It's a Numbers Game: The Numbers Behind Birthright Citizenship, Supreme Court Drama & the Noem Controversy

Summary

---

The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show

Episode: It's a Numbers Game – The Numbers Behind Birthright Citizenship, Supreme Court Drama & the Noem Controversy

Date: April 3, 2026
Host: Ryan Grim (sub-hosting this episode)
Guest: Will Chamberlain

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Ryan Grim tackles the week’s major political stories with in-depth discussion and characteristic wit. The episode dives into the Kristi Noem controversy, a heated Supreme Court term featuring impactful cases on conversion therapy and birthright citizenship, and political gossip swirling around top political figures. The highlight is a detailed and accessible examination of legal arguments and court dynamics with guest Will Chamberlain, rooted in the context of the current political climate.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Kristi Noem Controversy and Washington Gossip

[02:23–14:45]

• Ryan Grim revisits his earlier reporting on Kristi Noem’s personal and political scandals, focusing on rumors of an affair with Corey Lewandowski and allegations about her marriage.
• Outlines how these rumors circulated within GOP circles for years and shares anecdotes from fundraisers where Noem and Lewandowski's behavior was visible.
• Raises new allegations: an ongoing DHS inspector general investigation into government contracts during Noem’s tenure, dubbed the “Corey Tax”—where donors allegedly had to contribute to Lewandowski’s nonprofit to win contracts.
• Predicts increased scrutiny and likely House investigations if Democrats regain power, possibly leading to criminal probes and a wave of pardon-seeking among political elites.
  • Quote:
    “Everybody in Washington, D.C. knows about this alleged affair with Corey Lewandowski, everybody… And the conversation around her marriage has been happening forever.” — Ryan Grim (06:54)

2. Graham Platner’s Past and Political Downfall

[14:46–16:55]

• Discussion turns to Graham Platner, leading Democratic candidate in Maine, and resurfacing Reddit posts with controversial statements (anti-religious, offensive language).
• Emphasizes the impact of maturity and accountability in public life—Platner made these posts in his mid-30s, not as a teenager.
  • Quote:
    “This is a full grown man who had already been to war. He said that he was a, quote, crude atheist, that Jesus is a zombie and the Virgin Mary was a skank.” — Ryan Grim (15:45)

3. Pam Bondi’s Tenure and the Epstein Files

[16:56–18:28]

• Reports on outgoing AG Pam Bondi, crediting some of her legal wins, but criticizing her handling of Epstein-connected materials and feuds with members of Congress.
• Notes that Bondi’s actions unwittingly reignited controversy around Trump through mishandled document releases.

4. Supreme Court Rundown: Free Speech & Conversion Therapy

[18:29–19:35]

• Reviews the Court’s 8-1 decision overturning Colorado’s conversion therapy ban as a violation of free speech.
• Singles out Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s lone dissent as “truly crazy,” arguing her legal reasoning is deeply flawed.
  • Quote:
    “Ladies and gentlemen, I am afraid to tell you that one of the nine members of our Supreme Court is an idiot… There’s no other way to say it. She’s crazy.” — Ryan Grim (19:35)
  • Critiques the dissent’s logic, comparing it unfavorably to her colleagues on the liberal wing.

5. Supreme Court Drama: Birthright Citizenship Case

[19:35–44:22]

A. Introducing the Stakes

• Ryan Grim and guest Will Chamberlain provide accessible background: the Supreme Court is considering whether the 14th Amendment requires granting citizenship to children of illegal immigrants.
• Grim notes the surprising strength of the government’s arguments, with support from legal heavyweights across the conservative intelligentsia.

B. Legal Arguments Explained

[24:07–29:57]

• Will Chamberlain explains:
  • The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means more than just being present in the U.S.—it requires legal domicile and allegiance.
  • This would exclude children of illegal aliens and ambassadors from automatic citizenship.
  • The core government argument does not seek to overturn Wong Kim Ark (1898), but to clarify its limits.
    • Wong Kim Ark granted birthright citizenship to children of legal permanent residents, not illegal aliens.

C. Oral Arguments Dynamics

[30:31–34:43]

• Discussion turns to how justices probed both sides, with the ACLU asserting a “closed set” of exceptions (children of diplomats, invaders, etc.), while the justices questioned this logic.
  • Memorable moment:
    Chamberlain explains why it’s a mistake for advocates to call a Supreme Court case “easy”:
    “The Supreme Court doesn’t take stupid cases… the fact that you’re here means we don’t think this is easy.” — Will Chamberlain (31:53)

D. Justice Jackson’s Confusing Analogy

[32:22–33:29]

• Grim asks Chamberlain for clarity on Justice Jackson’s lengthy Japan travel allegory, which Chamberlain deciphers as a muddled attempt to define “allegiance.”
  • Chamberlain: “She’s not concise at all. She’s not a precise thinker… but I understand what she’s trying to get at because I’m deep in having read the briefs.” (33:14)

E. Congressional Remedies & Native American Example

[34:43–36:37]

• Explains that Native Americans did not get birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment but through an act of Congress—highlighting that Congress retains authority to grant citizenship beyond the constitutional floor.

F. How Will the Justices Rule?

[36:37–40:02]

• Chamberlain predicts that Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are likely to side with the government, Roberts and Barrett less certain.
• Roberts’ questions are described as “disappointing,” while Gorsuch’s originalist bent makes him a swing vote.

G. When to Expect a Ruling

• Chamberlain expects a decision by June 2026, possibly delayed by a lengthy dissent from Justice Jackson if present.

H. Where to Find More

- Will Chamberlain gives his X (Twitter) handle and promotes a3paction.com for his work and legal commentary.

---

6. Ask Me Anything (AMA) Segment

[44:22–58:48]

Ryan answers listener emails on:

• Texas Senate Runoff: Explains the campaign dynamics, Trump’s wavering endorsement, Cornyn’s spending, Paxton’s campaign strategy, and what this could mean for GOP future races.

• J.D. Vance: Shares personal insight on the current Vice President's personality and political style off camera, noting his loyalty, curiosity, and “bro”-like sense of humor.

• Why Republicans Struggle with 70/30 Issues: Addresses why the GOP often fails to seize popular issues (like border security), blaming generational inertia, “donor brain,” and the disconnect from working-class voters. Argues few in Washington actually understand or prioritize middle America—no lobbyists for the working class.

