suddenly say, okay, arrest me and then let me out because I'm engaging in protected exercise which even allows me to disrupt religion, religious worship. Instead, they wanted to be arrested and go to prison under the law to just show that the law itself was unjust or being applied in an unjust manner. So it might be the case that really, if Don Lemon and his friends think that the churches were in some way being used, I guess. I guess the argument would be it's being used as some kind of COVID for unjust activity they should actually want to go to jail. And one thing that Alan mentioned, it caused me to think about this in a way. I've been in New York City, and I've seen these terrible protests by people for Hamas outside of synagogues. When I saw them just walking on the street, I was astounded. I couldn't believe it. I would not want the law to allow Hamas supporters to be able to break into a synagogue and disrupt worship services. I think the law should prevent that from happening. I don't think people's right to exercise in free speech should give them the right to actually disrupt other people's peaceful exercise of the freedom of religion.

[Alan Dershowitz]

I agree completely. By the way, it was my synagogue, the synagogue I go to, called park east, with a great rabbi with a great history of commitment to civil rights and free speech that Hamas supporters were. Were protesting. And the mayor of New York waited too long to condemn it. I agree with you. When you have a clash, and that clash was evident in New York, and. And by the way, I love your analogy, John, to what happened in the South. I was in the south in the 19, early 1960s. I was there as part of the movement against desegregation. That's how old I am. And I do remember, of course, Governor Wallace and other governors claiming, quoting Calhoun and even quoting some of Jefferson's writings, saying the states have the right to determine whether we're gonna desegregate the schools. And how dare President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, President Johnson send federal troops down to enforce. And, you know, it's hard for a lot of people to analogize that to what's going on. But the Constitution doesn't distinguish between protests we agree with and protests we disagree with. So we have to think of it as if it were, again, Southern efforts to prevent desegregation, which has the same constitutional standing as would occur when we have now state efforts to try to prevent the enforcement of. Of legitimate immigration laws that are being enforced. Perhaps some people think too vigorously and too unselectively against illegal, illegally people who are here illegally now. So looking at analogies like that, which John looked at very, very intelligently, is, I think, very helpful in analyzing the constitutional issues.

[David DeRozier]

Well, thank you, Alan. Thank you, John. I would want to announce for the viewers that Alan is receiving a prize from RealClearPolitics called Our Samasta Prize on February 11, and it's going to be at breakers in the Palm Beach. I hope if you're down this way that you can. You can come. And, John, I'll send you a comp ticket. You're welcome to come as well.

[Podcast Announcer]

Congratulations, Alan. It's well deserved. I mean, Alan and I have agreed, we've disagreed over the decades, but I really admire him as a, he really is a small.

[David DeRozier]

I think we found the truth between the two of you that there was a difference between you of degree and not kind. And that's, that's what we're trying to get, get to with this show.

[Alan Dershowitz]

And thank you both nation for John Yu. He's been a phenomenal spokesman for decency and, and truth and balance. Want to hear something interesting, though? I'm getting the award at the Breakers Hotel. The breakers hotel until the 1960s didn't.

[Podcast Announcer]

Allow Jews, I was about to say.

[Alan Dershowitz]

And so now accepting an award, it's very symbolic. Yeah, I couldn't have even gone to as a guest.

[David DeRozier]

I was, I was there recently. You're well represented. The tribe is doing well. Thank you very much. I appreciate both of you.

[Podcast Announcer]

Thank you.

[David DeRozier]

Coming up, our panel weighs in next as Get REAL continues right back.

[Show Narrator]

Don't go anywhere. We'll be right back with more. Welcome back to GET real brought to you by Real Clear politics and real America's Voice.

[Tom Homan]

If I said in March, if the rhetoric didn't stop, there's going to be bloodshed. And there has been. I wish I wasn't right. I don't want to see anybody die. Not officers, not members of the community. They're not the targets of our operations. For the people out there don't like what ISIS is doing. If you want certain laws reformed, then take it up with Congress. Again. ISIS making this up. They're enforcing laws enacted by Congress and signed by president. The same laws have been on the books for the last six presidents I worked for. I started with President Reagan and ending with President Trump. Every administration reinforced the same laws.

