It's a Numbers Game: The Numbers Behind Trump v. Courts with Ann Coulter

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show Episode Title: It's a Numbers Game: The Numbers Behind Trump v. Courts with Ann Coulter
Release Date: April 10, 2025

In this compelling episode of The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show, hosted by Premiere Networks, Ann Coulter joins Ryan Jerdusky for an in-depth discussion on the intricate battle between former President Donald Trump and the U.S. judiciary. Titled "It's a Numbers Game: The Numbers Behind Trump v. Courts," the episode delves into the dynamics of executive orders, judicial overreach, and the broader implications for American politics.

1. Trump's Struggle with the Judicial System

Overview:
Ann Coulter and Ryan Jerdusky kick off the conversation by examining President Trump's extensive use of executive orders and the subsequent legal challenges they faced from various federal judges. The discussion highlights the unprecedented number of injunctions against Trump's orders and the strategic maneuvers by liberal organizations to impede his agenda.

Key Points:

• Executive Orders vs. Judicial Rulings:
  Trump signed 109 executive orders from the start of his administration until April 1, 2025. In response, 53 rulings by district court judges sought to halt these actions.

• Judicial Appointments and Bias:
  The episode underscores the significant number of appellate and district court judges appointed by previous Democratic administrations, emphasizing their progressive leanings. For instance, President Biden appointed 45 appellate court judges and 187 circuit court judges, contributing to a judiciary sympathetic to liberal causes.

Notable Quotes:

• Ann Coulter [13:11]:
  "District court judges do not have this insane right to sit there and actually make decrees in district courts for the sake of the entire nation."

• Ryan Jerdusky [21:49]:
  "These district court judges hold like one, even acting as if, you know, Chief Justice John Roberts is as important as some puny district court judge."

2. Judicial Overreach and 'Judge Shopping'

Overview:
The conversation delves into the tactic known as "Judge Shopping," where progressive organizations strategically file lawsuits in jurisdictions with sympathetic judges to secure favorable rulings that can block or delay executive actions.

Key Points:

• Strategic Lawsuits:
  Organizations like the ACLU and Campaign Legal Center actively seek out judges who are likely to issue nationwide injunctions against Trump's policies, effectively stalling his initiatives.

• Case Studies:
  Specific cases are cited, including Judge John Tigar's injunctions on asylum policies and Judge Derek Watson's ruling on Trump's travel ban, which was later upheld by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii.

Notable Quotes:

• Ryan Jerdusky [24:45]:
  "The judicial overreach is unprecedented. These judges are making nationwide decisions that should be the purview of the executive branch."

• Ann Coulter [17:26]:
  "The case you mentioned, Trump v. Hawaii... Judge Clarence Thomas ruled that district court judges do not have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions."

3. Impact on Trump's Policies and Administration

Overview:
Coulter and Jerdusky discuss how continuous judicial interference has hampered Trump's ability to implement his policy agenda, particularly in areas like immigration and federal funding.

Key Points:

• Immigration Policies:
  Numerous executive orders aimed at tightening immigration were repeatedly blocked or delayed by lower court judges, undermining Trump's objectives.

• Federal Funding Cuts:
  Administrations faced injunctions preventing cuts to federal assistance programs and diversity initiatives, highlighting judges' roles in shaping national policy.

Notable Quotes:

• Ryan Jerdusky [28:00]:
  "We finally got the president I voted for. We finally got the president I wrote a book about. Thank you, liberals, for just an absurd number of criminal prosecutions trying to kick him off the ballot."

• Ann Coulter [19:52]:
  "President Trump in his first term had more nationwide injunctions than all previous presidents combined. He's set to eclipse that during this term."

4. Conservative Media and Political Influence

Overview:
The discussion shifts to the role of conservative media in shaping public perception and political outcomes. Jerdusky shares his experiences with the media landscape and its impact on conservative voices.

Key Points:

• Media Herding Behavior:
  Jerdusky criticizes the tendency of conservative media to echo the same narratives, stifling diverse opinions within the conservative movement.

• Publishing Challenges:
  Both hosts touch upon the difficulties faced by conservative authors in the publishing industry, highlighting systemic biases against right-leaning perspectives.

Notable Quotes:

• Ann Coulter [34:22]:
  "There are very few conservative voices now that can offer genuine diversity of thought without seeking approval within the sphere of influence."

• Ryan Jerdusky [36:13]:
  "For protection, I don't know who the first mover is here. And then they will all say the exact same thing. And I didn't realize what the rules were."

5. Publishing Industry's Resistance to Conservative Authors

Overview:
Ryan Jerdusky delves into his personal struggles with getting his books published despite their success, shedding light on broader industry biases.

Key Points:

• Publishing Hurdles:
  Despite his first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, becoming a bestseller, Jerdusky faced resistance in publishing subsequent works, with publishers questioning their potential to advance public dialogue.

• Industry Bias:
  Coulter and Jerdusky discuss how conservative authors often face gatekeeping in mainstream publishing houses, limiting their reach and influence.

Notable Quotes:

• Ryan Jerdusky [39:09]:
  "I was the only person saying that. But then when the result comes out, not that I'm demanding credit, but no one will remember it because they all were saying the same wrong thing."

• Ann Coulter [39:07]:
  "The publishing industry often resists conservative narratives, prioritizing profit margins over the dissemination of diverse viewpoints."

6. Listener Q&A: Success in Local vs. Statewide Conservative Campaigns

Overview:
In the latter part of the episode, Ann Coulter engages with listener questions, addressing the discrepancy between the success of local conservative PACs versus statewide campaigns.

Key Points:

• Local vs. Statewide Dynamics:
  Jerdusky explains that local races, such as school board elections, benefit from concentrated conservative regions and targeted campaigning, unlike broader statewide elections.

• Impact of Influential Figures:
  The role of high-profile figures like Elon Musk in conservative movements is critiqued, with Jerdusky suggesting that Musk's unconventional public persona may alienate potential conservative voters.

Notable Quotes:

• Ryan Jerdusky [51:35]:
  "Early voting has become a significant factor. Democrats executed robust early vote plans, outpacing Republicans who traditionally rely on low-propensity voters."

• Ann Coulter [43:00]:
  "If you're a lawyer and you want to make a lot of money, just start suing colleges. And by the way, law schools, business schools, states business, I mean anti-white discrimination, you have a cattle cate ahead of you."