  • Notable Quote:
    “A lot of Republicans… their default is not lined up with an economic populist default… There's no lobbyist for working class Americans. There's no lobbying group for middle America.” — Ryan Grim (56:06)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Noem and Lewandowski:
  “I would not be shocked at all if they were figuring out how to try to get pardons ahead of time… There's probably a number of people saying, look, the Democrats will come into Congress, they're gonna come after all of us.” — Ryan Grim (10:30)

• On Supreme Court Justices:
  “Kagan is a very smart justice… Sotomayor… less than smart for a Supreme Court justice… Kataji Brown Jackson is less than smart for a woman.” — Ryan Grim (18:29)

• On Political Bubble:
  “Most of them have college degrees… been there too long… They are too out of touch with their general public. They just are.” — Ryan Grim (56:45)

---

Important Timestamps

• Kristi Noem Controversy: [02:23–14:45]
• Graham Platner Scandal: [14:46–16:55]
• Pam Bondi, Epstein Files: [16:56–18:28]
• Supreme Court Conversion Therapy Decision: [18:29–19:35]
• Birthright Citizenship Case Analysis: [19:35–44:22]
  • Origins of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”: [24:07–26:55]
  • Wong Kim Ark and legal context: [26:55–29:57]
  • Justice Jackson's judicial approach: [32:22–33:29]
  • How justices may rule: [36:37–40:02]
• Ask Me Anything Segment: [44:22–58:48]

---

Tone and Style

Ryan Grim delivers the episode with a blend of sharp-edged humor, political insider knowledge, and accessible legal analysis. Will Chamberlain offers detailed yet digestible breakdowns, translating complex constitutional arguments for a lay audience. The show is unapologetic in its partisan perspective but values substantive debate and the airing of controversial arguments.

---

Summary for Non-Listeners

This episode is essential listening for those tracking evolving debates on citizenship law, Supreme Court dynamics, and Republican intra-party drama. Ryan Grim’s probing style and the legal expertise of Will Chamberlain make dense topics comprehensible and engaging, blending political gossip, institutional critique, and high-stakes constitutional interpretation in one lively package.

Transcript

[Klarna Advertiser]

This is an iHeart podcast.

[Take Five Oil Change Advertiser]

Guaranteed Human when your schedule sounds like this.

[Ryan Grim]

Are you kidding me?

[Take Five Oil Change Advertiser]

An oil change is the last thing you have time for. So drive into Take five and let our techs change your oil. Check your tires, top off your fluids and have you back on the road. Pit stop fast. All while you stay in your car. No putting your entire schedule on hold. No upsells, no problem. So you can get back to your to do list or not. Find your nearest [e-mail] take five the stay in your car 10 minute oil change.

[Jacob Goldstein]

It never happens at a good time. The pipe bursts at midnight.

[Public Investing Advertiser]

The heater quits on the coldest night.

[Ryan Grim]

Suddenly you're overwhelmed.

[Jacob Goldstein]

That's when HomeServ is here for $4.99 a month, you're never alone.

[Public Investing Advertiser]

Just call their 24.

[Jacob Goldstein]

7 hotline and a local pro is on the way. Trusted by millions, HomeServe delivers peace of

[Public Investing Advertiser]

mind when you need it most.

[Jacob Goldstein]

For plans Starting at just $4.99 a

[Public Investing Advertiser]

month, go to HomeServe.com that's HomeServe.com not

[Jacob Goldstein]

available every plans range between $499 to $11.99 a month. Your first year terms apply on covered repairs.

[Bethenny Frankel]

There's a fire inside you you can't ignore. Stand still. Not a chance. You're a lifelong learner who's come this far. Now we are here to help you keep going further. Capella University what can't you do? Visit capella.edu to learn more.

[Public Investing Advertiser]

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 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.comDisclosures

[Ryan Grim]