[David DeRozier]

Welcome back. Holman to the rescue. For weeks, Holman has seemed like he's been in witness protection, ceding the stage to Kristi Noem and border control commander Greg Benveno. What a difference a week makes. Bovino, the new sheriff, has been put out on ice and the old sheriff, Holman is back in charge. And he's bringing a national sigh of relief. Let me introduce this week's panel. Ingrid Jacques, an esteemed columnist at USA Today. Carl Cannon, Washington bureau chief for RealClear Politics and executive editor of RealClear Media Group. He's also the former president of the White House Correspondents Association. He gets us good tickets. And then we have Kenan Spivak, the Founder and chairman of the SMI Group, an international consulting firm and investment bank. He's the author of several books of fiction and nonfiction. He's a contributor to media outlets including Real Clear Politics and Joel Kotkin, an internationally recognized authority on global economic and political and social trends. Joe's latest book is great. The Coming Neo Feudalism A Warning to the Global Middle Class. Welcome, all of you.

[Joel Kotkin]

Hi.

[Kenan Spivak]

Thank you.

[Alan Dershowitz]

Peter, David.

[David DeRozier]

Hey. It's good to see everybody. Thank you all for coming. So let's just jump into it. Ingrid, your piece this week captured the harmonizing sentiments of most people in Minnesota and internationally. Post petty. Would you mind highlighting your piece?

[Carl Cannon]

Sure.

[Ingrid Jacques]

I came at it from a little bit of a different perspective. There had been so much attention on the actions of the border agents on the ground and obviously the tragedies that happen with these two American citizens dying. And you can just go back and forth, who's to blame? Should those protesters have been trying to interfere in the way they were? I think that's certainly up for debate, but I don't think there had been enough attention on the rhetoric coming from leaders in Minnesota and Minneapolis. For instance, Governor Tim Walz has just said all kinds of just wild things, comparing ICE enforcement in his city with Nazis going door to door during World War II. He brought up Anne Frank. He's also alluded to how protesters should be out there thinking of this, like Minnesota's involvement in Gettysburg back during the Civil War. Really making this seem like a moral protest, something that these citizens should be doing. And I just think it's dangerous. And we've heard the same thing coming from Mayor Jacob Frey even this week after meeting with the border czar. He said Minnesota will not enforce federal immigration laws. And I just think that's shocking coming from these leaders. And people are you would expect to uphold the law.

[David DeRozier]

Thank you. I'd like to turn to Joel. I mean, you're an expert demographer. You know, you're presently bullish on Texas. You've been shorting your home state of California. I was just wondering what you kind of. It seems like a new kind of form of government is kind of emerging in Minnesota.

[Kenan Spivak]

Right.

[David DeRozier]

It's like the rules for radicals have been taken and given a new expression. But it seems like a new kind of Democrat, Socialist of America. Promised land.

[Joel Kotkin]

Well, of course. And that's a force that you see all over the country. I mean, many of these people clearly live in an alternative reality. The reality is that I think that there's quite a bit of blame to. To be assigned to the administration. The rhetoric. I mean, hopefully they'll let Kristi Noem go back to shooting dogs. I think that basically, on the one hand, I feel that the administration went too far. I think their approach on immigration has been both unfair and also terrible politics. I think that's pretty clear. On the other hand, I think what we're seeing on the other side is scary. I've seen it here in Southern California where the people just feel that they can do anything and have no consequences and that they also have a sort of a ring of protection that's given to them by the courts. Particularly here in California, we've had, you know, look, we haven't elected a Republican for a very long time. The Democrats have been moving further and further to the left. So essentially, if a judge agrees with you ideologically, it seems like he's willing to give you virtually carte blanche. So I blame both sides. I think that there is a reasonable immigration policy that could have been put out. You're going for the criminals first. You're going to try to then go to all the people here who are undocumented. Look at each case separately, and if the person hasn't committed a crime, is a contributor, isn't on welfare, you say, okay, you can apply for citizenship. You get to the back of the line. And I want to just add one very quick thing which really bothered me was the comparisons with the Holocaust. My mother in law is a survivor. I can tell you what happened to her has nothing remotely close to what's happening to Don Lemon and the protesters. It's just. It's incredibly offensive, I would say.