Conclusion

This episode provides a thorough examination of the friction between the Trump administration and the U.S. judiciary, highlighting the strategic legal challenges that have impeded executive actions. Coulter and Jerdusky offer critical insights into judicial overreach, the politicization of the courts, and the systemic barriers faced by conservative voices in media and publishing. The discussion underscores the complex interplay between different branches of government and the enduring impact of judicial appointments on national policy.

Resources Mentioned:

• Ryan Jerdusky's Substack: ryanjerdusky.substack.com
• Ryan's Columns and Upcoming Interviews: Available on his Substack.
• Ann Coulter's Substack: anncoulter.substack.com

Notable Mention: For those interested in the ongoing discourse surrounding Trump’s legal battles and the role of the judiciary in American politics, this episode serves as a critical resource, offering both statistical analysis and firsthand perspectives from seasoned conservative commentators.

Transcript

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Hello, it is Ryan. And we could all use an extra bright spot in our day, couldn't we? Just to make up for things like sitting in traffic, doing the dishes, counting your steps, you know, all the mundane stuff. That is why I'm such a big fan of Chumba Casino. Chumba Casino has all your favorite social casino style games that you can play for free, anytime, anywhere with daily bonuses. So sign up [e-mail] that's chumbacasino.com no purchase necessary. VGW Group void we're prohibited by law.

[Walton Goggins]

21 plus terms and conditions apply.

[Amica Insurance Representative]

For some of us, personal finances aren't just personal. They include a lot more people than ourselves. Loved ones, neighbors, the communities we call home, and the causes we hold in our hearts. At Thrivent, we help plan your financial picture with the bigger picture in mind. Because even though our business is helping guide your finances, our ambition is to make it mean so much more. Thrivent where money means more Connect with.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

[e-mail] Every day our world gets a.

[Amica Insurance Representative]

Little more connected, but a little further apart. But then there are moments that remind us to be more human.

Thank you for calling Amica Insurance.

[Ann Coulter]

Hey, I was just in an accident.

[Amica Insurance Representative]

Don't worry, we'll get you taken care of.

At Ameca, we understand that looking out for each other isn't new or groundbreaking.

[Ann Coulter]

It's human.

[Amica Insurance Representative]

Ameca empathy is our best policy.

[Odoo Representative]

You know, some people say that Odoo business management software is like fertilizer, the way it promotes growth and all. But other people say Odoo is like a magic beanstalk because it grows with your company and is also magically affordable. And there's some people who would even say Odoo's individual software programs come together to build the perfect suite. Like building blocks. Well, Odoo is all of these things. Fertilizer, magic beanstalk building blocks for business. So sign up [e-mail] o d o.

[Greenlight Representative]

O.Com this message comes from Greenlight. Ready to start talking to your kids about financial literacy? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app that teaches kids and teens how to earn, save, spend wisely and invest with your guardrails in place. With Greenlight, you can send money to kids quickly, set up chores automate allowance, and keep an eye on what your kids are spending with real time notifications. Join millions of parents and kids building healthy financial habits together on Greenlight. Get started risk [e-mail] iheart.

[Ann Coulter]

Welcome back to A Numbers Game with Ryan Graduski. As I announced last week, this is the first time my podcast coming out twice in a week. So that means twice as much data and stories and me. So thank you all for being here again this week. Please like and subscribe and give me a five star review wherever you're listening. It really helps promote the podcast. In December of 1960, the band the Crickets released a new iconic song where they declared I fought the law and the law won. When the song was covered by the Clash in 1979, it became a punk rock classic. Turn to 2025 and President Donald Trump is having his own fight with the legal world. It's not over a girl or a gun, like the Cricket song, but it's over Executive Orders and Liberal Judges Efforts to Stop his Agenda from the start of his administration to April 1, President Trump has signed 109 executive orders and there have been 53 rulings by district court judges to halt actions. Now, I think it's worth explaining the difference between different kinds of Judges for a 2nd District Court Judges are lower on the level of federal Judiciary. There are 670 judges who receive a lifetime appointment by their president and like the title in their job describes, they're just allowed to hear federal complaints within a district. Once a complaint is heard at the district level, it makes its way up to the appellate court in each respective region of the country. And there are 13 appellate courts in the entire country. Anyone who's paid attention to politics, especially over the last decade, realized that the Supreme Court seats have become a highly politicized issue because of the makeup of the court and how it has become substantially more conservative, especially compared to three or four decades ago. What people and the media have paid less attention to is how much President Obama, Trump and Biden have remade the lower courts. President Obama appointed 55 appellate court judges and 268 circuit court judges over his two terms. President Trump appointed 54 appellate court judges almost as much as President Obama in two terms in one and 174 circuit court judges. President Biden appointed 45 appellate court judges, but 187 circuit court judges. So President Biden got the most amount of judges in the least amount of time. That means if you're a liberal organization like the aclu, the Campaign Legal center, or the State Democracy Defenders Fund, you have over 100 appellate court judges and 455 district court judges appointed by the last two Democratic administrations who are sympathetic to progressive causes and issues, not to mention the judges who were brought in during the Bush and sometimes Clinton years. It's called Judge Shopping, where nonprofits and liberal activists will look for sympathetic judges to give them favorable rulings, issue nationwide injunctions and hold everything up in court for months and sometimes for well over a year. This was evident during the first term of the Trump administration when a number of executive orders were held up by the Supreme Court judge and spent up to a year or close to a year in legal limbo because of district court judges. One such case was Judge John Tiger. He's an Obama appointed judge in California's Northern District, like around San Francisco. He's a favorite of liberal activists since his decision in 2015 to force the California Department of Corrections to use taxpayer funded medical care to provide inmates with gender reassignment surgery. So like yeah, it's as crazy as you're hearing it as what I'm reading it. So force taxpayers to give gender reassignment surgery to inmates. In 2018 and 2019, Judge Tegar issued nationwide injunctions on Trump's executive orders to deny asylum to anyone who didn't enter the country through legal ports of entry and against his safe third country agreement where asylum seekers who passed through multiple safe third countries, countries they could have declared asylum in but didn't, they waited to be in the United States. That was unconstitutional as well. Another judge was Judge Derek Watson. He was another Obama appointed judge from the US District Court in Hawaii. On March 15, 2017, he ruled that Trump's travel ban against several majority Muslim countries was illegal and placed a nationwide hold on Trump's executive order. Means he couldn't enforce. Wasn't until June 26, 2018 when the Supreme Court finally weighed in in Trump v. Hawaii that the Trump's executive order was in fact legal and followed decades of legal precedent where the President has the right to control who and who isn't admitted to the United states. Fast forward 202513 district court judges, six appointed by Biden, three by Bush, three by Obama and one by Reagan. Yeah, there are still Reagan appointed judges on the bench put temporary hold on a series of Trump executive orders. John McConnell Jr. An Obama appointed judge, place a nationwide hold on Trump's freezes of federal grants. Amir Ali, a Biden appointed judge who was born in Canada, placed a nationwide injunction on cuts to funding to federal assistance programs governed by USAID and the Secretary and the Department of State. John Bates, a Bush appointed judge, said it was illegal for Trump to fire federal workers that worked under diversity, equity and inclusion programs. And then there's John Basberg, an Obama appointed judge who ruled that Trump's use of the Alien and Sedition act that was created in 1798 was illegal and even said that it was a responsibility of the American government to fly illegal aliens who were deported back into the United, United States. This is unprecedented to have this many nationwide injunctions against a single president. During the first from the Trump presidency, he had 64 nationwide injunctions. This is more than all nationwide injunctions for all previous presidents combined. My buddy Josh Hammer, a very smart guy who you should follow on Twitter. He said the judicial overreach is unprecedented. And Judge Clarence Thomas, Justice Clarence Thomas rather addresses in his decision over Trump v. Hawaii, District court judges do not have this insane right to sit there and actually make decrees in district courtships for the sake of the entire nation. During a call with Josh, I described the situation. Josh said that basically there were no nationwide injunctions before the 1960s, that this judicial power laid out in Article 3 of the Constitution does not have the right to make decisions for the entire country. Congress does have the ability, however, to rein in the power of district court judges and abolish it. Tomorrow. The Congress could solve this issue. Tomorrow, actually, Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa, he put out a bill to sit there and solve this problem. The Supreme Court could reign in district court judges. America is not a nation governed by a king. And these judges should remind themselves that they wear robes and not a crown. You're listening to It's a Numbers Game with Ryan Grusky. We'll be right back.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Looking for excitement.

