Christine Rosen (4:40)

I was more concerned by the assault from without, from. From the outside.

John Podhoretz (4:47)

By Washington inclusion on.

Christine Rosen (4:50)

A list where they consider you powerful if you have lost your organization millions of dollars in taxpayer money and they had not only the CEO of npr, the CEO of PBS News, or the Editor in chief, whoever she is, of PBS News. But I was amused. I was happy the Free Beacon is on their radar, but amused by what is considered power in Washington. However, I was happy to see, and Mr. Biff does mention in his article that Melania Trump and Usha Vance did make the list. So it was really just the media category that was underwhelming.

John Podhoretz (5:33)

Okay, fair enough. I just want to say that it's very important that as the left sacrifices people like Barry, this is a great possible moment for you because of course, the last time we had an internal staff revolt of this sort, of course it led to Bari Weiss's resignation and her subsequent five year later appointment as editor in chief of CBS News with a payout of $150 million. So I don't know what you might be able to do with this staff revolt to strengthen your position in the marketplace and in the marketplace of ideas. But. But I also am very disappointed in you that you should have made this list very, very.

Eliana Johnson (6:25)

Oh, okay. But look, anyone who knows Eliana knows she's the only person on that list who actually knows how to wield power. So maybe it was the Washingtonian sort of token nod to someone, a woman in Washington who actually knows how to use her power. So I.

John Podhoretz (6:38)

Okay, well, let's talk about a woman in Washington who also knows how to use her power or is trying to create a new model for using her power. And that is Attorney General Pam Bondi, who went before the Senate committee that does oversight over her department, the department, Department of Justice, with the intention Democratic senators like Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Adam Schiff of California, intending to rake her over the coals for the question of whether or not ICE head Tom Homan had been selling access to the not yet existent second Trump administration. So the accusation in these stories is that Tom Homan somehow said, give me money and I can get you stuff. But this was before Trump had been reelected. And obviously we didn't know whether Trump was going to be reelected or not. That was one thing. The other thing, of course, is what are the legal justifications for the raids on Venezuela and the deployment of American troops to cities.

Christine Rosen (7:56)

And it was a classic files. They wanted to ask her about circumstances surrounding the non release of those files.

John Podhoretz (8:06)

So my entire life I've been watching these kinds of hearings, partisan hearings, in which the party that does not hold the White House and does not control the Justice Department or control the cabinet agencies, haul in the cabinet, agency heads and abuse, basically use this to grandstand abuse, both on both sides. And really, I'm both sides in here. Like, Democrats did this to Republicans, Republicans have done this to Democrats. It's a classic ambush for headlines, for getting stuff on the evening news, for showing that you're scolding everybody. And remember, this is how Kamala Harris became a star in 2017 when she grilled Jeff Sessions in her first couple of months as a senator and somehow was like, oh, look, wow, Kamala Harris, what? She's a prosecutor and she really knows how to give it to them. And, you know, it's like that here. Without that hearing, Kamala Harris would not have run for president and would not have ended up as the vice president. And then, of course, would not have ended up as the most embarrassing presidential candidate of our lifetimes. So it is a.

Christine Rosen (9:13)

Thank you. Oversight hearings.

John Podhoretz (9:14)

Yes. So it is a, it is a, it is a classic pattern. And Pam Bondi blew it up yesterday. Ordinarily, a cabinet secretary going before an oversight committee will be very deferential and quiet and say, I want to. Let me answer your questions. We didn't do any of the things that you're saying, or I'll get back to you on the X. But, you know, we are looking into that. Or obviously, Senator, thank you very much for your. We're all in this together. And my man, did she not do that. Sheldon Whitehouse asked her a question. She says to him, I'm not talking to you. Your wife got a Sweetheart, deal, why don't you answer that question? And Richard Blumenthal said, blah, blah, blah. And she said, I'm not talking to you. You lied about your military service. And Dick Durbin did X. And she said Y. And Adam Schiff, obviously, I think she said you were, you were held in, you were held in contempt of Congress by your own, by people in the Congress that you yourself were part of. Why should I answer to you now? She is supposed to answer to them. That's why this is a very complicated thing that went on here. It's not just political combat. Like there is a constitutional oversight role for the Senate in surveying and monitoring what the Justice Department does. But there was some sweet, sweet, delicious tu quoque schadenfreude going on there yesterday that I have to confess, despite my extreme sense that, you know, we need norms and this was norm breaking, and that's really bad. You just, you couldn't help but enjoy if you have watched these holier than now hypocrites for years walking around preening morally while they themselves are part, are unbelievably personally, morally and financially corrupt.

Christine Rosen (11:20)

Yeah, so this was interesting, I think, for a couple of reasons. As you say, John, Cabinet secretaries are constitutionally required to appear before Congress and before the committees that have constitutional oversight responsibilities for the various departments. And they spend a lot of time typically preparing for these hearings. And they go in with the intention of answering the questions posed to them by the lawmakers on the committees. Bondi, by contrast, clearly went in with a set of attack talking points. And for those of us on, on our side, it was amusing to hear her say, you know, to Richard Blumenthal, you lied about your Vietnam service. But at a, at a macro level, and we saw this previewed a bit in the cash in Kash Patel's appearance before the committee. This did seem to me like an informal but significant expansion of executive power. And that the administration is saying to Congress that oversight dead. We're not going to answer your questions. We're not even going to pretend to answer your questions. And that does seem to me like.

Eliana Johnson (12:41)

A pretty big deal that it is a big deal. And it's also, it's also baiting two things. Well, a lot of these questions, if not answered in any sort of public forum which the Constitution requires, mean they will end up in court, as some of these things, like the invocation of insurrection and whatnot that the administration has, has done to justify deploying troops in American cities, but also investigations. So if you, if you go before Congress and basically act like you're on a cable news show, as she did. But you are probably the least independent attorney general that, you know, the country has seen in a while and who was publicly berated on, on in a truth social post accidentally made by the president. She doesn't have an instinct for self preservation. If she behaves this way because she's going to be, they're going to be investig all of these questions as they should. I mean, the one question I would have liked to have heard her answer was where did the 50 grand go that Holman's got? I mean, I guess that you just pocketed as a consulting fee. But some of these questions, even issued as they were by, as you say, John, morally grandstanding, preening members of Congress, are still legitimate questions. And the American people have have would like some answers about that. And I'm glad Eliana brought up the Epstein case because that's an area where Bondi really has, has misplayed her hand with her with the MAGA base because they're very upset with how she's handled that over the last few months.