welcome back to A Numbers Game with Brian Graduate. Thank you guys for being here. We had a gang buster week that we got through Supreme Court, had a major decision and had a even more important or argument they had. There was this huge controversy, Christine Gnome, that has blown up even larger that I want to address. And then we had some other news stories. But before we get to the court case, which is really the nuts and bolts of this episode, I need to talk about the Christine Noem controversy because I put out a tweet that about my episode. So on March 24, 2025, I said I did not put her name out there because I wanted to respect her family's privacy. However, this is what I said on March 24, 2025 that I repeated on Twitter. Here's the clip piece of D.C. gossip that I heard that I thought you guys would find fascinating. There is a member of Trump's cabinet. I'm not going to name names until this comes out publicly, but you guys put two and two together and you'll know what I'm talking about. There is a member of the cabinet who is, you know, well known and it's well known that this member is a woman, is having an affair, a very semi public affair. And if you're in political circles, you know, well, a reporter walked up to her and said to her, why are you having this affair? Why haven't you met up with your husband? Why aren't you divorcing your husband? And she blurted out to this reporter who I know and said, oh, my husband's gay. Like what? Didn't even try and I don't know, make something up. Oh, we're doing it for the kids. We're still together. Please respect my prep. Blur it out, blurted it out. I don't know if it's going to come forward. I don't know if they're going to do a story and it's, it's, it's maybe too gossipy. I found it so interesting that they just blurted out and whatever, we'll see if it comes about. I thought you guys would find it fascinating. If it becomes a story, I'll talk more about it. I don't, I don't know someone's private life. But if it becomes a story, I just think that it's very interesting that they, this person did not try harder to, to protect their spouse in this conversation. All right, let's get to ask me anything. I know some people really like the gossip, so I try to give it when I have it. When I said that, when I made those comments, I don't know if Kristi Noam's husband's actually gay or if he's just into fetishes or what the case may be. I think Christy Gnome was making those allegations allegedly, to friends of mine in the media, off the record, basically, to justify an extramarital affair that she's allegedly having with Corey Lewandowski. I don't know why I say allegedly for. Because it's. But it's allegedly. I know some people are pretty litigious in that orbit. For those who are surprised about this affair, it's very well known in dc, but it's been on for so long, and the conversation around her marriage has been happening. I heard about this situation with her husband and her in 2021, 2022, whenever she was running for re election as governor of South Dakota, her own team was texting me stories about her. Now, listen, no politician behind the scenes is perfect. Everyone has moments where they flare up or they are angry at their staff or something's going wrong. No campaign is perfect. And you get through hard times like I've done. I've been on 100 campaigns at this point. Everyone has a moment or two, but usually a good leader gets through them. And you build even stronger loyalty to your team and to your politician that you're working for your principals, what they call it. That is not the case with Kristi. No. And her team leaked and leaked often. And they talked about the fact that she was in the campaign was a horror show. And this was a fairly easy campaign. I mean, it's South Dakota. It's a super red state. It's not like she was having hard competition. It's one of those elections you should be able to sleep through. But she was so determined to build a national name ID to be in public office that it became nightmarish for a lot of people. And what I find the worst part of it all is, you know, she had no problem tearing down her husband, who is the father of her children, behind the scenes and publicly embarrassing him. I mean, when I say Everybody in Washington, D.C. knows about this alleged affair with Corey Lewandowski, everybody, literally. You could go to a garbage man. You could go to, you know, literally an intern. Everybody, everybody, everybody knew about this in Washington, and it's been going for so long. I remember back in 2022, at a fundraiser in Long Island, I ran into George Santos there. I forget what the fundraiser was for, but she was the key speaker. And I had Covid at the fundraiser. I don't know who I gave it to. I think I gave it to George Santos when I was at the fundraiser. But anyway, he was there with her and he was like, when she walked into like the house. Monica Crowley was up that fundraiser too. When he walks into that house, he was putting his hands on the small of her back. It was in front of a lot of people. Like they did not really try hard to keep this a secret. And, and the conversion of their marriage has been going on for years and years and years. But like, and she says, I'm completely blindsided. Freaking calm down. Like, calm down. You're not that blindsided because you know about the whispers that have been happening forever. Maybe you didn't know about the bodysuit and the fake, you know, the fake bubbies and all the rest of it, but you knew that something was awry and you're publicly embarrassed. But that's not Kristi Noma's biggest problem. And this is what I want to get to. So I was on the phone a lot lately with people in the administration, people who are friends of mine, who are reporters. And through the grapevine I have been hearing that allegedly that there's this inspector general investigation on the Department of Homeland Security handling of contracts when Gnome was the head of the department. And some people who got lucrative government contracts had close business connections allegedly to Corey Lewandowski. Now, I don't know if this is going to happen, but allegedly they are. There is something called a Corey Tax where to get donation to get government contracts with dhs, allegedly you had to donate to Corey's nonprofit or a profit that he was on the board of and that this is allegedly going to move to a criminal investigation. That's what I. Or it's being recommended for a criminal investigation. That's a lot of allegedly is. I know that. I know that. Be aware Here, here first. You know, this is what I am hearing from a number of very, very important, well tapped people. It all will depend on if Jeanine Piero and the D and DOJ move on it. But, and so I don't know if that's going to happen because who knows, maybe partisan politics plays a hand. But what I do know is when Democrats take the house in 2020 in November, very likely take the House, Christie and Corey are going to be in their target. That will be their. They will be in their scope. They will. There's no way that they are not going to get an actual investigation from Democrats. And I would not be shocked at all if they were figuring out how to try to get pardons ahead of time. I would not be shocked whatsoever. I don't know if they are. I have no information that they are. But I, I would not be shocked if they are not trying to start having someone speak to the President about this. And they're probably not the only ones. After the Hunter Biden. After the Hunter Biden pardon that he received for any action he took during Biden's entire time as vice president to protect him, there's probably a number of people saying, look, the Democrats will come into the White House or they come Congress. They're going to come after all of us. Let's just all give pardons. I would not be shocked if they're already talking about something like that out of fear, out of retribution. And although a lot of times political retribution is nonsense, there are times that there are nuggets of truth. So I don't know if, I don't. I don't know if, if we're going to get a criminal, criminal investigation or, or, or anything like that. But I do know that the inspector that's looking into DHS right now is getting a lot of people singing like canaries or singing like birds or whatever, whatever birds thinks they are getting people talking about Corey and Christie, and it is not good. So she has bigger things to worry about than whether or not her husband has. Looks like Mrs. Doubtfire with the, with the bodysuit on. Okay. Another person I want to talk about when it comes to political gossip is our buddy, Graham Platner. He is the leading Democratic candidate up in Maine. We did a whole episode on him, but a few weeks ago, and basically the long and short of it is when Graham was in his mid-30s, although he acts like he was like 15 when he was in his mid-30s, he liked to spend a lot of time on Reddit saying things like that he was a communist or that white people were stupid, that women need to take responsibility for being raped. All of which he says, oh, those are so old. You know, that happened forever ago. This is not who I really am. I'm just an oyster farmer, an oyster fisherman, some kind of nonsense like that. Lie after lie after lie. Well, it turns out he had more things he posted on Reddit. And I want to make emphasis. He posts this on Reddit when he was 33 years old. Not 21, not 15, not 13. He wasn't a child. This was a full grown man who had already been to war. So this is not somebody who had no life experience. He said that he was a, quote, crude atheist, that Jesus is a zombie and the Virgin Mary was a skank. That's what he wrote on Reddit. He's going to come out and say these messages are all, this is not a reflection of who I am. And it's just nonsense in, nonsense out. This is, he is this person. He is a mentally unhinged person, which is why his own staff has been quitting on him because they don't think he's actually fit for office. And he's being absolutely propped up by, you know, Bernie Bro, donors nationwide. Maine is not that religious of a state. It's one of actually the least religious states in the country. So who knows if it's going to negatively affect him or it just goes to show his character there's something wrong with this person. Like deeply wrong, deeply troubling. And the other story that we're hearing as we go into this taping of this podcast is that Pam Bondi is soon to be out as ag that's being reported by Semaphore. I give credit to where it's due. I think Pam Bunny has done a number of good things when it comes to court cases. She's won a lot of victories for the administration. But there is no reason, I mean, as, as a staffer, as a former staffer, first in an office and on a campaign, your number one job is always to protect your principal. Your principal is the politician, the elected official, whoever that is. Pam Bonney's handling of the Epstein files was so, just mind blowingly bad from handing out those binders and reigniting the conversation with, which really wasn't happening until Pam handed out those binders, those blank binders to all those conservative influencers at the White House. And the binders had nothing in them. It was really, truly like a bizarre action that she took, all because she was having this feud with Congresswoman Anna Polina Luna, who she allegedly, according to my friends who were at, in the White House at the time, she was talking in the women's bathroom about how much she hated Anna Polina Luna. And Anna Polina Luna was, you know, pushing her on Twitter and making money on Twitter to release the Philippines files. So I give credit to where it's due on a number of her court wins, but her handling of the Epstein files situation, she made it an albatross around Trump's neck and it doesn't literally make any sense at all. Okay, so Speaking of Department of justice, let's talk about the justices. Let's talk about the Supreme Court. There was two big cases heard this week. The first was a case that was decided. It was an 8 to 1 decision where the court ruled that Colorado cannot ban conversion therapy. Colorado was one of, I think 20 states that had banned conversion therapy. That's where you like send your kids to camp so they can pray the gay away. There's never been any medical study that proves that any of this is actually effective or works causes kids with a lot of problems. I know a few people who would went to those kind of conversion therapy camps and came up a little, came out a little messed up from the whole entire thing. However, they ruled that this is a, an infringement on free speech. And I give the court a lot of credit. The court has been exceptional when it comes to protecting free speech. Now, the sole, the sole person against the majority decision was Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson. She was the dissenting voice. And here's the thing, like this is how I think of the liberal justices on the court. Kagan is a very smart justice. She's just a liberal, but she's not a dumb person. Like, and that is why I think sometimes Kagan will have these court decisions where she's one of a mixed bag of justices because she's very thoughtful. And even though I don't always agree with her, she is, she's not, she doesn't have a low iq. Sotomayor, how do I say this in a polite way? She's, she's less than smart for Supreme Court justice. Right. She's not. I like if I lived next door to her, she probably is a lovely person and moves through the world pretty well. I don't think she's should be one of the nine members on the court. Even if you replaced her with another Kagan. The thing about Kataji Brown Jackson is she's less than smart for a woman. Like, she's not only less than smart for a court justice, she's less than smart for a woman. And her opinions are truly batshit crazy. And you saw it in this decision in the 8 to 1 decision in Colorado. And that's, I mean, when she's the sole dissenting voice and not even Kagan nor Sotomayor are willing to join her, you know, you're in for something that's truly crazy. So this was a footnote in the case and I want to read it. Justice Jackson's dissenting opinion claims that this is a small or non existent category. See post 21 to 22. But even her own opinion when listing laws supposedly put at risk today offers quite few exceptions. Her view to the contrary rests on the reimagining in a way collapsing the well settled distinction between viewpoint based and other content based speech restrictions. Basically, she had no merit to what she was saying. This is the quote from her dissenting opinion. Just listen, just listen. She said, quote the equivalent of Chile's First Amendment claim transported to the holder context. The holder context is the case would be as if the United States and the Holder had said your professionals are prohibited from committing acts of terrorism. And the lawyers among them responded, it's unconstitutional to apply your no terrorist acts prohibition because we want to commit prohibited terrorist acts with our speech. What is she talking about? Like what is she doing talking about? The second big case was over birthright citizenship and she made this point which was just jaw dropping. That's clip two. Go to that now.