[Ann Coulter]

Jumba Casino is here.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Play anytime. Play anywhere. Play on the train. Play at the store. Play at home. Play when you're bored. Play today for your chance to win and get daily bonuses when you log in. So what are you waiting for? Don't delay. Chumba Casino is free to play.

[Greenlight Representative]

Experience social gameplay like never before.

[Clorox Representative]

Go to Chumba Casino right now to.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Play hundreds of games including online slots, bingo, Slingo and more.

[Clorox Representative]

Live the chumba [e-mail] no purchase necessary.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

VGW Group void where prohibited by law.

[Amica Insurance Representative]

21/ Terms and conditions apply At Ameca Insurance, we know it's more than just a car. It's the two door coupe that was there for your first drive. The hatchback that took you cross country and back, and the minivan that tackles the weekly carpool for the cars you couldn't live without. Trust Amica Auto Insurance. Amica Empathy is our best policy.

[Greenlight Representative]

Did you know that parents rank financial literacy as the number one most difficult life skill to teach? Meet greenlight, the debit card and money app for families with Greenlight, you can send money to kids quickly, set up chores automate allowance, and keep an eye on what your kids are spending. With real time notifications, kids learn to earn, save and spend wisely and parents can rest easy knowing their kids are learning about money. With guardrails in place, try Greenlight Risk free [e-mail] iheartra Clorox Scentiva smells like.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Lavender, cleans like Clorox and feels like hmm, right? That could go on for a while. Experience the long lasting freshness of Clorox Santiva.

[Clorox Representative]

Available in Clorox Scintiva Lavender Scented Leech.

[Walton Goggins]

Use as directed so you want to start a business? You might think you need a team of people and fancy tech skills, but listen to me when I say you don't. You just need GoDaddy arrow. I'm Walton Goggins, an actor and I like the sound of starting my own business. Walton Goggins Goggle Glasses. But I couldn't do this my own. GoDaddy Arrow uses AI to create everything you need to grow a business. It'll make you a unique logo, it'll create a custom website, it'll write social posts for you and even set you up with a social media calendar. How cool is that? Well, listen to this. For a limited time, you can get Arrow all access for just a dollar a week for 12 weeks. We're talking all the AI power of GoDaddy arrow plus a domain E commerce store, payments, professional email, a unified inbox. All for less money than I spend on deep tanning lotion while sunbathing off the Amalfi coast. You know what? That sounds like a plan. Get [e-mail] terms apply.

[Ann Coulter]

To quote Wendy Williams my guest this week is a legend. She's an icon. She is the moment. Ann Coulter, bestselling writer, has an amazing substack. You should all subscribe too. I'll put it in the link below. Anne, thank you for being here.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Well, this is quite a switch. You can see lots of my interviews with Ryan on the substack.

[Ann Coulter]

I know I was thinking that before and I've never interviewed you before, so this is a big deal. So. And I said in my monologue earlier that the federal judges have done a number on the Trump administration in putting federal injunctions from a local district court judge. This is unprecedented, first in volume, but two that it's happening on issues that the executive really has sole decision making on, like immigration. Do you you we've talked this privately, but is this normal like what, What? Like how does a federal judge in San Francisco have ruling over the whole country on immigration?