Abe Greenwald (14:09)

I liked it. I like the whole performance.

Eliana Johnson (14:12)

Same on you, Abe.

Abe Greenwald (14:13)

Yeah, you know, I take the point about this, you know, being constitutionally obligated to happen. But the truth is during these hearings, lawmakers for a very long time have sounded like cable news hosts.

Christine Rosen (14:33)

That's totally true.

Abe Greenwald (14:34)

While whoever's being grilled is trying to sort of do the official thing and not sound like cable news hosts. So it's, you know, this is a bit of a, you know, taste of their own medicine. And, you know, this is, this is fitting with the comportment of the administration. This is their attitude in general. They're, it's like, you know, it's Donald Trump's witch hunt. You know, the witch hunt against Trump is they've taken on, they feel it against each one of them in their own, in their own capacities and they're just, none of them are going to stand for any of it. And so it's not far from the last we're going to see with this.

John Podhoretz (15:19)

Again, like, I don't, I hate to go what about us? But the two previous Democratic administrations, the Obama administration and the Biden administration, had leading officials who were one was literally found in contempt of Congress. That was Eric Holder, the attorney general who refused to turn over documents to the House relating to matters involving the Fast and Furious gun buyback, immigration policy that went awry. And I think a couple of Border Patrol agents were killed by gun. I Mean, I quite remember the details. Anyway, he was held in contempt of Congress and this was deemed simply a partisan attack. And, and rather than Obama saying, well, you know, he has lost the confidence of the legislative branch of the United States, at least one house in the legislative branch of the United States, and really can no longer perform his duties suitably, and even though I really love the guy, he's got to go because that's how we do things in a proper system. He stayed. And then Alejandro Mayorkas, the head of the Department of Homeland Security, was literally impeached in 2024 after I think being held in contempt of Congress, though I don't remember that specific detail. But one of the two charges was that he had lied to Congress about immigration policy. And the claim then again from his defenders was that Republicans were using disputes over immigration policy to claim that he had basically committed an offense so grave that he should be removed from office. Only the second cabinet secretary in history to be impeached. And again, in a more layered system or less partisan Fox News cable network world, the response of a, of a more sober administration at a moment like this might have been to say, well, he's lost again, lost the confidence of one of the two parties, the party that has the majority and whatever. And so he's got a gotta go like he, you know, I don't even think it's fair but you know, we have to have a proper relationship between the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security and there and the bodies that provide oversight. And neither of that happened. Obama defended Holder, Biden defended Mayorkas, if he even knew who Mayorkas was. I mean, so, you know, I don't know. I don't know who defended Biden.

Eliana Johnson (18:16)

Never fired any. His own defense secretary went AWOL and he wouldn't fire, I mean he never fired anyone. He did put a very bad precedent in that regard.

Abe Greenwald (18:25)

Hi everyone, it's Abe. Fall always feels like a reset. Between back to school, busier routines and shorter days. Finding time to cook could be tough and that's why I love factor. Their chef prepped dietitian approved meals make it easy to stay on track and enjoy food that is both comforting and delicious, no matter how hectic things get. You can choose from a wider selection of weekly meal options including premium seafood choices like salmon at no extra cost. Even enjoy more GLP1 friendly meals and new Mediterranean diet options packed with protein and fats that are good for you. And now you could try Asian inspired meals with bold flavors influenced by China, Thailand and more from more choices to better nutrition. That's why 97% of customers say that Factor helped them live a healthier life. Feel the difference no matter your routine? I do. And you can too. Eat smart@factormeals.com commentary50 off and use code COMMENTARY50OFF to get 50% off your first box plus free breakfast for one year. That's code COMMENTARY50OFF@FACTOR meals.com for 50% off your first box plus FREE breakfast for one year. Get delicious ready to eat meals delivered with Factor offer only valid for new Factor customers with code and qualifying auto renewing subscription purchase.

John Podhoretz (19:58)

Hi, it's John here wanting to talk to you about our new advertiser Avocado Green Mattress. So look, comfort is personal. So the question is, what means comfort to you? For me, comfort, particularly in a mattress, is more than just how it feels. It's how it makes me feel. And I want to feel cool. I want to feel supported. I wanted to feel like when I get up in the morning my back's.

Eliana Johnson (20:29)

Not going to hurt.

John Podhoretz (20:30)

And I want to feel like I've made a good long term, financially sound choice in a mattress. And this is what you get from Avocado. There's world class back support. Avocado organic mattresses feature thousands of steel coils individually encased in fabric pockets that flex independently to reduce motion, transfer and support your body where it needs it most. You'll feel just as good getting into it as you do getting out of it. And there is as that indicates superior quality and craftsmanship. Low quality memory foam breaks down in a matter of years. Avocado mattresses are handcrafted from the finest natural organic ingredients for superior durability and are designed to last. And if you sleep on organic materials like wood and latex that promote air circulation and moisture wicking without retaining heat, you're getting ahead of the the game. And that is what you get from Avocado. Say goodbye to night sweats. Mother Nature knows best. There are easy financing options using Affirm to make your purchase more accessible and there is a up to one year sleep trial and generous warranties for your peace of mind. So head to avocadogreenmattress.com today and check out their mattress and betting sale. Avocado Dream of better the idea that the Bondi hearing takes us to another level because of the like full out head face to face assault on the senators which is never really been done before because it's not just that you don't want your cabinet secretaries to lose, but the idea is they can Kind of take revenge on you. Like, they can punish you, they can haul you up, they can censure you. They can do things that will be injurious to your reputation. And the partisanship of the last 25 years has meant that you wear the censure of the party that is opposite to you as a badge of honor. You use it to raise money, you use it to get famous. It doesn't, like, shame you or you feel like, oh, my God, I'm the only, the second cabinet secretary ever to be impeached. This is the worst thing that's ever happened to me. You're like, this is great. Everyone's going to know that I'm a martyr because all these people are lunatics. And similarly, Bondi, I think, just did herself an immense favor. And I will say that, you know, we've been. We've spent years talking about how Republicans try to do Trump and they fail. You know, they're always trying to, like, play Trump's game, but only Trump can play Trump's game. This was one of the first times in which I thought, wow, somebody is kind of playing Trump's game and kind of effectively, okay, but we all lose.