[Bethenny Frankel]

I was thinking about this and I think they, there are various sources that say this that you can have. You obviously have permanent allegiance based on being born in whatever country you're from. That's what everybody recognizes. But you also have local allegiance when you are on the soil of this other, other sovereign. And I was thinking, you know, I'm, I'm, I US Citizen am visiting Japan. And what it means is that, you know, if I steal someone's wallet in Japan, the, the Japanese authority authorities can arrest me and prosecute me. It's allegiance meaning can they control you as a matter of law, I can also rely on them if my wallet is stolen to, you know, under Japanese law go and prosecute the person who has stolen it. So there's this relationship based on, even though I'm a temporary traveler, I'm just on vacation in Japan, I'm still locally owing allegiance in that sense.

[Ryan Grim]

Ladies and gentlemen, I am afraid to tell you that one of the nine members of our Supreme Court is an idiot. There's, she's an idiot. She's very, very, very dumb and she interprets the laws for 340 million people. There's no other way to say it. She's crazy. I mean this is nuts with me this week to talk about the Birthright Citizen chip case and how it's, you know, how it's affecting the country, how it's, how it, how the court may rule on it, what the case for the, for the White House is, is my buddy Will Champion. We're going to talk about that coming up next.

[Public Investing Advertiser]

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 this

[Jacob Goldstein]

is Jacob Goldstein from what's yous Problem? When you buy business software from lots of vendors, the costs add up and it gets complicated and confusing. Odoo solves this. It's a single company that sells a suite of enterprise apps that handles everything from accounting to inventory to sales. Odoo is all connected on a single platform in a simple and affordable way. You can save money without missing out on the features you need. Check out [e-mail] that's o d o o.com have you heard about Klarna?

[Klarna Advertiser]

Klarna is an app designed to make everyday spending simpler and more trans transparent. It gives you flexibility to decide how you want to pay, whether that's paying right away, paying later, or spreading payments over time, depending on what works best for you. Everything is managed in the Klarna app so you can keep track of purchases and stay organized. You can also discover deals and even earn cash back when you shop through the Klarna app with participating brands. It's all about flexibility and staying in control of how and when you pay. Download the Klarna app today or visit klarna.com to learn more. Terms Apply California Resident Loans made or arranged pursuant to a California Finance law license, NMLS number 1353190 Klarna balance account required to be eligible for cashback Points Limitations Terms and Conditions Conditions apply.

[Bethenny Frankel]

This is Bethany Frankel from Just Be With Bethany Frankel. Let me be blunt. Most dog food is junk. It just is. And I'm not feeding junk to Biggie and Smalls. That is why they eat just food for dogs. It's real, 100% human grade food with ingredients I actually recognize, not mystery pellets pretending to be healthy. And once I switched, the difference was obvious. Better digestion, better skin, more energy. Dogs who actually feel good instead of just surviving dinner. Here's the thing, you care about quality. You make an intentional choice to be healthy. So why are you gambling with your dog's health? So let's think about our furry babies. Go to justfoodfordogs.com right now and get 50% off your first box. No code. Just try it. Because once you see the difference, you're not going back.

[Ryan Grim]

With me on today's episode is my buddy Will Chamberlain from the Senior Council, the article Free Project. Will, thanks for being here.

[Will Chamberlain]

Always good to be with you, Ryan.

[Ryan Grim]

So Will, the the case for birthright citizenship is probably the most important, I mean one of the most important in like a decade. And there's some really smart conservative thinkers in the legal world like Jonathan Turley and John Eastman and Randy Barnett, who have been very supportive of the government's case. What is the government's case for why we shouldn't have birthrights for illegal children of illegal immigrants?

[Will Chamberlain]

So it revolves around the key phrase in that passage of the 14th Amendment, subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Right? Everybody is a citizen who's born here and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And the question is, what does that mean? And based on readings of what the framers of this amendment said at the time, how people discussed jurisdiction and essentially also connecting back to the 1866 Civil Rights act, which this was intended to instantiate, the idea of jurisdiction is deeply connected to domicile and allegiance. So the idea is that you need to be legally domiciled in the United States and that your primary allegiance needs to be to the United States. And that under our argument or under the argument of the administration is fulfilled if you're a legal permanent resident. But it doesn't apply to temporary visitors and it doesn't apply to illegal aliens. The idea being that you can't legally form a domicile in the United States if you're illegally present.

[Ryan Grim]

And the children ambassadors, is that right? They don't get it either.

[Will Chamberlain]

Say again?

[Ryan Grim]

The children of ambassadors.

[Will Chamberlain]

Correct. The children of ambassadors don't get it. And sort of the respondents theory. Right. The Democrats theory acknowledges the existence of these exceptions. They say, okay, well, obviously this doesn't cover the children of ambassadors, children of advasing armies, and it doesn't cover tribal Indians at the time of the enactment. But they said, if you heard the ACLU appony, she kept saying the phrase closed set, the idea being that subject to the jurisdiction thereof didn't create some sort of general rule that you could have further applications of down the line. It reflected a closed set of exceptions that existed at the time of the enactment, and there are no further exceptions to it. And that's, that theory is kind of problematic. And the justices, you know, a lot of people have been dooming about oral arguments yesterday. I'm not so doom and gloom. I think we've got a fighting chance here. And it's because they're asking the right questions of the ACLU attorney. They're asking, okay, you're saying it's a closed set of exceptions, then why didn't they just specify those exceptions in the Constitution instead of Kim? And coming up with this new phraseology subject to the jurisdiction thereof, wouldn't that suggest that that's actually a, a broader principle that could include new categories over time?

[Ryan Grim]

Yeah, and, you know, a lot of people made, I, I, I'm not a lawyer, and I, you know, I didn't graduate from college all in law school. The, the thing that I found very interesting was I talked to a lot of my smart, conservative legal friends and they were saying, no, these are, these are very good questions. Actually. The, the, the, the conversation between both the government and the ACLU were very, very smart. And they said it was very smart for the government to say we're not trying to overturn. Wong King. One, one. What is it? Wong Kim, Wong Kim Ark. Explain what that is and why that came up so frequently in the conversation.