[Ryan Jerdusky]

No, it's really shocking and I, I am hoping, and I think it's very possible the Supreme Court is going to put an end to the nonsense. For one thing, what you say, a lot of their rulings are things that are clearly part of the President's plenary power, like immigration. I mean, I wrote about it in my column this week. Remember the Arizona, whatever it was, SB10 or something, Kris Kobach wrote it. And by the way, the papers, please. Part of the law was upheld, but the rest of it was basically Arizona law saying we're just going to comply with federal law. Congressional laws written, you know, passed by the House and the Senate and then signed by all kinds of presidents of different political parties. All Arizona wanted to do was follow the federal law, but the Supreme Court found that, no, the President has control over immigration because of his sole control over international relations. And so since Obama had decided not to follow the law, Arizona couldn't butt in and follow federal law. Which was, I think was kind of crazy enough during the Clinton administration, little 8 year old Elian Gonzales was sent back to a brutal communist dictatorship. And what was the reasoning on that? One thing and one thing only, the President has exclusive plenary power over immigration. If Clinton wanted to send him back, Clinton sent him back. And he and Janet Reno, lovely woman, they wanted to send him back. Most recently, and not covered heavily by the media, the New York Times, including a guy from Cato. You'll like this. When Trump issued his. I don't care if it doesn't say Muslim. I like to call it the Muslim ban. It warms my heart. When he issued his Muslim ban, the New York Times op ed page was just bristling with opinion pieces sneering, this is so unconstitutional, including some jackass from Cato Institute. I looked him up at the time and he went to, I mean, normally I don't, I don't raise these things. As you always point out, you're a college dropout and you're one of the smartest people I know. But this guy went to an utterly Bush league college. And I was thinking, New York Times, have you ever published anyone who went to this college before? But oh, he comes on and sneers about how, oh, Trump doesn't understand the Constitution or the history. Muslim ban upheld by the Supreme Court. And why? Because the President has exclusive power over immigration. So this isn't a matter of Trump defying court orders. This is a matter of the courts defying presidential powers in a really obvious and egregious way. I mean, the number of district courts. One thing I will give the New York Times credit for, I salute them. Here I was looking through some of the, just some of the cases. There are 27 district court rulings on arguing we refuse to comply with Trump's policy on immigration, which blindingly unconstitutional for them to do this. Courts are stepping in. And one great thing in the New York Times list was, which I've noticed they have not been doing all the time, you have to go look it up yourself. But I think probably enough people were asking. It was Biden judge, Biden judge, Biden judge, Biden judge, Obama judge, Biden judge. It's overwhelmingly Democratic.

[Ann Coulter]

Yeah. There's like two or three Bush judges, one Reagan judge who's still around for somehow, and it's all Biden, Obama judges. Otherwise it's completely one sided. The ju, the case you mentioned, which is the Trump B. Hawaii case, over the Muslim ban, which wasn't a Muslim ban, but we'll call it that there was, if not decades, a hundred years of precedent. The president has exclusive power to deny entry to any alien or class of aliens that he deems inadmissible or not for the benefit of the United States. And they were like, no, I, no, I don't believe it. And like Clarence Thomas in his, in his opinion, in his ruling, the approval sat there and said district court judges don't have the right to do this. They just. This is insane.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Yes, it is insane. And I mean, I, Trump seems pretty cheeky about all this. He's one of my favorite, my favorite case is where the administration admitted that they inadvertently deported someone who wasn't maybe, definitely a gang member and he's now in an El Salvador lean.

[Ann Coulter]

Gang member, maybe gang member. Jason.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

But their argument is, but sorry, you courts, we have exclusive jurisdiction over this and we're not bringing them back. Which I'm totally, totally in favor of. I absolutely, I can't believe how great this Trump administration is. As you know.

[Ann Coulter]

We'll get back to that in a second. But, but it is the fact that an American judge said to a president, you need to bring back someone who was here illegally that Al own. The two things that infuriate me, and I'm very partisan in one way, but one is that the second one is that when I read somebody says born in Mexico or Canada, went to college there and as a 40 year old, like you've been in America for how long before you were A federal judge. Exactly five years.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

That was noticeable, too. Yes, yes, yes. I'm glad you mentioned that. Ryan Jerdusky, I suspect you remember that after Trump's magnificent Mexican rapist speech, there was. Somebody was suing him. I forget what it was for. You probably remember.

[Ann Coulter]

I remember that, yes.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Though he complained about Mexican judge.

[Ann Coulter]

Yes, I remember that he was Mexican.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

The judge was the case. Do you remember the case? I don't remember the case.

[Ann Coulter]

I remember the individual case, but I remember the judge was Mexican. He made a big hurrah that the judge is partisan because he was born in Mexico.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

That's what I wanted to address here. Everyone, I mean, everyone went mental over that. Oh, how dare you mention that he's Mexican. Okay. Except for my entire life, I have been told that a criminal conviction has to be thrown out if it's all white people on the jury. So we cannot trust white Americans steeped in the Magna Carta and the rule of law, who have been here for generations to rule on a criminal case with a black defendant. If it's all white jurors. Well, that. It's just prima facie. That can't be a correct jury verdict. Nope. Throwing out the conviction. But. But Trump mentions that this guy's a Mexican, with the entire media claiming that he called all Mexicans rapists.

[Ann Coulter]

It's like, there's a movie. I forget what it was. Was like a whodunit. And they were like. I mean, it was a Lib woke movie during COVID or during blm. And they were like, the Mexican character was so pure, they couldn't tell a lie without throwing up. It's. That's how they treat a lot of these foreign board judges who do make rulings. And I'm sorry, they are. I don't understand how you could be in America for less than, I don't know, 50 years and you're sitting there and you're making rulings from the country as a whole. President Trump in his first term, during the Mexican Muslim ban or whatever the rest of it was, he had more nationwide injunctions than all previous previous presidents combined. And he's set to eclipse that during this term.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Yes. So, no, I think he should ignore them. He is doing the right thing. This is a point I've made. I'm not just making it for Trump. I. I just looked up. I think I made it when. When Bush was president and the issue was military trials for terrorists captured on the battlefield. Kind of in. In the Commander in chief's wheelhouse, I think you would say and judges were saying, no, no, no, no, no. We want them in an, in an Article 3 court. They must be in an Article 3 court. And at the time, I, I've, I've always argued these are three co. Equal. I love that word. It's like flammable and inflammable. So equal branches of government. And worse than that, I mean the executive branch, which is equal to the entire judiciary. One man holds the power of all. The executive power of the United States. The legislature, bicameral legislature. Everybody gets the gist of that. These district court judges hold like one. Even, even acting as if, you know, Chief Justice John Roberts is as important as some puny district court judge. It's still about 1 2,000th of the.