[David DeRozier]

Yeah. When you look at what's going on, Martin Luther King wouldn't be given enough time to write a letter from a Birmingham jail. With the way that California is actually treating people who really are Protestants, it's just this revolving door that they go out. I'd like to move to Kennan. Kennan, you've had a piece in Real Clear Politics this week where you really tied what was happening in Minnesota right back to the border again. Would you please summarize that for us?

[Kenan Spivak]

Sure. And David, congratulations and thanks for having me on your premiere episode. I'm really thrilled to be here. The piece I wrote really looked at what's going on from the political side and a bit of the legal side. The political issue here to me is very clear at the level of Democrat leaders and the activists who are. And the funders who are behind what's happening now. What they want is open borders, the biden administration really was the peak victory of the open borders crowd. He just opened the borders and let, depending upon the estimate, 10 or 20 million or even more unvetted illegal aliens to enter the United States. He literally flew them around the United States, invited them in, gave them free cell phones, free housing. And the decision that was made in the Biden administration was this globalist decision that we shouldn't have borders. It was a very measured and correct decision that by moving these people into the United States, the census count would change and at redistricting, the allocation of Democrat representatives would change and electoral votes would change. Remember, these illegal aliens do not have to become citizens and do not have to vote to impact the elections. So that was a very measured and correct decision. They also did this to change our culture. Many progressives don't like American culture, and they wanted people from around the world to come here with different values. And finally, they made the assessment that it would be very, very difficult to undo what they did, that because of due process, because of other rules, these people would be here to stay. And that's exactly what we're seeing now. We're seeing the implementation of part two of the strategy to do everything possible to make it impossible or at least implausible to remove many of these people from the United States briefly, so don't take up much time. On the legal side, everything the Trump administration is doing is constitutional. It's lawful. What ICE and the Border Patrol are doing is 99% correct, 98% correct. And to the extent it's not, it's largely because when people are blowing whistles in your ears are getting in between you and people you're trying to apprehend, when are kicking your cars, it's very difficult even for a well trained person to always get it right. So I think for political reasons, they may need to tone it down a bit. But the mission is a just and necessary one, and it needs to be completed.

[David DeRozier]

Well, thank you, Kenan. We're gonna now turn it over to Carl Cannon. This week, I'm just gonna let you do whatever you want. Carl, I've watched your show this week. You've tipped over a couple of tables. Share your thoughts on what's happening.

[Carl Cannon]

Well, I agree with every single word that Joel, Ingrid and Ken and said. The problem is that Donald Trump hasn't said any of that. You know, this is the presidency is a communications job and he goes out and gives these hour long speeches. You know, they're a cross between Fidel Castro and a New York insult comic. And he just, you know, makes fun of his enemies, calls people names. Tom Homan laid out the case. Kenan just laid out the case. What, what, what Joe Biden did. And I, I don't think Joe Biden and maybe even the top people in the White House gave it the amount of thought that Kenan has. There are people in the pro legalization movement who have, but I think they just kind of knee jerk Democratic politics. Oh, well, let them in. You know, it's not a crime to try and feed your family. The upshot is that once Joe Biden leaves, Donald Trump comes in, the Democrats then switch, as Ken said. Now, now they want a court, they want a court case for all the, let's say it's 10 million people who came in. And this is, this is above the 1 between 1 and 1 5.5 million people who are made legal citizens every year since, in 40 years. So we've, we've accepted all these people and, but there's no debate going on really. The Democrats use these slogans and Trump doesn't even do that. He, the President of the United States, when he came into office needed to lay out the case. Here's what we're going to do. Here's why we're going to do it. Here's who we're going to go after. We're going to have this, you know, we're going to first go after criminals who came to this country who should never been let in because they committed crimes abroad. Then we're going to go after criminals, people who've committed crimes here who are not here legally. We're going to work with the Democrats. We're going to say, look, if they're in jail, you have to let us have them. That's what we're going to. And then, and then the last group we're going to go after is the people who came here while Joe Biden was president. And here's how we're going to do it. And so I don't mean this, you know, like I'm blaming the victim here. But the Trump administration handled this so poorly that I think they really, they really helped the people who are basically trying to, you know, do what our speakers have said, just basically have an open border, which is in a sense the end of the nation state. Now maybe it's time to have that debate. Maybe, maybe we're, maybe it's, you know, the future is here and we should talk about whether we should have countries or borders. But the Democrats talk about it in the next block yeah, well, they, yeah, they just, they just lie. And Trump, you know, just calls people names. And so what you've had here to me is a failure of leadership. It was going to be very hard for Trump to do any of the things he wanted to do for the reasons Ken and said. But he went about it so poorly and he pointed people in office who were unfit to be in high public office who didn't know how to communicate. We got, Sorry, I'm filibustering now. You get my point.