[Will Chamberlain]

So Wong Kim Ark is, you know, one of the big cases that deals with birthright citizenship in any context. And really there's a huge fight over the meaning of Wong Kim Arc and how broadly it needs to be interpreted. Right. So Wong Kim Ark dealt with at the time what would be, we would call now a legal permanent resident, somebody who had immigrated from China at a time of open borders and settled in San Francisco. And their, their child, I believe the facts are their child was born in the United States to these legal permanent residents, not naturalized, but legal permanent residents returned to China at some point and then came back and they were trying to exclude him from coming into the country. And basically it turned on whether this guy was a citizen or not. And The Supreme Court said, yes, he's the children. Child of legally domiciled residents, then he is. And he was born here. He's a citizen. And so the question then is, does that apply to the children of illegal aliens? Now, because the concept of illegal aliens would have been difficult to understand at the time of the enactment of the 14th Amendment or at the time of Wong Kim Arc, given that we just didn't have the, you know, people illegally present in the country in the same way. So you have to kind of analogize it to these other ideas. But, but the basic, the, the key thing to understand is why there. The whole. The way that the Court handles that case, and if you read the wonky Mark opinion, they say we are limiting our holding. The only thing we are deciding is whether a legally domiciled. The child of legally domiciled foreigners is a citizen if they're born here. And so you can distinguish that from the children of illegal aliens.

[Ryan Grim]

And the court has never ruled on illegal immigrants. Right. Because there's this narrative that, oh, the court ruled. It's for everybody. They've never talked about this. And my friend Ann Coulter always says there was a footnote in a Brennan decision that kind of created this idea that birthright goes to illegal immigrants. But it's never actually been ruled. For the courts itself, it's a relatively new legal theory.

[Will Chamberlain]

Correct. And moreover, there hasn't been any sort of originalist scholarship to try and really understand the meaning of the 14th Amendment, in particular this phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It was just sort of conventional wisdom that birthright citizenship applied to everybody. But that conventional wisdom can be wrong. And if you think about the Second Amendment jurisprudence, there was a lot of conventional wisdom that the Second Amendment didn't make gun rights an individual right. And then the originalists did. Their scholarship on it revealed what, how this and, you know, how this amendment was understood at the time of enactment. And the Supreme Court went along with what the originalists had done. And the same thing has happened here. You have really good scholars, people like Alon Wurman at the University of Minnesota, Kurt Lash, the University of Richmond, Randy Barnett at Georgetown. Barnett, who also is no, you know, no hardline immigration restrictionist. Barnett's a famous libertarian, but he and others have done the work in terms of trying to understand, you know, gone through the literature, gone through the records of the enactment, and they're like, no, it's subject to the jurisdiction thereof really was broader. And, you know, it's not clear at all that it, you know, would have. They would have thought that this included illegal aliens.

[Ryan Grim]

Right. And I think that's such an important part. What you just mentioned about the second amendment in the original interpretation obviously didn't include semi automatic weapons. They didn't exist. The first amendment didn't include the Internet. It didn't exist. So it would only seem normal that the concept of illegal immigrants didn't exist. Certainly not the way that it does now, not the size that it does now. And there wasn't an ACLU at the time to sue on their behalf for everything imaginable. What were the questions being asked to the ACLU that I think that you think were the most important?

[Will Chamberlain]

Yeah, I think the questions asked to the ACLU were, you know, do you, first off, we discussed the big one. Do you think this is a general rule or do you think this is a closed set of exceptions and why? Other things were trying to understand, you know, the meaning of how the why is domicile being discussed so much in Wong Kim Ark. That's a huge one. Because a big. If you listen to the ACLU's opening presentation, they're like, this is a stupid case because Wong Kim Ark controls and the, you know, the government is not asking you to overturn Wong Kim Ark. So the rule of decision in Wong Kamar holds and you have to do it. And I mean, the justices asked questions like, well then why did they limit the holding? You know, why did they specify and limit the holding? And moreover, there was an interesting subtle question that I think people, people thought was funny. Even I saw Democrats posting it like it was a gotcha for the administration. At one point, Kavanaugh asked the aclu, so you think this is like a simple case, guys, right? You think it's just we can, you know, Wonka, Mark controls. The government's not asking us to overturn. 1k mark, the end 2 page opinion, right? And the ACLU is like, yes. And that's not a good answer. And the reason that's not a good answer is because the Supreme Court doesn't take stupid cases. Right? Clarence Thomas has said this before. Like when he, he's said, I get really annoyed whenever, you know, an advocate comes up to the Supreme Court and says, this is an easy case. And it's like, really, why'd we take it then? Like, we only take 70 cases a year, clearly. And, and moreover, there's plenty of cases we dispose of without oral argument that we think are easy. So the fact that you're here means we don't think this is easy. So why are you coming up and telling me it's easy. And so that was. Kavanaugh didn't say that. But when I hear. Whenever you hear a Supreme Court justice inquire to an advocate and be like, so you think this is an easy case? That's the answer shouldn't be yes.

[Ryan Grim]

Yeah. And you know, the crazy thing about the Supreme Court, and I was saying this yesterday, it is probably the last institution with the government where you really don't ever hear leaking in terms of justices speaking about each other in a negative way or they take their jobs extremely seriously and to a very high position. Now, can I ask you. And I made fun of her in my monologue, but Judge Jackson is clearly like, there's something going on where she talked about something to do with Japan. And if you try to steal a pocketbook in Japan and you have local loyalty as a visitor, do you know what she's talking about? Because I actually re. Listened to it and I couldn't understand what she was saying because I'm deep in the literature.

[Will Chamberlain]

I understand what she's trying to get at. She's not doing it articulately. Like, the thing about Justice Jackson, when you listen to her, she takes so long to formulate her questions. Right. She's not concise at all. She's not a precise thinker. It's just inevitable. But I understand what she's trying to get at because I know I'm deep in having read the briefs. So she's trying to get to this question of what does it mean to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof and to have some obligation of allegiance. And the idea being that there is a minimal way to understand jurisdiction and allegiance that just involves I am obligated to follow the law. Right. Like in some sense, my, you know, even somebody here legally present has some minor obligation of allegiance to the United States, which is if he commits a crime, he's going to be held accountable in court. So you. That, you know, you can understand that as meaning you have an obligation to follow, you know, to be adhering to the law. That's what she's trying to get at. Now, the problem is the way that the people who are framing the 14th amendment described it was. It's not some, you know, that is not what we mean by allegiance. It's more complete than that. It's more substantive than that. So that's why, for example, American Indians had an obligation to follow American law when they were off the reservation in the tribal times, right around the time of the enactment. And yet they were still, their children were not birthright citizens, even if those children were born on what was obviously American territory and not Indian territory. So the American Indian example is really, really difficult to deal with for the respondents. It's the hardest thing to deal with. And that's also another reason you heard so many questions about it.