[Ann Coulter]

There are over 800 district court and appellate court judges. So the fact that there's 670 district court judges, so more than Congress, more than both houses combined, no senator can make a ruling for the entire United States, but one of 670 can. It makes it feel like there is a judicial supremacy versus a co. Equal branch.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Yes. And I'm pretty sure there are at least five justices who would agree with that. Not only should Trump ignore the orders, I think he ought to start calling up Chief Justice John Roberts and saying, I see you have an interesting bunch of interesting cases on the docket coming up. Would you mind setting up a 10th chair up on the dais? Because I'd like to hear the oral arguments, maybe write an opinion or two. You should start writing to district court judges. I would like to be included in the evidentiary hearing. I'll be making a ruling on that. So it is just, it is totally beyond the power of judges, what they're doing, and maybe I'll write about this, but besides the fact that the President completely should be ignoring them, it is as if he is calling and asking to sit in on, you know, district courts engaging in criminal sentencing. This is an extension of the left, using the courts to get what they can't get through democracy. And in particular, I think to explain this simply because the courts have been doing this for such a long time, most people don't even recognize the outrage that is going on. Courts, all courts, including the Supreme Court across, per the Constitution, decide cases and controversies. The parties before them, that is what they are deciding. They aren't binding anyone else to these cases. Now, they may have to interpret a law in order to decide that case or controversy. But the way all courts have kind of been operating, certainly the Supreme Court, for I don't know, I think most of my life is let's look at the law and the Constitution and we will promulgate an overarching rule for the entire country. Okay. That's making a lot law that isn't deciding a case or controversy between two parties. So for example, one of the cases I wrote about this week, which I made clear in my column, the Students for Fair Admissions versus Harvard. Technically what the Supreme Court did was decide a case between students for Fair Admissions versus Harvard. That's it. By implication, every other college and university in, in America. I mean, I guess they could start, you know, just openly continue. Well, they are openly continuing their discrimination. But you could sue each one of these over and over and over again. But you're just going to get these procurement decisions by the Supreme Court. Right.

[Ann Coulter]

If you're a lawyer and you want to make a lot of money, just start suing colleges. And by the way, law schools, business schools, states businesses, I mean anti white discrimination. You have a cattle cate ahead of you.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Yeah, but all of these cases, I mean, it's easy to explain when the Supreme Court discovers mysteriously a clause giving providing a right to abortion in the Constitution, or I might add a right to gay marriage, that you can read the Constitution and there's nothing about abortion, there's nothing about gay marriage. But we are so used to courts issuing overarching rules, I. E. Laws, and then applying the law they have just invented to the disputants before them that, that most people, I think don't recognize. No, they're getting this exactly backwards. And what they're doing most of the time is absolutely unconstitutional. They, they aren't a legislature. We have a legislature. The judicial power is to decide cases and controversies.

[Ann Coulter]

Right. And it's, it's a very post. I mean it's post fdr, but it's even really post Johnson that they, or post Kennedy rather, that they really just started becoming the de facto decider of national policy, eradicating both legislative rights but also state rights in the meantime.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Yes, and I'd add that the Constitution says this is rough paraphrase, that they decide cases and controversies. When the law. I don't know if this is the Constitution or one of the founding fathers. They determine the laws and facts. When the laws and facts are disputed by two people, two parties, the party could be Harvard. So you notice in this phraseology used by our Founding Fathers. I don't know if it's in the arguments. I think it's just, I think the Constitution just says cases are controversy in any Event, it doesn't say using their policy judgment to decide the cases. When two parties disagree, law and facts, that's it, they decide it and they bind only those parties. Now, another party comes along and makes the exact same argument. There could be an estoppel doctrine or other things going on, but technically, the court is deciding only the case of the two parties before it. So imagine these nationwide injunctions. I mean, talk about making law. It's, it's, it's, it's so beyond the pale.

[Ann Coulter]

Because Trump v. Hawaii mentioned before, which was the Muslim ban. It took 16 months to go from district court to Supreme Court. You do that two or three times and the administration's over, it's done with the next president's going. I mean, that's what their ultimate goal is. Through both judge shopping and through lawfare. In this practice of finding the nonprofit that will sponsor the lawsuit, the judge will hold it up and then, you know, 9th Circuit or whatever circuit holds it, it until the Supreme Court finally hears it and you start another lawsuit in the same issue. It just goes on and on and on. What has surprised you the most about the Trump administration thus far?

[Ryan Jerdusky]

That I'm in heaven every day.

[Ann Coulter]

We finally got the executive order on birthright citizenship.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

We finally got the president I voted for. We finally got the president I wrote a book about, I campaigned with in 2016. We finally got him. I'm. And thank you liberals for, for just an absurd number of criminal prosecutions trying to kick him off the ballot in Colorado. And, and the New York. And Letitia James on Atlanta, they were, they were all preposterous. As I think I've said before, the only, the only case where there was actually a law broken was the documents he had squirreled away at Mar A Lago. But, you know, considering, and he did, and he did sort of egregiously refuse to return them, I don't know that a dawn raid was necess necessary. I don't think they.

[Ann Coulter]

Right.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Melania's underpants drawer.

[Ann Coulter]

Right, right, right. I mean, knowing who he is, it wasn't like the liberals accused that he's going to sell this to the Russians. It was probably just to show his friends, like, look what I have. This is totally. Yeah, I mean, it's just a brag. I mean, knowing who Trump is, it was just a brag to somebody.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Oh, what if he sells them to the enemy? No, it was 100% to brag about him. And look at this letter I got from Kim Jong.

[Ann Coulter]

No, I mean, he's been extremely Aggressive on immigration, on trade. I, I know we're going to agree. So what's. I mean, I hate him ask this question because I know we're going to agree. I think the absence of Jared Kushner speaks volumes to this administration.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

And no one giving Stephen Miller the, the run of the place, you know, when they, okay, fine, Miller, you hung in there and maybe you are gonna save the country now. But when Trump signed his third funding bill term one as he's about to lose, I think that was. Right. But we still had the Republican House and the Senate.

[Ann Coulter]

Yeah.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

With no wall funding. And by the way, Fox totally ignored it. It was only because I went ballistic and Drudge threw it up on. When it was actually Drudge threw it up on the Drudge Report that people even knew this is the third funding bill. You, you said the last two times, I'll never sign a funding bill again without. Without wall funding. Right. And. And I emailed Miller at the White House and at the time and said, congratulations, you've wrecked the country. He's made up for it.