Eliana Johnson (23:32)

The American public lose when everybody. You just described everyone in terms of their individual ability to either dodge a charge or wear censure as a martyred, you know, symbol. And both sides have been doing that for a while. You're right. But I think the, again, the normie sensibility is like, is this really how our system should work? I mean, long term, I think we are the losers. Even though Pam Bondi might go on to glory, you know, after she leaves this administration. I think now this is where it becomes this battle. Who's going to try to re. Establish the norms, who's going to actually follow the rules when the other team has not been following the rules. This is the thing we've been back and forth on for 20 years now. And I don't know what the answer is, but I do sort of feel like the fact that we're even describing this as a war of personalities and individuals rather than something that our system of government is meant to quell exactly those sorts of passions because of the balance of powers, because of the oversight authority. And Trump, it has, in modern memory, tested the limits of executive authority more than any other president. I really do think he is really pushing those boundaries. I think this stress test on our system, our system will survive.

Christine Rosen (24:38)

It.

Eliana Johnson (24:38)

It was designed to survive, is designed to survive. Much worse, actually. But it is a test. And I think every time it's tested, it's worth thinking through the long term consequences of that test.

John Podhoretz (24:49)

There comes a point at which the assertion that we need to reestablish the norms has some kind of a past sell by date. I know, I mean, like, when were the norms breached? That's why I bring up holder. That was 13 years ago or 14 years ago that, that, that Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress. It wasn't like three years ago. And then Trump just did what Holder did or whatever. You know, a lot of us date, I mean, I think Democrats would date a lot of this to, you know, the Bush administration pushing the unitary executive theory and pushing using the Homeland Security act or the Patriot act in ways that was never intended and extending executive power that way. A lot of conservatives would say no. It was the Obama administration that seized on the crisis of the financial meltdown to sort of like beat down lenders who had kept Chrysler and other carmakers afloat in the middle of the meltdown and say that the contracts that they had signed, meaning that they got mezzanine payments back once the, once the companies emerged from insolvency, that they, that, that they administration was declaring by fiat in some ways that that wouldn't happen and that union, the unions would get money first or something like that, extending out that stuff. And so I don't know when the norms in the 21st century existed per se, or at least in everybody's mind, everybody else has violated norms so grossly that it's already changed the nature of the balance of power between the executive orders.

Eliana Johnson (26:49)

This is the norm now. The argument is these are the new norms. Those old norms are done. That's the old, old conservative sensibility. And that's gone. So we now are operating from these new norms. And that may very well be the case. All I'm saying is that a pretty significant portion of the public isn't on board with that being the new norm yet. Maybe they will be in a generation. But that's where I think the tension often arises among the really sort of true MAGA believers, the people who voted for Trump the second time around and where we're headed in the next few years in terms of 2024, that's the thing.

Abe Greenwald (27:21)

2028, even though I enjoyed it, you know, and I, and I see the sort of justice in it, the problem is that, you know, it's true that ideologically people say, well, pendulum swings back and forth, and it does, and it will in terms of the governance of this country. But Conduct is not like that. It kind of heads in one direction. And if it's not just a stress test, it's a step along the way. The boundaries will be further pushed and they will continue to be further pushed. And that is, that's a little, you know, discomfiting.

John Podhoretz (28:01)

I'm not sure how much further the boundaries can be pushed than the President of the United States deploying troops from Texas into Illinois to deal with what he deems a national security crisis that involves crime in a single urban setting that constitutes insurrection. We all know, I think everybody listening knows this is not insurrection. That, you know, Chicago gang members shooting each other does not constitute an insurrection against the United States, nor including even the most repulsive behavior of antifa in Portland does not constitute an insurrection against the United States. That is an attempt to bring down the government of the United States, which is where the Insurrection act gives the President these powers to deploy the US Military in domestic settings if the government is in danger of falling. That is a stretch beyond belief. And they haven't done it yet. They haven't invoked the Insurrection act, but they're playing games with it and talking about it.

Eliana Johnson (29:27)

He's saying he's using the term insurrection, but not actually invoking the policy. And he does this a lot with this National Guard standoff stuff. He says all of these very hyperbolic things. You know, oh, the Department of War is going to be tested there. Oh, we're going to, he says in front of all the generals, we're going to send military to cities. He says it. But then the policy is quite different. And I think the difference between the rhetoric and the reality is where the courts are going to decide on a lot of this, obviously, because most of this is going to be decided in the courts. But in the meantime, it's not as if. Look, if you. He's absolutely right about the crime problems in Chicago. I mean, he's been right and Republicans have been saying this stuff for years. But if you want to solve that problem long term, you don't just send the National Guard for a few weeks. Now in D.C. it's different because so much of the city is federalized and we have a different status than a lot of other cities. But he is provoking his political enemies. Everybody knows this. He's doing it very well and they're responding exactly as he hoped. But that's not going to solve the long term crime problem in Chicago.

John Podhoretz (30:27)

Right. I mean, I think there is an idea that you use a battering ram. You know, if you have if you have the sort of the forces that don't want to change policy on crime in Chicago, in the coming probably new mayor of New York, obviously the mayor of Portland, the governor of Oregon, all of that. And they are sort of creating this phalanx against proper law enforcement and against the idea that, you know, criminality needs to be punished not only to save people from the criminals so that they won't go back out on the streets and do more, but also to sort of deter others from, from, from taking it up. That depending on how successful that phalanx is, a battering ram is necessary to shatter the defense and see if there's a way to break through it and make policy differ. The problem is that these arguments have been proffered in elections in the United States, in Chicago, the last mayoral election in New York, right now, in other circumstances. And the people who live in these municipalities are choosing the person who's soft on crime. They are choosing. They are, they are, they have self rule. They're in a polity that has its own laws, local laws and all of that. And they're choosing to have these regimes in their own cities and are going to have to deal with the consequences of it. I mean, that's where we start getting into things that seem very anti conservative or unconservative. Right? This assault on federalism. As I say, the weird thing about using the National Guard from one state to move to another state, which seems some kind of crazy assault on federalism in my particularly from Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas. The governors of Texas have this weird nationalist extreme federalism, like they're anti, or they're anti federalist, but they don't want, you know, Rick Perry wrote a whole book about how the Federalist papers were bad, but they believe that that's because they should not be restricted in their ability to do things at the local level. That wouldn't mean sending troops to Illinois, which he just said he would approve.