[Ryan Grim]

But didn't, didn't they get, didn't Native Americans children get the birthright system through an act of Congress, not through the courts?

[Will Chamberlain]

Correct. They were. They're not entitled to it under the 14th amendment. So the statute had to create it. And that's, that's also a really key thing to understand about when, whenever liberals doom and gloom about a bad ruling in the birthright citizenship case. The Constitution sets a floor with the 14th Amendment about who gets jurisdiction or rather who must get citizenship. But it gives the right of naturalization to Congress. Like it gives that, that power is explicit. So Congress, whatever problems that are identified or, you know, whatever mess is created that Amy Coney Barrett said, oh, well, the implementation will be messy. It's like, well, Congress can fix any of that. If there's any sort of hard case with found, you name the hard case, Congress can solve it by creating a naturalization rule for those individuals who are hard done by, you know, in a world where the rule would be just the floor set by the 14th Amendment.

[Ryan Grim]

Yeah. And I think that, I think the reason I thought a lot of conservatives were saying, oh, this is coming out, coming against us is because I know Gorsuch was talking a lot about Native Americans. Gorsuch is kind of obsessed with Native Americans in a very weird way. Talks about them more frequently than I think any other justice ever does. Coney Barrett talked about it would be messy. Kavanaugh was slightly aggressive towards the government, not Kavanaugh. Roberts was. If, if the court, if the court's not, people say, oh, it's a seven, it's a six, three conservative court. What it really is, is, you know, two very conservative justices, Alito and, and Thomas, three institutionalists, one libertarian and three liberal justices. How would you see Kavanaugh, Roberts, ACB and Gorsuch citing? I mean, that's really the four key things. How they side is how this, this case is really going to go.

[Will Chamberlain]

So I think, here's my guess. This is my guess. I think, I think we end up getting Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. I think we get Kavanaugh because I think Kavanaugh's question about, you think this is a simple case. I think we're going to get him Because I think he realizes one, one, he's an executive power believer. And so the idea that we just couldn't stop birth tourism and that we'd constitutionalize a rule for birth tourism I think will strike him as very wrong and kind of obvious. And then he's not. I don't think he'll be impressed by what the, what the respondents, the ACLU is saying about this being a closed set. Gorsuch too. People got on Gorsuch and they're not sure about him. And especially there was this one question Gorsuch asked Sauer where Sauer didn't have a great answer, which was, are American Indians born now birthright citizens? And that should have been just a flat yes. Right. It's an interesting question because we have a different set. The American Indians and the tribes are in a different relationship to the United States now than they were in the 1860s. So the question of whether they would get birthright citizenship now is different even under the old rule. But one of the. I mean, Gorsuch isn't a very good originalist. He makes a point of being that. And I don't think he will have been persuaded by the ACLU's point. At one point he was asking them about Domicile and Wong, Kim Ark and the aclu, you know, kind of give some muffed answer and he's like, it's difficult, isn't it? And that was a real tell that. He's like, you know, you don't have great arguments. You don't have actually a great answer to the briefs that were written by the government. The government has some really good arguments that you guys don't seem to have a good answer to. So I think we'll win. Gorsuch, Roberts and Barrett are where I get a little bit wishy washy. I think Barrett's really deeply, deeply pro immigration. And so she'll have a hard time voting the right way here. I think she'll find a way to not. And then Roberts, I thought Roberts had the worst question of all from any of the conservatives, which was at the beginning he asked. Well, you know, these are very small categories that you found, like the, the children of ambassadors, children invading armies, American Indians. And yet you're trying to expand it to this big category of illegal aliens. And I thought that was a. You know, normally Roberts is pretty sharp. I thought that was a dumb question. Because the idea being that the children of people illegally present in the United States should be an extremely small category because theoretically. Right. Like why, why are they here? Right. They'll, they've broken a law to get here that should be enforced and then they've broken a lot of stay here which they should be trying to be retrieved. And so this should be actually an extremely small category of people. And yet for, because of the dereliction of previous administrations, it's not. But that doesn't, that doesn't prove your point.

[Ryan Grim]

Yeah, they are the most concerning, I think. And I do think, I mean AC ACB has come in very clutch at times as far as conservative rulings and then other times she's been a giant disappointment. And I guess that's the, that's the, that's the thing with the court sometimes you really don't know. Look at Kagan Sotomayor ruling that about trans. About the, about the Colorado case. When it came to the camps for, for gay youth, I did not assume it was going to be a 8:1 decision. But you know, I think with the courts you kind of never know. So it's interesting. When will this decision, you think come out?

[Will Chamberlain]

It'll come out probably June. So like late. I would assume late. I would assume that there's going to be a lot of writing either way and that it'll come out late. I mean if it comes out earlier, that's a bad sign because if it comes out earlier then that means that Kentachi Jackson is not writing some like super fulsome descent that takes like 50 years to write.

[Ryan Grim]

Well, is that, is that why speaking just transitioning for one last question. Is that why the case when it comes to Louisiana, Alabama, VRA Section 2 is not out yet? Because that was this, that was talked about in October and it's April and we haven't gotten that case yet.

[Will Chamberlain]

That is my guess. That's what. Because Alito is the only person without an opinion out from that sitting. It's almost, you know, you, if you bet on the oral arguments, the conservatives won. So I expect there is some like hundred page dissent from Jackson that is holding, that is trying to be finalized, that is holding up that opinion. That's my guess.

[Ryan Grim]

Okay. So Will, where can we go to read more about what you put out there? You're very, very smart, especially on, on legal stuff. So where people go to read your stuff?

[Will Chamberlain]

All right, you can read my stuff at willchamberland on X. That's primarily where I post. You occasionally see op EDS from me. You can also follow what we do with the Article 3 project by going to a3paction.com where we, you know, have a lot of campaigns to try and push for the confirmation of various people and for various other legislative action.

[Ryan Grim]

All right, well, thank you for this podcast. I appreciate it.

[Will Chamberlain]

Absolutely. Thanks for having me.

[Public Investing Advertiser]

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. If you 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 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 this

[Jacob Goldstein]

is Jacob Goldstein from what's yous Problem? When you buy business software from lots of vendors, the costs add up and it gets complicated and confusing. Odoo solves this. It's a single company that sells a suite of enterprise apps that handles everything from accounting to inventory to sales. Odoo is all connected on a single platform in a simple and affordable way. You can save money without missing out on the features you need. Check out Odoo at o d o o.com that's o d o o.com have

[Klarna Advertiser]

you heard about Klarna? Klarna is an app designed to make everyday spending simpler and more transparent. It gives you flexibility to decide how you want to pay, whether that's paying right away, paying later, or spreading payments over time, depending on what works best for you. Everything is managed in the Klarna app so you can keep track of purchases and stay organized. You can also discover deals and even earn cash back when you shop through the Klarna app with participating brands plans. It's all about flexibility and staying in control of how and when you pay. Download the Klarna app today or visit klarna.com to learn more. Terms Apply California Resident Loans Made or Arranged pursuant to a California Finance Law License, NMLS Number 1353190 Klarna Balance Account required to be eligible for cash back points limitations. Terms and conditions apply.