[Ann Coulter]

I mean, do you know what I respect about you, and I want to say to you on my podcast, is that unlike 99.998% of the people who are in conservative media, you don't seek to be. To lose yourself in order to stay in the sphere of influence, which everyone else kind of does. They don't care what they say, what they believe, because they want to be in the sphere of influence. What has changed in your, I think, third decade in political media, as far as the media, the way that political figures have influenced politicians? I mean, when I come with only three cable news network, msnbc, CNN and Fox News, it was a much more, you know, they package what a Republican was supposed to sound like. And you were always out of the box because. And you were interesting because you're out of the box. What is it now like when you have social media and a million people? Because it feels like there should be more different opinions, but there is a lot more the same. Because they all want to be in the sphere of influence.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Yes. And actually the way the reason I even remember what the answer to that question is, that's. I began my first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, because until I moved to Washington to work for the Senate Judiciary Committee, I didn't own a tv. And then I got one because I wanted to be able to watch C Span because I'm cool that way. And so for the first time, I'm watching TV while working with Senate Judiciary Committee and then doing a lot of TV on. Luckily, we had a president who was a felon, which was really great for a lawyer trying to not practice law. And what I noticed was, for one thing, the herding. Everyone will say the same thing. And for protection, I don't know who the first person is, who's the first mover here. And then they will all say the exact same thing. And I didn't realize what the rules were. So I'd come along. And the first, like, 10 times this happened, I thought, wow, I must be misunderstanding something, because I think that's totally wrong. For example, how the Supreme Court was going to come out on Jones v. Clinton, Or I guess at that point it was Clinton v. Jones. I'd written articles for Human Events saying, she's totally going to win. This is what the precedent is. Of course she wins. She won nine to zero. I was the only person saying that. I was writing the article. The day after the or the night of the Supreme Court argument, I hear the flop of the New York Times in front of my apartment. I get up and I read Linda Greenhouse. And what everyone was saying was, they're gonna split the baby. Split the baby. She'll be able to sue, but it won't be during his presidency. They're gonna split the baby. And it did make me sit back and think, think, am I. Am I wrong about this? And no, I looked at the case law again. Nope, I think I'm right. And I swear to you, Ryan Jarduski, I was the only person saying that. But then when the result comes out, not that. Not that I'm demanding credit, but, you know, a little pat on the head would be nice. No, no one will remember it. And why will no one remember it? Because they all were saying the same wrong thing so no one can point it. Yeah.

[Ann Coulter]

And you. Yeah. And you still hear that today. Is that the same wrong thing? Because it's what's acceptable. Like, it's acceptable even in, like, the conservative ghetto, as I call it. Like, this is what the opinion is. It could be asinine, it could be wrong. And sometimes you'll hear, like during the First Step act, when Trump passes, not to muddy any love on Trump, but it was a bad bill that he signed.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

No, his first term really sucks.

[Ann Coulter]

Yeah. But so he would send the first Step back, which was horrendous. And he, according to several journalists, regretted it. But you would hear conservatives, conservatives sit there and say, well, here Hillary Clinton talk about a minority of black people committing a majority of crimes and how racist she is. I'm like, she's right. Everything she's saying here is correct and you shouldn't oppose it just because she's saying it when it's correct. And it would drive me personally insane.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

I will. I think the highlight of the Trump stupidity term one was in his first debate with Biden. I include it in, like every third column I write now. It still makes me so angry after, you know, eight months of BLM riots and cities being burned down and the homicide rate going through the roof. Donald Trump bragged, I'm letting people out of jail now. Now black people hate you. You called them super predators. And by the way, he didn't call black people, neither Biden or no one else called black people super predators. They called super predators. Super predators, as we're seeing in New York City right now. I mean, it's always the case that like 90% of the crime is being committed by 10% of the people. Lock them up. And you go a long way to solving the crime problem. That's the super predator issue. It's a perfectly legit issue. The way to attack Biden was that he's weak on crime. Not that I'm letting people out of jail, but let's talk about happy days, the new Trump administration.

[Ann Coulter]

No, I go back to the media point of it. What is the biggest change you've seen in three decades in conservative media? Has it gotten better than it was in the 90s, or has it gotten in 2000s and 2010s? Or has it gotten worse?

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Well, they're just as stupid, but. And Justice Herd like, but oh my gosh, it's a huge difference. I've done a podcast on it. I mean, it blows me away every single day. When after Romney lost and long before that, I mean, Republicans just kept pushing an amnesty, kept pushing an amnesty. McCain did it, Bush did it, Romney didn't. But as soon as Romney loses, he was the toughest on immigration.

[Ann Coulter]

Hard to believe it for sure. Yeah.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

In 2012, then, you know, the RNC, the think tank, they get together the brains of the operation and their ideas. We've got to be for an amnesty. And I think Rush was. I know Hannity came out for an hundred percent amnesty was for it.

[Ann Coulter]

Yeah.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

And so, I mean, those were, those were dark days. It was down to. I mean, I didn't know you then, I assume you, me, Stephen Miller, a few Drudge. Yeah. Basically. Anyone who's ever lived in LA, that great talk radio host McIntyre. I can't remember his first name but he was K A B C L A He. He wouldn't. I think he didn't vote for Reagan and he didn't vote for Bush because of.

[Ann Coulter]

Because that lady from Southern California too she was a big anti immigration. I can't remember her name either. There were very very Michelle Malkin at the time There were. She doesn't work anymore in media but there were very very very few because and then we turned out that the autopsy was doctored to make it seem like. And it wasn't even real begin with because special interests always had I tell I give special I like talks to people who are like 2122 employees were 2122 who never knew the 90s unfortunately who never knew how great America was unfortunately and they also never knew how bad it was in the When I started coming writing articles like 0607 and it was at that time and my. I became a Republican as I said anyone who's against amnesty for illegal immigrants I am for because I saw how it transformed Queens New York where I am from born and raised and I said this is. They have like dead chickens in backyards now of formerly very nice German or Italian neighborhoods. So I just was like this is not the neighborhood I grew up in. This is. I see the transformation happening for my eyes and it is a remarkably better Republican party than it was even though.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Just that all the idiot talking heads. I mean it's just stunning to me and you know I'll retweet them sometimes but they're like direct quotes from Adios America. And I don't know if you know Adios America was not well received at Fox News. It was not well received. It wasn't well received by my own publishers. Salem. They wouldn't allow me to participate in radio events. I used to always do it to promote any other book. Now they've actually published this book and I would be banned from.