Eliana Johnson (32:58)

Doing well in the elision of the distinction between protecting federal immigration enforcement enforcement officers, for example, and federal immigration enforcement structures in these cities and sending National Guard to quell crime, that we should keep that distinction. That is a bright line for a reason. So if, if you have a federal building, you have federal officers going about their legally mandated duties being attacked by citizens and the local cops aren't doing anything about it or prosecuting these people, then actually that's a situation where I think reasonable people will say, you know, we need to protect our federal employees in this situation. And I think if that had been the argument and that had been the narrow focus. I don't think there would be as much pushback. That's not. But, but Trump is playing a political game here, not an actual legal or protection game.

John Podhoretz (33:43)

When he deployed troops to Washington, D.C. that's the exception.

Eliana Johnson (33:47)

Washington, we are the exception. Yes.

John Podhoretz (33:50)

Place. It does not have legal standing outside of the federal government. It has been granted such legal standing outside.

Eliana Johnson (33:57)

A lot of our land is federal land. I mean, Dupont Circle is a federal part. I mean, a lot of it is actually.

John Podhoretz (34:01)

A lot of it is. And the fact is that that home rule in, in D.C. is, is limited. The Constitution created the federal district for the housing of the federal government without it being in any state. And then in the 70s, it was granted home rule mistake because we should not be. But it is also. But, but that home rule is conditional and there are all kinds of ways. And that's when Muriel Bowser, the mayor, after, like having a temper tantrum when it first started, kind of like somebody took her off in a corner and said, Trump's kind of, he's really kind of allowed to do this for 30 days if he wants to. That's what the law says.

Eliana Johnson (34:43)

Well, and as a, that's not true.

John Podhoretz (34:44)

About Chicago and Portland.

Eliana Johnson (34:46)

I've been, I've lived here for more than 30 years. And the other reason she did that is because he solved in a month a crime problem in certain parts of the city that had existed for decades. And I think she, she benefits from that entirely. There's no downside for her on that.

John Podhoretz (35:00)

Right. However, like I was reading a left wing site last night, it's one of these, this is not a drill. You know, it's where it's crystal knocked or whatever, referring to Trump's military invasion of Chicago. Now, I'm sorry, but I don't even know where to be. And J.B. pritzker, the governor of Illinois, kind of has used the same language as his Brandon Johnson, the mayor of Chicago. And whatever it is, it's not a military invasion of Chicago to have National Guard troops deployed in streets at times of crisis like this happens if there's a flood, you deploy the National Guard to help preserve order because all the traffic lights are down. So you help, you can bring in the National Guard to like help direct.

Eliana Johnson (35:59)

Traffic, but the National Guard has to be invited by the governor. That's the difference here.

John Podhoretz (36:04)

Right.

Christine Rosen (36:04)

John, you and Christine are making a distinction between deploying the National Guard to the streets of D.C. to help deter crime and deploying the National Guard to places like Portland and Chicago, or deploying the National Guard of one state, the National Guard of another state. The President's political adversaries have precisely the same response, response to the deployment of the National Guard in all of these places. Whether it's justified, whether it's not justified, because they are outraged by his drawing attention to the matter of urban crime and to his conviction that something should be done about it. There was exactly the same response to the deployment of the national guard in D.C. you'll recall the New York Times and its phalanx of reporters pointing to the deployment of Guard troops around places they insisted there was no crime. And I do think it's worth talking about for one second. Their insistence that violent crime in D.C. had been declining for a decade, for decades. And that and the numerous fact checks on the President's claims that crime in D.C. had been rising. And now the Free Beacon covered, you know, whistleblowers inside the D.C. police Department saying crime had been misclassified, that higher level crimes had been misclassified to hide the rise in violent crime. And now we get an expose in the Washington Post saying that dozens of police Officers in the D.C. police Department are blowing the whistle on this. And I'm just going to say, you're.

John Podhoretz (37:58)

Not one of the most powerful women.

Christine Rosen (38:00)

Those fact checks are not going to be revived. And I think that, I mean, this is one of the reasons that the media is discounted and that, you know, opponents of the President are discounted is because these distinctions simply are not drawn and that the reaction is the same whether he's justified or not justified when he's rightfully drawing attention to real problems in America's cities that people are tired of living with.

John Podhoretz (38:31)

Right. However, I think that's. Hey, once again, the problem you face in this argument is that in each of these cities in the last four years, the public has been asked to validate or turn away the governing party that worked to create the conditions of lawlessness and the voters chose not to turn them out. I mean, that's just the fact of it. So you vote with your feet. If you're somebody who finds Portland unsustainable like, like anywhere else in the. If you, if you don't like the way, this is one of the great things about it. You don't like the way things are where you are and you can't sustain it and your neighbors are behaving in ways that you find repulsive, you go pick up stakes and find somewhere else to live. That's also part of The American story, it doesn't seem fair to have to do it because your city is awash in criminality. But if you lived in Hot Springs, Arkansas in the 1940s when the, when the New York mob took it over and you didn't want to live in a town that had suddenly become sort of like, sort of a carnival of horrors with, you know, whorehouses and, you know, open gambling and all of that, you could go move somewhere else so you didn't have to expose your, your kids to it. I mean, that, that's a, that's a thing that speaks against what Trump has done and has, and has, has been doing. Though I think it's very used politically. I think it's great that all this is being exposed for public argument. It's the, it's the decision to turn the argument and then make it flesh. I guess that is what is alarming.

Abe Greenwald (40:24)

To, But I think, I think what's behind that, you know, I take Eliana's point that, you know, there's the legitimate part of the administration's thinking here and Trump's thinking here that has to do with spike in crime. But another aspect of this is that Trump and the administration is thinking, look, they're going to call me a dictator no matter what I do. So let's, let's go for it this time. Let's have some fun this time around. And this is where Trump derangement syndrome, I mean, it's not the only place really works for him because they've, because his enemies have been, we'll call him a dictator. Every, you know, with, concerning every speck of policy and activity that that is undertaken. So it's no one, you know, it's, it's, it's white noise now.

John Podhoretz (41:20)

And a secondary. Oh, Christine, I was just going to.