[Bethenny Frankel]

This is Bethany Frankel from Just Be with Bethany Frankel. Let me be blunt. Most dog food is junk. It just is. And I'm not feeding junk to Biggie and Smalls. That is why they eat just food for dogs. It's real, 100% human grade food with ingredients I actually recognize. Not mystery pellets pretending to be healthy. And once I switched, the difference was obvious. Better digestion, better skin, more energy. Dogs who actually feel good instead of just surviving dinner. Here's the thing. You care about quality. You make an intentional choice to be healthy. So why are you gambling with your dog's health? So let's think about our furry babies. Go to justfood for dogs.com right now and get 50% off your first box. No code. Just try it. Because once you see the difference, you're not going back.

[Ryan Grim]

Now it's time for the Ask Me Anything segment. If you want any part of the Ask Me Anything segment, email me ryanumbersgame podcast.com that's Ryanoral numbers game podcast.com I will get to all your emails. I know I have about two dozen sitting in the sitting in the chamber. I will, I promise you. I might have to do an all ask me anything episode soon. It's gonna get through them all. But I will get to all these questions. So the first one comes to Andrew. He says, can you lay out how you think the Texas Senate runoff will turn out corn and over performed if we're spending a huge amount of money in the primary, which leaves less money for some other important races than North Carolina and Georgia will be at a loss if the money starts drying up. Yes. So I thought, I mean, Cornyn did. Cornyn was polling to be in second and turned in first. Now he spent a hundred million dollars, spent a lot of money on this primary. Remember, Texas has eight media markets. It's one of the most expensive states to campaign in because there's so many media markets to campaign. But I, and I thought, okay, Trump's gonna endorse them and corn is going to come out winning like he always does. And then Paxton made this comment where he said he would drop out if the Senate passed the SAVE Act. And Trump's opinion changed remarkably because it's what Trump's so, you know, agitated about is the passing of the SAVE Act. Whoever told Paxton to say that deserves an Award for Campaign Manager of the Year. A stroke of genius by his campaign. Whoever told him to do that. Stroke of genius because it held back the Cornyn endorsement. And while that was happening, Trump was asking his supporters or his, his die hard base, who do you like? Who do you like? Who do you like? And they were all saying Paxton. And now he has a big hesitation. And then worst of all, in that time frame there were polls taken saying if you endorsed Cornyn, who would win? And the poll said Paxton and Trump hates being on the losing side of an issue. And I think that given who turns out in a runoff election is a generally very conservative audience. Now there's a big enthusiasm problem in the GOP right now in Texas. That's absolutely true. They are not energized whatsoever you had, but you still have a lot of conservatives there. I also have heard from any people that Paxton's a lazy campaigner, which gives me pause. And he didn't raise that much money. Now if he's the nominee, the GOP is going to sweep into, swoop in to help him, you know, raise money. But I think the poll showing also him and Telo having the same margin of error as him and Cornyn really takes away from the whole he can't win opinion. Yeah, I, I, so my bet would be on Paxton Long, I'm sure my bet is that PAX is going to win this whole thing. And I did not think that right afterwards, but I think that Paxton's campaign played this moment brilliantly. Okay, next question comes from Robert. He says, hey Ryan, thank you so much for taking my questions last time. You responded quicker than I anticipated. I think you asked a really good question, Robert. That's why I jumped at the chance. I'm not that you, not that the people who ask questions that I haven't answered haven't asked good questions. I just haven't got a chance to read them all. You recently episode about J.D. vance and your guest said that he rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. I think that was Mark Halpern. I like to hear some examples that come to your mind when you hear that. Also, being that you know J.D. personally, can you give listeners, we only know him from the camera, what he's really like when he's on the camera. So I mean, I don't know what Mark was necessarily saying. I think with donors he rubbed people the wrong way. Look, there's a lot of donors who have something that me and a few other of my campaign friends call donor brain. And that is where you are more liberal than the general public, more liberal than the Republican voting bloc, and you care about things like foreign policy in a different way than I think generic Republicans whose kids serve in the military do. And when you, when. It's very funny when candidates remove themselves from donor brain and become candidates and get more infused with how Republican voters feel, it's interesting to see their transition. Bernie Marino, when he was a donor, not a candidate, very much had donor brain. I mean, he was very liberal, crazy liberal a number of times. And he has done a remarkably good job at transforming himself and being more well versed in what the base feels than what I think wealthy donors feel. So I don't exactly know what Mark was talking about. I don't have an instance of that. I did heard that, you know, a lot of donors do want Rubio because I think that they think his foreign policy lines up with theirs, but I don't exactly know what the instance was. What is JD like personally? He's a bro. Like, that's the thing is JD is very much a. Like, what's the saying? Like, you can take, you can take someone out of, like, I don't know, you can take someone out of their town, but you can never take that town out of that person. That's kind of what JD's like. I'll say this campaign story, when we were doing the campaign, what well financed campaigns will do a lot is they will search a candidate's entire social media history to find out what is in the opposition research book of another campaign. So he had to go through JD's entire social media history. And I think JD's first Facebook post, remember, he's a millennial, so he grew up on social media. I think it was either his first or one of his first social media pros was like, never eating gas station, gas station sushi again. Like, it's very normal. It's very, very normal. He likes, his sense of humor is very R rated, I guess. Like, it's very bro, like, related. It's funny, but it's not appropriate for the campaign trail, which is perfectly fine. A lot of people, John McCain allegedly had a very foul mouth in private. And then in public you don't talk like that. It's not polite. But JD has that. He's very curious. He likes to hear a lot of opinions from people. And I think that he's somebody who has a general need to, to try to find, to better himself at all times. There are some people who work, are working on themselves a lot. I think JD comes across like that. JD Is also immensely loyal to some people who we like. I mean, I. I'm not trying to play armchair psychologist, but I think of it like this. This if you were somebody who statistically was supposed to fail in life by your statistics of your background and your upbringing, and once in a while, somebody saw something in you and said, I'm gonna make you a priority to help make sure you get to the next plateau in life. You kind of never forget them. And I had dinner one time with Amy Chua. She's the tiger mom lady. And she was a Yale professor. I don't know if she's still there, but she was, and she was. JD Was a student of hers, and she absolutely rooted and believed in JD Very much so. And she's a lovely person. So, so, so smart. Her one book, World on Fire and then Political Tribes. Political Tribes is a genius. Genius, genius political book. Incredible. But he was immensely defensive and supportive of her, and you could see that relationship building. I remember asking him. I'll tell you one question. I think I remember asking him that. What about the shooting of the Hillbilly Elegy movie? And I said to him, what was. Because imagine, like, Glenn Close, who played his grandma in the movie, is like, a legendary, brilliant actress. And I said to him, like, what was what? She asked you what was that like? And he said the crazy thing was, like, she would ask, like, how did she. What. What leg did she lean most of her weight on when she walked? How did she hold her cigarette? And he said he brought his family to come see the filming. And when he. When she walked out on set as his grandmother, it almost. They had to take a step back because she was so much like his grandmother, who she obviously had never met. And I don't know, I find him to be very normal. I know that's not, like, a real answer. There are some politicians who are very, very much like Reese. You know, I've met many of those before. There are some that kind of have. Don't have an identity. And you can tell, like, they've never read a book before. They could be nice people, but they've clearly never read a book before. And then there are people who are just more normal. And JD Always came off as very normal. He likes frappro sense of humor. He's got a really good music taste, too. And, like, his music taste is actually pretty legit. It's very millennial, but it's legit. And, yeah, that's what. That's a person I have known and throughout this relationship. And like our, our, our casual now relationship, I don't text him that often because, like, what do you text, like the vice president? Like, hey, how's it going? I don't know. It's. The dichotomy has changed so much that it. But we do speak occasionally. But that's the person I knew certainly during the Senate race where I. And before that where I spoke to him much more frequently. Okay, last question comes from Michael from North Carolina. Good morning, Ryan. You are doing a great job on your podcast. Thank you, Michael. Thank you for listening. I really appreciate it. I hope it continues to grow and gets more support. It deserves. Trump is very effective at picking up the $100 bill that other politicians ignored, whether for ideological purposes or for donor support. By this I mean issues that are 70, 30 or 80, 20 support among the general public, like trans girls, sports and deporting illegal criminals. Trump and the GOP seem to have lost that ability. For example, you have pointed out other politicians ads talking about the TSA line should write themselves. The Democrats would rather ruin your vacation than deport men who murder Lake and Riley and Sheridan. Gordon, why is that? Are congressional Republicans sabotaging Trump? I don't understand. I understand Trump is consumed with Iran, but what about the rest of the political operation? Such a good question, Michael. I think about this all the time. So part of it is. And this is a major part of it, right? The. A lot of Republicans, right. I'll put it like this. For example, perfect example. There were no Reagan Republicans while Reagan was president. The Reagan Republicans really started coming about during the Republican Revolution of 94, after he was left office, because the generation that was so heavily influenced by Reagan started kind of coming about and identifying as Reagan Republicans. They didn't necessarily do that while Reagan was president. And a lot of Republicans who are in office now are still very much of a certain mindset that is their default. So when you don't understand something, your default is to lean to what you already know, whether or not it's true or not. And I think for a lot of Republicans, their default is not lined up with an economic populist default. They worry about, you know, maybe the market or maybe donors or, I don't know, not the working class. And they don't even understand it. Like, they just generally don't understand it. They've gotten better. They've certainly gotten better than when they started 12 years ago, 10 years ago now. But on economic populace, that they really are still very behind on foreign policy stuff. They're so behind. I remember this is an off the record conversation I took place, but I got to go to the Republican Study Committee. This is right after Russia invaded Ukraine and it's off the record meeting. And there was a congressman. I'm not going to say his name, but he got up there in front of the Republican Study Committee and he said that he wanted. His resolution was to put a bust of Zelensky next to the bust of Winston Churchill in the state capitol. Because that was like a modern day Winston Churchill. Like, they're just delusional. You know what I mean? They so badly want to be part of a great moment that they are not even aware of the moment they're in. You know what I mean? It's very much that. And they default to a lot of influences that I don't think are, are, you know, informative. And it's a lot of times politicians have the same problem that journalists do. If you go to a journalist room, very few people go to church, Very few registered Republicans, Very few drive a pickup truck. Very few listen to country music, Very few own a gun. Very few live in a Republican county. It is a bubble. And a lot of people in Washington D.C. most of them have college degrees. Most of their staff have college degrees. Many have advanced degrees. They've been there too long. They know the same people and they are too out of touch with their general public. They just are. And their default, whenever they don't understand something or they have like maybe like one or two issues they really care about that they're. I'm sorry, Mike, by the way, for those watching and not listening, my hair is wild today, and I apologize. So there, there's like a number of issues they care about deeply and they understand deeply. And then there's a lot of things that they just don't know. So they move to the default. And there is no lobbyist for working class Americans. There's no lobbying group for middle America. There's no lobbying group for the suburbs or for rural America. There's lobbying groups for farms, but that's massive agriculture. There's no. There's a lobbying group for the interests of tech companies and all the rest of it, but that is really why you need somebody. And it's very rare personality who's really kind of just tapped in and doesn't live in a bubble. And their default doesn't come from a bygone era of politics. And that's what a lot of them, even those who are younger and maybe were children during Reagan time, kind of default to and I like all of them but some of them are just, they just, they live in, they live in a bubble and they're very isolated. So I think that's what's happening. But anyway, thank you so much for listening to this podcast. If you like this podcast, please like and subscribe in the iHeartRadio app Apple podcast Podcast and I will talk to you guys on Monday when your schedule sounds like this. Are you kidding me?