[Ann Coulter]

From really?

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Yeah.

[Ann Coulter]

You told me one time so in publishing the way it works is if you have a first time bestseller you don't make money off it. You make money off of your advance of your second book. You didn't make money for your second book. I don't think. Right. Is that terrible?

[Ryan Jerdusky]

No one would publish it.

[Ann Coulter]

What was your second book? High Crimp was your first.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Slander.

[Ann Coulter]

Slander. And it was a bestseller number one.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

All summer I taunted publishers row all summer but no one would publish it. My. My agent Joni Evans would forward me some of the emails and she was in with all the Publishing houses, you couldn't have a better book agent. And I just remember one of them with the publisher saying, we do not think this would move the public dialogue forward. So I responded to Joanie saying, wow, that's so weird. I thought publishers made money on and how many books they sold. I had no idea it was how many inches they moved the public. And there's a chapter in slander about how publishers, they would give quotes about how they kept. Remember that woman, Naomi Wolf? They kept giving her multimillion dollar advances. They kept losing money on them. And then the head of the publishing company would say, yes, but we're so proud to have her as an author. And there were all these books. Actually, it was my mother who pointed this out to me. One High Crimes and Misdemeanors was a smash bestseller.

[Ann Coulter]

She.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

My mother got a little resentful that everyone kept referring to it as a surprise bestseller. My mother's very sensitive to any slight toward me. And I thought, huh, that's funny. And so I looked up on Nexus and there was one massive conservative blockbuster after another. And they were all described as surprise bestsellers. They were literally published by a mainstream publisher. Yeah, there was God and Man at Yale, I think Whitaker Chambers Witness some of the really big ones, probably the one on True Story of Chappaquidic, I don't remember, but it's in that chapter. And luckily, my publisher for slander was Steve Ross, God bless him, who actually did think that a publishing company, Crown, should make money, and so they wanted it. But I've been sitting with this book for a year.

[Ann Coulter]

Did anyone ever apologize or say, hey, we lost money on you. I wish you would have done it?

[Ryan Jerdusky]

No, But Steve Ross was happy because he. He published it and. And I forced the publishing industry. They said it would take a year to turn around. That used to be. It's hard to believe now, given technology, but it used to be you'd turn in a book and it would come out as a book one year later. And they said, okay, this will come out one year later. I said, I can't do that. I got to go back to ragnary. I just. I can't sit with this book anymore. It's got to come out now. I know it's got to come out now. And. And so they fiddled around and they said, okay, we'll put it out in June. And my editor later told me that the reason they were resisting so much was they always knew they could do it in two months, but no one wanted to work that hard so now everybody. Well, very quickly now. It's so much easier with.

[Ann Coulter]

Well, Ann, thank you so much for coming to my podcast before I leave you. I mean, there's, I have so many friends who always like, well, next time you see Ann, can you bring me with me? And I'm like, you'd probably be too fanish, whatever, but I want to ask one of their questions. You very famously had a lot of arguments on television with like Barbara Walters and Katie Couric and you know, just like, you know, Spats on air. Chris Matthews, when you call John Edwards a woman, one of your best moments. Who is someone on TV that you enjoyed personally, that you just argued with for the, for the sake of it on television or working for the political reasons?

[Ryan Jerdusky]

A fair number of them, I don't know if they exist anymore. Alan Combs, obviously, Bill passed away. Joy Behar. There was a guy, Rick Sanchez on cnn, who hilariously was canceled for. He said something about how Jewish power over the media and to prove him wrong, they got him fired. Way to go. Wow. He was wrong.

[Ann Coulter]

All right. And where can people get your spot? Your substack, your fantastic substack that everyone should subscribe to.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Thank you, Ann coulter.substack.com I have an interview with Michael Shellenberger coming and right now the Seth Dillon interview is up. And you got my columns every week.

[Ann Coulter]

Her columns are great. Her podcasts are better. Ann Coulter, you're amazing. Thank you for being here. Here.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Good to talk to you. Ryan Jerduski.

[Ann Coulter]

Hey, we'll be right back after this.

[Amica Insurance Representative]

Every day, our world gets a little more connected, but a little further apart. But then there are moments that remind us to be more human.

Thank you for calling Amica Insurance.

[Ann Coulter]

Hey, I was just in an accident.

[Amica Insurance Representative]

Don't worry, we'll get you taken care of.

At Amica Amica, we understand that looking out for each other isn't new or groundbreaking.

[Ann Coulter]

It's human.

[Amica Insurance Representative]

Amica empathy is our best policy.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Clorox Centiva smells like lavender, cleans like.

[Clorox Representative]

Clorox.

[Amica Insurance Representative]

And feels like.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

All right, that could go on for a while. Experience the long lasting freshness of Clorox Scentiva. Available in Clorox Scentiva lavender scented bleach. Use as directed.

[Amica Insurance Representative]

For some of us, personal finances aren't just personal. They include a lot more people than ourselves. Loved ones, neighbors, the communities we call home, and the causes we hold in our hearts. At Thrivent, we help plan your financial picture with the bigger picture in mind. Because even though our business is helping guide your finances, our ambition is to make it mean so much more Thrivent where money means more.

[Walton Goggins]

Connect with [e-mail] so you want to start a business? You might think you need a team of people and fancy tech skills, but listen to me when I say you don't. You just need GoDaddy arrow. I'm Walton Goggins, an actor and I like the sound of starting my own business. Walton Goggins Goggle Glasses. But I couldn't do this my own. GoDaddy Arrow uses AI to create everything you need to grow a business. It'll make you a unique logo, it'll create a custom website, it'll write social posts for you, and even set you up with a social media calendar. How cool is that? Well, listen to this. For a limited time you can get Arrow all access for just a dollar a week for 12 weeks. We're talking all the AI power of GoDaddy arrow plus a domain E commerce store, payments, professional email, a unified inbox. All for less money than I spend on deep tanning lotion while sunbathing off the Amalfi coast. You know what? That sounds like a plan. Get [e-mail] terms apply.