Eliana Johnson (41:22)

Add because I think it's important to emphasize the point that Eliana made about the data because we are in a very interesting transition period now and long, long in the future when we're well past the Trump and Trump derangement syndrome. The undermining of the ability to trust statistics is going to matter a great deal in the crime policy debate. We already see little snippets of this. Obviously, the Free Beacon story is a good example, but even FBI crime data has been that there have been some reports about whether or not they're, they're fully engaging with, with what happens with violent crimes you can't do it with. Murders and car thefts tend to be the two statistics you can rely on because it's everyone files an insurance claim and their car gets stolen. And if you have a body, you have to register that as a dead body. All the other stuff. And I personally know three, maybe three people who were pistol whipped, held at gunpoint, carjacked with a weapon by, by, you know, youth in D.C. and it was not reported as a crime committed with firearm. It was reported as some a lower level crime. This over the last 10 years. I know three people to whom this happened. So this is going on at these, in these localities. And so what that means policy wise is that the voters are being told by people like, you know, Mamdani, oh, the crime actually is on this long term decline. But that's based on statistics that have already been manipulated. So our inability to trust even institutions that are supposed to objectively gather the facts about crime is already long term starting to be whittled away. And that's actually a point where I think conservatives really should step up and insist on that Trump is not the person to do it because he'd like to do that with labor and employment data and all that stuff. We do need that kind of institutional objective reality to be restored because it is starting to slip. That worries me.

John Podhoretz (43:06)

Okay guys, I'm excited because it is fall and it is time for me to talk again about my favorite clothing. Quince sweaters. Quint says kind of fall staples you'll actually want to wear on repeat like 100% Mongolian cashmere from just 60 bucks. Classic fit denim and real leather and wool outerwear that looks sharp and holds up. You know, I wear a lot of quince sweaters. If you watch us on YouTube, you're going to see Quint sweaters all winter. But I got my eye on their suede trucker jacket. It's perfect for layering and just looks really casual. But put together by partnering directly with ethical factories and top artisans, Quints cuts out the middlemen to deliver premium quality at half the cost of similar brands. So layer up this fall with pieces that feel as good as they look. Go to quints.com commentary for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q U I N C. Free shipping and 365 day returns. Quints.com commentary hey, Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile.

Eliana Johnson (44:21)

Now I don't know if you've heard, but Mint's Premium Wireless is $15 a month. But I'd like to offer one other perk.

John Podhoretz (44:28)

We have no stores. That means no small talk, crazy weather. We're having no, it's not.

Eliana Johnson (44:36)

It's just weather.

John Podhoretz (44:37)

It is an introvert's no dream.

Eliana Johnson (44:39)

Give it a try@minmobile.com Switch upfront payment of 45 for 3 month plan, 15 per month equivalent required.

John Podhoretz (44:45)

New customer offer first 3 months only.

Eliana Johnson (44:46)

Then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See mint mobile.com I mean, part of.

John Podhoretz (44:51)

The problem with that though is that 95 of that is local. Like 95 of crime reporting.

Eliana Johnson (45:01)

Numbers. Right?

John Podhoretz (45:02)

I don't know if people know this, but federal crimes make up a teeny tiny percentage of the crimes that are committed in the United States. Like they are exceptional crimes if they're federal. Kidnapping is one, obviously, you know, taking someone across state lines against their will, which is a form, whatever you want to call that human trafficking or whatever is another. There are financial crimes that, that traverse state boundaries and therefore become FBI crimes. But the crimes that we're talking about are overwhelmingly local. And if localities are playing games with their crime numbers, and this has been going on for 40 years now, with an interesting parallel, by the way, which is if you remember in the 1980s after the nation at Risk report came out explaining that, you know, our educational system was in crisis and that our numbers were falling relative to other countries and the general national consensus was we need to spend a lot more on education. We needed to. And then we also needed to have measurable ways of determining who was a good teacher, who was a bad teacher. Maybe we could pay those teachers more, maybe we could pay the principals more, whose schools showed better results and on and on. And you suddenly created an incentive for principals, superintendents of school systems and all of that to start fiddling and playing around with their numbers and falsifying numbers, falsifying test scores, you know, like grading tests wrong in order to show that you had more people, you know, getting in the 80s or on the Regents in New York State getting a passing grade on the Regents exam or whatever. This happened dozens, if not hundreds of times over the last 40 years because there was a financial incentive to, to these people to report good numbers. And rather than the financial incentive being be better at what you do, the financial incentive became make fraudulent data and try to trick everybody into thinking that everything was so much better. So that is another thing that liberally governed institutions and professions and all of that in extreme cynicism, have taken away from the effort to collect the data that you're talking about, which is, well, if they really want to do that, we, you know, and all of this is going to end up being unfair to minorities and to African Americans and to Hispanics. We're actually morally justified in fiddling with the numbers because otherwise we're going to expose these minorities to the evils of our white privilege system even more than they are already. And that's what people say in their heads, right? Which is, you know, you don't want to report real crime stats because when you report real crime stats, you show an incredibly disproportionate amount of crime being committed by African Americans and Hispanics as opposed to whites in percentage terms. And so that became, you know, the effort to sort of quiet that down and hold it down was a real major thing. Let's talk about some something else that we're quieting down and holding down in the United states, even after two years, after October 7 and the anti Semitism spike, which is we're still in this mode where people show themselves to be who they are and are like, taking violent actions against what appear to be Jewish institutions and Jewish people. And the authorities say, gee, I guess we'll never know what possibly could have motivated such a person. And Eliana, we have such a case both in the very progressive town of Brookline, Massachusetts, I believe, former home of Michael Dukakis and at Harvard.

Christine Rosen (49:10)

So I'm obsessed with this story, I was texting John about it, that this morning, this unfolded on the eve of Yom Kippur, so on Wednesday, this past Wednesday. And it involves a visiting professor at Harvard Law School of Brazilian origin by the name of Carlos Gouveia. And he was arrested after firing a pellet gun around a synagogue in Brookline. And he fled from the security guards around the synagogue. And initial reports indicated that he resisted arrest. There was a scuffle with law enforcement.

John Podhoretz (49:58)

And shuffle over the gun. Like he wasn't. Like he wasn't handing over the gun, like he was holding on to the gun. They were having a tug of war with the gun.

Christine Rosen (50:07)

Right. He then said that he was out hunting rats, as one does now. The New York Times has now covered the story.

John Podhoretz (50:21)

Before you go to the New York Times, he was hunting rats. Now, you would imagine, supposedly, maybe if there were rats, like if you're Christine and you're living where you're living and there's a rat, like right in front of your house, and you have to have a pelican, you might want to take out the rat.

Abe Greenwald (50:38)

Right.

John Podhoretz (50:38)

But he was. How far was he from his house?