[Take Five Oil Change Advertiser]

An oil change is the last thing you have time for. So drive into Take five and let our techs change your oil. Check your tires, top off your fluids and have you back back on the road pit stop fast. All while you stay in your car. No putting your entire schedule on hold. No upsells, no problem. So you can get back to your to do list or not find your nearest [e-mail] take five the stay in your car. 10 minute oil change this is Jacob

[Jacob Goldstein]

Goldstein from what's yous Problem? When you buy business software from lots of vendors, the costs add up and it gets complicated and confusing. Odoo solves this. It's a single company that sells a suite of enterprise apps that handles everything from accounting to inventory to sales. Odoo is all connected on a single platform in a simple and affordable way you can save money without missing out on the features you need. Check out odoo@o d o o.com that's o d o o dot com.

[Klarna Advertiser]

If you're looking for more flexibility in how you pay for everyday purchases, meet Klarna. Klarna lets you decide whether to pay now, pay later, or spread payments over time. All managed right in the Klarna app. Download the Klarna app today or visit klarna.com to learn more. Terms Apply California Resident Loans made or arranged pursuant to a California Finance Law License NMLS Number 1353190 Klarna Balance Account required to be eligible for cashback points. Limitations, terms and conditions apply.

[Bethenny Frankel]

This is Bethenny Frankel from Just Be with Bethany Frankel. Most dog food is marketing, not nutrition. That is why Biggie and Smalls eat just food for dogs. Real 100% human grade food with ingredients I actually recognize. And yes, I do see the difference. Better digestion, healthier skin, more energy. Dogs that feel better. My babies. If you've been on the fence about switching, stop overthinking it. What's more important than your furry babies and their health? Go to justfoodfordogs.com right now and get 50% off your first box. No code needed. Just try it.

[Klarna Advertiser]

This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.