[David DeRozier]

I get your point. And guys, stick around. And we'll be talking polls next. Get Real returns in just two minutes.

[Show Narrator]

Don't go anywhere. We'll be right back with more. Welcome back to get real, brought to you by Real Clear Politics and real America's Voice.

[David DeRozier]

Welcome back. In this segment, we're going to look at a poll. That's what RealClear does. And here it is. 59% say ICE is too aggressive, up 10% since July. And 45% approve of the president's job performance on immigration, while 55% disapprove. I'd like to turn it over to the panel, ask them what they kind of think about this term. But also one of the things about doing polls is we get to read the tea leaves of what the American people think, but try to interpret them.

[Kenan Spivak]

Where.

[David DeRozier]

What do you think they could do to make them better and what will keep them going down, or the opposite. I'll start with Ingrid again and we'll just go across the dock here.

[Ingrid Jacques]

Sure. I think immigration was, that issue was one of the reasons why Trump won in 2024. It was consistently number one or number two on people's minds. So, and it had been still a pretty strong issue for him until what we've seen happen in the last few weeks in Minneapolis. I think people see that they hear about Americans getting killed by border agents, federal, federal officers, and they, they don't like that. That's really not what they signed up for. But I think Trump just needs to return to focus to what he has done to secure the border, to deporting the most violent of the illegal aliens in the country now. And I think he could turn this back into a winning issue, but he's going to have to be really careful. Moving on from Minneapolis, it seems like he's on board with that, with getting Tom Homan back involved. But I think this was a very important issue. And for Democrats to try to say this pushback to what the American people are saying about ICE means that the country wants open Borders, I think, is very wrong.

[Carl Cannon]

Carl well, she's right. We did a poll, real clear polling, opinion polling. Emerson does polling for us. It's out this week. DAVID and the good news for Democrats is that by about 9.6%, almost 10% Americans, disapprove of the Trump administration's deportation, immigration policies. The bad news is, when asked about Biden's administration policies, the Democrats are Underwater by almost 20 points. So people don't like what Trump's doing. And the reason is what's happened in Minnesota. The reason is they don't want ICE killing people, but that doesn't mean they don't want Ingrid's right, they don't want to go back before, and they're telling us this if we'll listen. So it's except, you know, it's up to the minute, it's up to the Republicans and the media to say to the Democrats, okay, what's your plan? Because your previous plan's very unpopular. What's your new plan? And if they don't have one, you know, maybe, maybe that would help, because then maybe they'd have to come up with a plan.

[Kenan Spivak]

KENNETH when you look behind the numbers, there are about 30% of the people who are never going to support any move to deport illegal aliens are about 30% of the people who will support almost anything Trump does. The middle 40% are where the swing people are. The administration's lost about one quarter of that 40% in just the last couple of months. This is a result of successful Democrat lobbying. It's as a result of, as Carl put it, quite well, terrible rhetoric from the Trump administration is the result of errors made by ICE and Border Patrol in Minneapolis, and in particular, moving too quickly to deport aliens other than criminal illegal aliens. There's time for the administration to turn this around. But if they don't, public safety will decline and the midterms will go to the Democrats.