Christine Rosen (50:42)

So he was out on a walk. And look, I'm using public records to identify his place of residence. So it could be wrong. But it appears that he was a half hour walk from his house. And I looked in Google Maps, I mean, the synagogue is conspicuous. It is a conspicuous building. And he told the police that he had no idea he lived near a synagogue. He had no idea he was firing his rifle near a synagogue. And he had no idea that it was a Jewish holiday. No idea it was a holiday. Which is bizarre if you are a professor at Harvard Law School. And by the way, he had been a scholar in residence at Yale Law School and a professor at the Wharton School at of business before this. This guy has been affiliated with every elite institution in America. Just sort of weird that he would never have run across a Jew who had told him, oh, you know, it's Yom Kippur, I won't be in class tomorrow. Or you know, talked with Jewish colleagues who had mentioned this. But then the Harvard rabbi tells the Harvard Crimson that the guy's wife and children are Jewish. So it just doesn't square with his claim that he had no idea it was a Jewish holiday and he had no idea he lived near a synagogue. So something is just not right with this story. And Harvard immediately placed the guy on administrative leave. By the way, it's illegal to fire a pellet gun in public. I guess we left that out. And the guy led the charge in Brazil to pass their gun control law. He's a big DEI crusader. Of course he's affiliated with every, you know, brown, black, green, you know, crusading for every possible left wing cause. All of his academic work is for, you know, the appropriation of private property and this, that and the other. All his work funded by the Ford Foundation. And can I talk about the work.

John Podhoretz (52:53)

For the Ford Foundation? Because from the Free Beacon story that you, that Andrew Kerr published this morning, I learned something new. I thought that I had heard of all oppressed peoples on, on the planet earth. But here is the paragraph about Gouvea also serving as the CEO of the Global Law Institute. Let's just have something chill your blood right there, just with the Orwellian name there. The Global Law Institute, a Brazilian organization that has received at least $250,000 from the Ford foundation since September 2022 to fund a program dedicated to, quote, training young, black, brown, indigenous and key lumbola researchers. Kilombola Q U I L O M B O L what is it?

Eliana Johnson (53:50)

What is it like?

John Podhoretz (53:52)

What is that? Obviously must be a Brazilian American tribe.

Eliana Johnson (53:58)

Of like something a mosquito gives you.

John Podhoretz (54:00)

But it's a new. It's a new now we have a new Q we could put in the LGBTQ list. Maybe. I don't know, but I, but you know, my guess is that the, the, the Keelum Bomba. I've already closed the thing, so I can't remember what it is. But I'm glad to know that there is just, there's fertile ground to go to the Ford Foundation. Just find some tribe somewhere, say you're gonna train someone from that tribe, add it to black, brown, indigenous, and whatever, and you're like, you're off to the races with your grant man. This is really. Everybody go to. Go to ChatGPT and ask what are the least or the most obscure tribes in the world and start writing up grant proposals to train them in global law. I mean, that's just a gimme. Obviously. Ford foundation has ten squillion dollars to give away every year. Here's your shot. If you're, you know, if you're bored with your job at Starbucks as a barista, I think you got a real shot here at making your way into the NGO community. Key Lumba Kelambab boba.

Eliana Johnson (55:23)

So there I looked it up because I really had no. I'd never heard this word before you uttered it a moment ago. And they are the historical descendants of formerly enslaved Brazilians of African descent who, who, you know, fled. And so that, I guess it's that I guess they still have protected status of some sort or seek protective status.

John Podhoretz (55:45)

But if, if we are referring to them in.

Eliana Johnson (55:48)

These are like hundreds of years ago. Hundreds of years ago.

John Podhoretz (55:52)

If we're referring to them what sounds like a Portuguese derived word, isn't that just enslaving them all over again to the, to the slavers language? Don't they need another name that's more appropriate?

Christine Rosen (56:10)

Can I redirect you guys for a second?

John Podhoretz (56:12)

Yes, please save us from our.

Christine Rosen (56:15)

Do you want to stay on. On Key Lumbola? I was struck in the New York Times by a couple things. So the New York Times has written this up. And the, the reporter of the New York Times piece, Vimal Patel, put side by side in his piece the statement of law enforcement officers that this guy, Carlos Gouveia, did not know it was a Jewish holiday. And the statement of the rabbi that he is married to a Jewish woman and has Jewish children and simply doesn't raise any questions about this. Doesn't raise any questions for the New York Times reporter. It's left to the reader to wonder, geez, can both of these things be true? Which is what I wondered when I Read the piece last night. Second, the Times reporter assures us that law enforcement officers say that this attack was not motivated by antisemitism. And that is followed by the statements of the rabbis, the leaders of the synagogue, Temple Beth Zion and Brookline reassuring congregants that this attack was not motivated by anti Semitism. And by the Harvard rabbi saying, essentially. Let me find what he says here. It's at the end of the piece. This man is married to a Jewish woman and has Jewish children. And it's absolutely nothing to do with targeting the Jewish community. The Harvard rabbi says, and if you contrast that to the coverage of the. The Charlie Kirk assassin or any of these other guys, where they say authorities have not yet determined the motive here, they have determined it is not anti Semitism. And I just want to say I'm not sure yet. Something doesn't add up here.

John Podhoretz (58:16)

Okay, I want to talk about the synagogue for a second, because I'm on the website of the synagogue, tbz. Okay. TBZ in Brookline.

Christine Rosen (58:27)

The Google image shows a big BLM sign of shul. Yeah.

John Podhoretz (58:32)

Okay. Now, first of all, if you're going to use the word shul, you don't need the word Jewish. That's like saying an independent Catholic, you know, an independent Islamic mosque. I mean, shul is Yiddish for synagogue, so I don't really think there's such a thing as a non Jewish shul, but whatever. But it's very striking, the word independent, because it will give you a. It will give you some guidance, as I read this, to the ideological makeup of the synagogue and the leaders who are buying into the idea that we shouldn't make too much of the possible antisemitism here. TBZ is made up of people of all ages seeking a Jewish home where together we can learn, pray, and take action. Tikkun olam. Assuring that everyone, people of all ages, ethnicities, gender expressions or identities, races, sexual orientations or socioeconomic levels is included. Okay? Joyful participatory worship, meaningful Jewish learning, spiritual growth, and acts of social justice. Okay. Populated by an extraordinary mix of passionate people, we are families. Solo parents, singles and those on single life paths, Newlyweds and longtime couples, college students, members of the LGBTQ community, newcomers to this land, people of all different ability types, interfaith and multicultural couples and families, Jews by choice, Jews of color, seekers of all kinds. They do not want to say that an attack on their shul is anti Semitic because they are all that cohort of people in the polls where there are 20% of Jews who Vote for Zoram Dani. Now, they're in Brookline, so they're not going to vote for Zoram Dani. Am I stereotyping them by saying this? No, they're stereotyping themselves. And you have Harvard, which has no interest in surfacing the possibility of a charge of an anti Semitic act being performed, a violent anti Semitic act being performed by somebody on their. You know, in their teaching community. What's going on with her? With the. With the. With the Harvard Hillel rabbi? I don't know. I'm disturbed by that. Not the first thing that's disturbed me about him and this synagogue. That you can understand why the very progressive people in Brookline and the people at the synagogue would want to downplay this because they don't want to create conditions of Islamophobia and particularly on, you know, in a terrible time like this.