[Clorox Representative]

Now I'd like to introduce you to Meaningful Beauty, the famed skincare brand created by iconic supermodel Cindy Krav. Offered it's her secret to absolutely gorgeous skin. Meaningful Beauty makes powerful and effective skin care simple and it's loved by millions of women. It's formulated for all ages and all skin tones and types. And it's designed to work as a complete skin care system, leaving your skin feeling soft, smooth and nourished. I recommend starting with Cindy's full regimen which contains all five of her best selling products including the amazing Youth Activating Melon Serum. This next generation serum has the power of melon leaf stem cell technology. It's melon leaf stem cells encapsulated for freshness and released onto the skin to support a visible reduction in the appearance of wrinkles. With thousands of glowing five star reviews, why not give it a try? Subscribe today and you can get the Amazing Meaningful Beauty system for just $49.95. That includes our introductory five piece system, free gifts, free shipping and a 60 day money back guarantee. All of that available@meaningful beauty.com.

[Ann Coulter]

This is the Ask me anything part of the show where listeners can sit there and send me an email. Ryanumbersgame podcast.com that's ryanumbers plural podcast.com Shoot me an email about literally anything and I'll Ask. I'll answer it for you to the best of my ability. This question comes from Wes. Wes asks, your school board PAC did very well in Wisconsin while the Supreme Court candidate lost by double digits. Why do you think you were successful locally more than statewide conservatives were? That's a great question. So I have a school board pack, the 1776 Project. We do school board races across the country. We did I think 27 races in Wisconsin and we won 20 of the 27, 26, something like that. We had a 75% victory rate in a day. That wasn't very good for Republicans statewide. Well one school boards are more localized. So we had a lot of regions that were very conservative and they voted for the conservative judge, those conservative rather school board candidate as, as well as a conservative judge that partly benefited us. But I think when it comes to Wisconsin and why Republicans and conservatives fell short, I think there's a number of reasons. One, I think Elon Musk, I know conservatives love him, but among Americans as a whole, they don't like Elon. Elon's favorability ratings are very low, much lower than President Trump's or Vice President Vance's. He comes across is, you know, obviously very wealthy and possibly doing business with a federal government or having control in federal government that he gets grants from which people find, you know, not tasteful. But they find him weird. That's just the truth of the matter. They find him weird. He's somebody who's talked about things like putting chips in people's brains and having, you know, multi planet empires and he's just talked about things about humanity and a post, a post human world world that I think people find very, very off putting, including Republicans, including Christians. That makes people question things. His love of AI I think gives a lot of people some anxiety. So him be going to Iowa, doing events, being the face of the rally instead of someone like Trump, I think actually hurt the conservative candidate. Secondly, on early vote, the Democrats did a very robust early vote plan. They got people out early. So on election they attempted to wait for election day day. We've seen this problem for so long. Republicans like we have seen this problem constantly where we do not get our low propensity voters out and they get theirs out through the early voting system. Republicans got a lot of voters out. We had a good candidate. He did a, he did a hard work, he did a good job. He wasn't a bad candidate. But election day, just the way we run elections now starts way before the actual first Tuesday, November, it starts months ahead of time in some places because the early vote and we have to treat it like that. That and I think that lastly, as I said before, we worked in certain regions like Waukesha county and other counties that may be more conservative bend to it and we were reinforcing conservative margins. We did flip two school board districts, but that mattered immensely to it. But I think that when it comes to Wisconsin and all future elections, I don't think that Elon Musk should be the face of the, of the anti liberal movement. I just think that people find him strange at best and off putting at worst. That Roman salute, Nazi salute stuff doesn't help and we have to do a better job of that. I'm not saying he has no value. I'm not saying he's a bad person. I'm not saying that. But for the face of voters when they question who would you like to have a beer with? I think they might. I like to ask Elon a couple questions, but autistic men in their mid-40s with 14 kids, 15 kids, whatever it is, with five or four different women is not their first choice. That's my best opinion of it. And that's why I think we do better locally than that than conservatives did statewide. Anyway, thank you so much. Please submit questions for next week and every question, every, every show afterwards. It's ryan numbers game podcast.com [e-mail] I appreciate you all for being here. I appreciate you all for listening. Please like and subscribe on the iHeartRadio app Apple podcast wherever you get your podcast. I'll see you guys next week. Thank you again for listening.

[Amica Insurance Representative]

For some of us, personal finances aren't just personal. They include a lot more people than ourselves, loved ones, neighbors, the communities we call home, and the causes we hold in our hearts. At Thrivent, we help plan your financial picture with the bigger picture in mind. Because even though our business is helping guide your finances, our ambition is to make it mean so much more. Thrivent, where money means more Connect with.

[Odoo Representative]

[e-mail] youm know, some people say that Odoo business management software is like fertilizer, the way it promotes growth and all. But other people say Odoo is like a magic beanstalk because it grows with your company and is also magically affordable. And there's some people who would even say Odoo's individual software programs come together to build the perfect suite, like Building Block. Well, Odoo is all of these things. Fertilizer, magic Beanstalk building blocks for business, so sign up [e-mail] o d o o.com.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Clorox Scentiva smells like lavender.

[Ann Coulter]

Cleans.

[Ryan Jerdusky]

Like Clorox, and feels like all right, that could go on for a while. Experience the long lasting freshness of Clorox Scentiva. Available in Clorox Scentiva Lavender Scented Bleach.

[Greenlight Representative]

Use as directed this message comes from Greenlight Ready to start talking to your kids about financial literacy? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app that teaches kids and teens how to earn, save, spend wisely and invest. With your guardrails in place place with Greenlight you can send money to kids quickly, set up chores, automate allowance, and keep an eye on what your kids are spending with real time notifications. Join millions of parents and kids building healthy financial habits together on Greenlight. Get started risk [e-mail] iheart so you.

[Walton Goggins]

Want to start a business? You might think you need a team of people and fancy tech skills, but listen to me when I say you don't. You just need GoDaddy era. I'm Walton Goggins, an actor and I like the sound of starting my own business, Walton Goggins Goggle Glasses. But I couldn't do this my own. GoDaddy Arrow uses AI to create everything you need to grow a business. It'll make you a unique logo, it'll create a custom website, it'll write social posts for you, and even set you up with a social media calendar. How cool is that? Well, listen to this. For a limited time, you can get Arrow all access for just a dollar a week for 12 weeks. We're talking all the AI power of GoDaddy arrow plus a domain E commerce store, payments, professional email, a unified inbox. All for less money than I spend on deep tanning lotion while sunbathing off the Amalfi coast. You know what? That sounds like a plan. Get [e-mail] terms apply.