[Joel Kotkin]

JOEL I just would like to just focus for a moment on the group that's most affected, which is basically Latinos. I work at the Civitas Institute in Austin. We've done an extensive poll on Latino attitudes, and basically, most Latinos don't want an open border. They're the ones who have to live with this stuff. But the rhetoric has turned people who even very conservative, we've done focus groups, very conservative Latinos are now turned against the administration. So I think, as Carl said, a lot of it is a communications problem, and a lot of it is, you know, frankly, if you're going to have a bunch of numb nuts run the policy. It's going to be a disaster. And I really worry about this because I think that Latinos in particular, who are going to be a very powerful force in the next 20, 30 years, are alienated. And this will make the whole atmosphere in the society much less pleasant than it should be. So I think that I wish there had been somebody in the administration who thought about what the effect would be on this large group in the population. And I don't think anyone has.

[David DeRozier]

Yeah, you're right. They tipped the election in favor of Trump. And if he loses them, he'll lose. Guys, please stand by. When we return. Predictions for the week ahead.

[Show Narrator]

Don't go anywhere. We'll be right back with more. Welcome back to get real, brought to you by Real Clear Politics and Real America's Voice.

[David DeRozier]

Welcome back to get real. I'm David derozier. Before we wrap up, it's time for predictions about the week ahead. I'm joined once again by our panel, Ingrid, Carl Kennan and Joel. I thought I'd kind of lead by example to be quick. For example, what's my crystal ball telling me about next week? Hopefully, it'll be warmer, Minnesota will be calmer, and then we'll figure out really what really drove us, our grid and its integrity over this kind of cold snap. And we should say something nice about coal and natural gas next week, Ingrid.

[Ingrid Jacques]

Well, I also hope things thaw out. It's quite cold here in Michigan where I am, and I hope we see tensions decrease. But on a lighter note, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Bad Bunny will wear a dress to the Super Bowl.

[Carl Cannon]

I'll pick up on that theme. They will. My prediction is they will play the game. I won't predict who will win the game. Bad Bunny will perform. Green Day will perform. And Donald Trump will talk crap about them the same way he did about Taylor Swift. When he said he hated Taylor Swift, I thought he was trying to lose the election. I realize now he was just trying to he felt sorry for Kamala Harris. He was just trying to make it closer.

[Kenan Spivak]

Canon Supreme Court decides that Trump did not have emergency powers to impose foreign tariffs. Remands case to decide what to do about the billions of dollars already collected. My other headline is Progressive demands for the resignation or firing of Kristi Noem, Steve Miller and Barry Weiss accelerated.

[Joel Kotkin]

Very, very quickly. I think that there's going to be and this is an optimistic interpretation. I think Democrats are beginning to realize that the ban the fund ICE strategy is not the best way to go ahead. I think Republicans are going to realize that something else has to be done on the Republican side. And the last thing is, the most important thing is what's going to happen in Iran. And next week, we may be talking about that more than anything else.

[David DeRozier]

Well, thank you, all of you. I mean, this was something to really kind of show and experience where every day we try to bring about kind of a real clear accounting, and it's always with people who disagree. And here I think you guys are not in 100% agreement, but it's that special kind of disagreement I think, that our nation doesn't have enough of, which is where you disagree, you know, by degree and not kind. So, I mean, it's a wonderful opportunity for me to have this show. It's been great that you've been on it, and I thank you and I hope to have you back. You know.

[Ingrid Jacques]

Thank you.

[David DeRozier]

This thing would be better if I could have regulars. So I think every one of you, if you'll have me, I'll have you back.

[Alan Dershowitz]

Thank you.

[Carl Cannon]

Thank you, David.

[David DeRozier]

That was a fun maiden voyage. I think we did it. Thanks to the guests, the panel, and, you know, I thought we brought out more light than heat. Bye. Bye. And we'll see you next week.

[Podcast Announcer]

This is an iHeart podcast.

[David DeRozier]

Guaranteed Human.