Eliana Johnson (61:17)

I also am not persuaded by the weird cloak of innocence they try to hang over this guy by saying his wife is Jewish. Anytime that happens, I think of that crazy Seinfeld episode. Remember, Bryan Cranston had the repeating role as the dentist who.

John Podhoretz (61:33)

The anti. Dentite.

Eliana Johnson (61:34)

Yeah. So he becomes a Jew just so he can make anti Semitic remarks and have no one holding him accountable. So I always think of this when they're like, well, it's fine. I'm sure he's not anti Semitic. His wife is Jewish. Well, that doesn't tell us. Is she practicing? Is she observant? I mean, that should never be used as a statement of fact against the idea that that might have been a motive.

John Podhoretz (61:53)

Eliana just sent me a picture of the synagogue, which looks like Independence Hall.

Christine Rosen (62:02)

I mean, well, John, you got to.

John Podhoretz (62:04)

Zoom in on a side street.

Christine Rosen (62:06)

There's a big black Lives Matter banner.

John Podhoretz (62:08)

Yeah, there's a big black. And it's also basically, like I say, it's the size of it. It's not. Oh, there's just a shool tucked in there somewhere on the side street. Like, this is the most prominent building in Brookline, practically, just to let you know, it's got, you know, it's got a beautiful open, you know, sort of like four door columns, entryway. So the world in which we are still two years after October 7, saying, Gee, I can't imagine why anyone would shoot a pellet gun next to a synagogue. Hmm. Gee. Well.

Eliana Johnson (62:53)

And after yesterday's very public protest celebrating what hamas did on October 7th in many of our major cities, including New York, we certainly shouldn't be trying to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who's shooting up a synagogue on the holiest day of the year.

Christine Rosen (63:09)

The Times also goes on an aside saying Brookline really does have a horrible rat problem. Statistics show that rats, you know, the rat population has grown 300 to 400% over the past, you know, whatever number of years. But I think it's also important to note that Harvard is at a standstill with its negotiations with the Trump administration. And for, you know, for a public incident like this to happen is not great. Were it to get on the president's radar with confirmation that it was motivated by anti Semitism, I think would throw sand in the gears of negotiations that Harvard is keen to reach a deal. Like, they're in a bad spot right now.

John Podhoretz (63:55)

I have another larger point. Let's say that our friend the rat hunter, immediately suspended by Harvard and the police saying they don't know if it's anti Semitism, having tussled with the cops over the gun. I'm now literally gonna just make up a scenario here, which is that he had a psychotic break. Something happened. He had a psychotic break. He's walking around Brookline with a pellet gun, shooting. You know, he's gonna shoot at things. Says it's a rat, says he's, you know, did whatever, doesn't know that there's Yom Kippur. But he's also. And Harvard's immediate. Harvard immediately is like, put that guy on suspension. So it's like, maybe they know something about him prior to this that would lead them to say, oops, we really shouldn't have given him this, you know, this sort of adjunct fellowship or whatever, temporary post. We, you know, thank God we have some reason. Now we can put him on suspension because everybody's telling us he's crazy. Again, I'm making. I'm making this up, but even I'm saying I'm making it up. Because even if it's all true, even if he's crazy, even if he doesn't know that it's Yom Kippur, even of all of that, the world since October 7th has unleashed inside the bodies and souls and brains and minds of crazy people. It has let them loose. And shooting at a synagogue is one of the sign. Can be a sign of mental illness, but anti Semitism, still, a shooting of a synagogue, that maybe before October 7th, that wouldn't have come into his head. Which is why anti Semitism, which is why American Jew hatred and anti Semitism is so threatening that you combine mental illness, total laxity in law enforcement. This idea that you can't intercede where people are doing freedom of speech, and then people being triggered to do things against Jews because they think that what's going on is so evil, it's all a stew. So. So everything you could use as a mitigating circumstance for this guy does not let it off, does not let off the hook. The idea that it means something that he was shooting a pellet gun near a shul on the holiest day of the year and the day that more Jews go, the night that more Jews go to synagogue than any other night, any other day in the year.

Abe Greenwald (66:49)

You know, the more I think about this, I think he would probably have to have had a psychotic break because what, what could one possibly want out of it? What, what was the end goal for him here? It's a pellet.

John Podhoretz (67:07)

Well, it's his only gun. Yeah, you know, I don't know. Yeah, I mean, I know, like that's, that's the point.

Abe Greenwald (67:14)

Yeah. I mean, you know that you're going to get caught. You know, a guard saw him with the gun behind a tree.

John Podhoretz (67:21)

Yeah.

Abe Greenwald (67:23)

I mean, you know, you're risking everything, however much you may hate the Jews and.

John Podhoretz (67:30)

Can I just talk about a piece of footage I saw that I just.

Abe Greenwald (67:32)

Want to add one thing. If he lives in Cambridge, which, where Harvard is, not only is Brookline. Eliana, how far away did you say it was?

John Podhoretz (67:43)

Half an hour.

Christine Rosen (67:45)

And look, this is just through public record, so it's a educated guess. Yeah, informed guess.

Abe Greenwald (67:53)

Oh, if he lives in Cambridge, he lives in Brookline.

Christine Rosen (67:57)

Oh, he lives, he lives in Brookline. And the synagogue's also in Brookline.

Eliana Johnson (68:02)

Okay.

John Podhoretz (68:03)

But it could be a 30 minute walkline. Is a piece of footage today, this morning. I want to just talk about mental illness, crazy people, evil and anti Semitism and Jew hatred and all of that. So of course, one of the more upsetting things in the last three months has been the kind of weird mainstreaming of this YouTuber, Hassan Piker, who is, you know, this very sort of good looking built guy who has a feed on Twitch and speaks for hours a day about everything that he hates and he's a gamer and all this. And the New York Times has done features on him and they let him publish an op ed and all of this. And he's, he's, he's, he's, he's sick. He's like, he's a crazy. I mean, he's a crazy person. You only have to Watch him for 10 minutes to know that he is a crazy person. But as I say, Very attractive in this. This is sort of the Luigi Mangioni problem of the good looking monster that attracts an interesting crowd of followers. Hasan Piker is ranting about how much he effing hates America on his twitch feed. And his dog is sitting next to him and he's ranting and ranting and the dog gets up to stretch and I think makes a little yawning noise as one's dog maybe want to do, and he activates the dog's shock collar and the dog yelps and sits down right where he is and he says something like, kaya, why are you going so crazy? Like, I need you to settle down on his twitch feed. We saw a guy who is one of America's leading cheerleaders of Jew hatred and mass murder torture his dog. So he's sick, he needs treatment, he needs to be involuntarily committed. Torturing animals is an. Is the act of a psychopath. And. But that's not an excuse. The point is that anti Semitism and Jew hatred combine very nicely with psychopathology and always have, as you know, as the leading killer of Jews and history has indicated, and I only bring that up to say that we're always being given some weird excuse for the behavior of somebody who does something untoward that involves their mental health. And it's not that we don't need to take consideration of their mental health and the courts are there to deal with that as at will, but what all these things have in common is a, what our friend Noah would have called a permission structure that starts broadening out what it is that people are supposed to do to fulfill their sociopathic, psychopathic, schizophrenic voices and Jews being there to be acted upon to deal with this.

Eliana Johnson (71:45)

Just to add a little color to the Hasan Piker story, not only has he been flattered and praised by media outlets, unexception as he is, he's quite wealthy. And when he shocked the dog, he was literally ranting about how much he hates the country he lives in that has granted him wealth, prestige, power, all of these things. And he is a sort of cultural hero on the left. He's very big among. You know, they hope that he would become the left's answer to Joe Rogan. After the last election, you know, the left was looking for some sort of podcasting bro who could fill that void for them. He was the one they settled on. And this entitled spoiled man baby who is, I'm sorry, he's not that attractive. The fact that he can sit there Ranting about his country. Ranting about his country and how much he hates it. Lives in California and complaining about his Internet connection and then casually shock his dog. Sorry, as a dog owner, I mean, he'd lost me long before this. But that's it. I mean that is, that's unacceptable. And you're right that, you know, people who, who don't mind inflicting pain on helpless animals do tend to have some sort of pathology in their, in their psychological makeup. But we should recognize that this is who the left has been trying to prop up as a cultural model.

John Podhoretz (72:59)

It's important. Just as the left is trying to prop up Eliana Johnson.

Christine Rosen (73:04)

Well, I do think that, I do think that's really important. And John, you mentioned his, his profiles in the New York Times. He got a huge profile in the New York Times where his, his advocacy for the Houthis in Yemen and for Hamas was whitewashed. And he was called, you know, liberal or left wing and that part was left out. The Free Press then highlighted it. He just this past weekend was interviewed by Ross Douthat, which does have a sort of, I think normalizing effect on it, though I will say I haven't read the interview, so which I will go and do now. And he was given the pen to write an op ed after Charlie Kirk's death because Kirk was supposed to debate him. And the Times decided that this was the person to eulogize Kirk afterwards. So that, you know, the so called paper of record has gone a long way to mainstreaming this person. And, and partly I want to say, like, look, they should highlight how actually pro terror and you know, he is like the media version of Mamdani and they shouldn't whitewash him. But like, this is actually the face of the young New York City left. And in that sense it is useful to call attention to him, but we should get an accurate picture of who he is in the media.

John Podhoretz (74:46)

Absolutely.

Abe Greenwald (74:47)

By the way, you mentioned Mamdani. Part of the reason that the left liberal media needs to defend piker is because Mamdani would not renounce him.

John Podhoretz (75:05)

Well, there we have it. We have dog torturers, Harvard professors.

Eliana Johnson (75:14)

We are on brand with morosity today.

John Podhoretz (75:17)

It is, it is a, it is a morose time and again this, I think goes to the problem of Christine's evocation of norms. Like we're living where we're, we're just in open field. You know, Calvin Ball here in terms of our culture and our society. And what is a world without guardrails or boundaries or anything that is even remotely deemed acceptable or unacceptable. And the effort of the left to define these boundaries over the last 10 years, to exclude people like us and say that we are no different from the most extreme versions of right wing thought or something like that, and we should all be deplatformed and you know, Barry Weiss should be fired and all of that, all of that stuff ended up failing and in fact boomeranging. But of course we're still left with no guardrails. I mean it's good that we, that we. That they weren't able to establish those guardrails. And after they ruined a lot of careers and ruined a lot of lives, that that period seems to have come to an end. But we're still in this, as I said, Calvin ball world without any rules and without any sense of what is appropriate. And it's very hard to navigate, to put it mildly. Eliana Johnson, despite your absolutely shocking position in the world of left wing suck upper y to powerful women in Washington that has led to this totally understandable staff revolt against you in a piece that I'm sure you had some role, right? I'm just gonna guess along with our friend Mike Goldfarb. Anyway, funny, hilarious. Eliana Johnson takedown in the Washington Free Beacon. You should all go read by the ombudsman. All staff must resign. That as well as the remarkable piece of reporting about by Andrew Kerr about the rat hunting Harvard law professor weaving his way through America's elite institutions. It's a banner day at the Free Beacon. Thank you for joining us. Thank you back tomorrow. So for Christina and Abe, I'm John Podhoritz. Keep the candle burning.

Eliana Johnson (78:01)

It's okay not to be perfect with finances. Experian is your big financial friend and here to help.

John Podhoretz (78:08)

Did you know you can get matched with credit cards on the app?

Eliana Johnson (78:11)

Some cards are labeled no ding decline which means if you're not approved, they.

John Podhoretz (78:15)

Won'T hurt your credit scores. Download the Experian app for free today.

Eliana Johnson (78:20)

Applying for no Ding decline cards won't.

John Podhoretz (78:22)

Hurt your credit scores.

Eliana Johnson (78:23)

If you aren't initially approved. Initial approval will result in a hard inquiry which may impact your credit scores.

Christine Rosen (78:29)

Experian.