← The Jim Acosta Show
The Jim Acosta Show
Don't Miss this July 4th Weekend Episode! Judge Michael Luttig on his "Self-Evident Truths of Freedom - and of Tyranny" with Ryan Lizza - plus the guys from “The Good Liars”
01:05:56
Loading summary
Transcript147 lines
- [00:00]
Jim Acosta
Welcome everybody to the Jim Acosta show on this Wednesday. And I can't think of a better guess heading into this Fourth of July weekend, in between your barbecues and your trips to the beach, please spend some time to read the piece from the man on the right side of your screen. That is former U.S. courts of Appeals Judge J. Michael Ludig. He has a new substack out just in time for Independence Day. It's up on the Telus substack account run by our friend Ryan Lizzig. Gentlemen, thank you very much for joining us. Really appreciate it. Great to see you. Judge Great to see you. Ryan.
- [00:31]
Ryan Lizza
Thanks, Jim.
- [00:32]
J. Michael Ludig
Thank you. Jim. It's a real honor for me to be on with you today.
- [00:38]
Jim Acosta
No, and it's great to be on with you. And I know we've spoken before and I think it was before the election perhaps the last time we spoke and there was a lot on your mind then. There appears to be a lot on your mind now. And Ryan, you write about Judge Ludick's piece and again, it's up on substack. You can find it there on Ryan's account. Tell us Ryan writes this is not a piece that should be skimmed or scanned. Ludig is writing for the ages. I recommend you take some time away from the crush of news, find a quiet place without distractions and read this piece carefully. That's when the power of what he has written will hit you. And then, Judge, you write. And just everybody can indulge me for just a moment because I want this to sink in. This is what the judge writes when the tyrannical reign of King George III became destructive of the ends of government by law under which all persons are equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights. The American colonists decl independence from the British King, chronicling 27 grievances of self evident truths about tyranny as reasons for their Declaration of independence on this July 4, 2025, the eve of the 250th anniversary of America's Declaration of Independence and the founding of this nation. We the people hold to be self evident. These 27 truths about freedom and about tyranny. Judge, you then go through the grievances that were laid out in the original Declaration, some of which sound awfully on this fourth of July. Let's discuss your thoughts.
- [02:13]
J. Michael Ludig
Well, thank you so much, Jim. It is a pleasure to be on. I have long wanted to write an Independence Day document of one kind or another, but I didn't really ever feel that I had something to say much Less something different than what's been said for almost 250 years. Fast forward to today. There's everything in the world that needs to be said on this July 4, 2025, and this document wrote itself. For me. It is, to borrow the phrase self evident. Not only self evident truths about freedom, but self evident truths about tyranny. And thus the title of this piece. As your audience knows, in the original Declaration of Independence, the American colonists outlined 27 grievances and those were grievances against tyranny. Then in the Declaration of Independence, the truths that, quote, we the people hold to be self evident are relatively few in number. You know, you know, just obviously primarily that we're equally endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So there's a twist in the piece that I wrote and I don't intend to get into the weeds, but indulge me just one more sentence.
- [04:29]
Jim Acosta
No, take your time.
- [04:32]
J. Michael Ludig
The self evident truths in the Declaration of Independence are relatively few in number, but the grievances were 27 in number. And when I juxtapose the two for purposes of this document, that's where you end up with the self evident truths about freedom first, Dash. And also about tyranny. But Jim, I see myself as little more than a scrivener here. I hope a scrivener of history. That would be the highest honor I could achieve in my lifetime, but a scrivener of nothing more than what the founders of our nation themselves wrote in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution of the United States. The only addition that I have made to their words and their thoughts is to carry forward now, after almost 250 years, the self evident truths about the government that they establish for the United States of America and the rights, liberties and freedoms that they, they, not us, put into the Constitution of the United States.
- [06:16]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, yeah. And, and it's so important to, to read it and, and to go through those 27 grievances. And, and as I was saying at the top of all this, you see the, I mean the parallels just jump off the page. And, and Ryan, I mean, if you can sort of help us appreciate that and why you decided to do this project, why you and the judge wanted to do this. Yeah, I mean, I guess it's pretty, it's pretty darn clear.
- [06:41]
Ryan Lizza
When Judge Ludig calls you and tells you about a piece and asks you what he thinks he should do with it, you do everything you can to make sure that piece gets published. And I, you know, he told me the project he was working on and I asked him to consider publishing it with, with, with Telus News and to sort of help launch him on Substack. And the. With the idea being that going forward, you know, maybe he'll make it a destination. So, Jim, we got to encourage him to, to, to. To be a regular substack writer.
- [07:20]
Jim Acosta
Absolutely.
- [07:21]
Ryan Lizza
And I was, I read, you know, I obviously told him I would publish it without even reading it. I never even read it before I committed to it. But the piece, like I said at the beginning, the 27 self evident truths are. It's like poetry. It requires some careful, concentrated reading for the power of this piece to hit you. And it was only when I actually sat down a couple of days ago and finally read it, start to finish, without any distractions, that you realize that the times we are living in now, as distant as the Revolution and as distant as the time of the Declaration of Independence, might seem to us, it's shockingly the similarities between the 1770s and, and the 2020s are much, much more apparent than I ever would have imagined. And that really, really hit home after I read this piece carefully. And if you'll indulge me, Jim, I just want to read of the 27, one of my favorite pairings, like I said, it is like poetry. And there's a sort of statement of a self evident truth that Judge Ludig has written. And then I a quote, almost always from the Declaration of Independence itself. That is a comment on that self evident truth. And this one I really love, Judge. And this is the Judge's writing in this first one. Government should only wage war against foreign enemies, not misperceived domestic enemies. The people are not the enemy of the government. Rather, the government that regards the people as its enemy is itself the enemy of the people. And this is from the Declaration. The Judge adds, for the King has excited domestic insurrections amongst us and has abdicated government here by waging war against us. The King is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny already begun, with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation. So that's just one example of 27 couplets like that are in this piece. Like I said, it's poetry.
- [09:56]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, and Judge, that part jumped out at me too. Because of the reference of the enemy of the people. The press has been referred to as such. And I guess. Why did you want to talk about that? Why did you want to write about that specific part of this?
- [10:14]
J. Michael Ludig
Well, Jim, first let me say that to all of your audience and to all of America. In my view, there's no reason in this world for the citizens of this country to know the words from the Declaration of Independence, let alone the Constitution of the United States. That's not their job. All to say that there is no reason in my view for the past almost 250 years for the American people to think about these issues until this moment in American history. For reasons that I'm confident are apparent to every citizen of the United States of America. Now the I. The only. The. I'm very proud of the original thinking that, that I did in order to cast these self evident truths in contemporary, in the contemporary day and moment. And you know, without going through them all. It's self evident to anyone who reads this that the parallels, if not the identity of most of these self evident truths about both freedom and tyranny have been drawn into question today by the incumbent President of the United States. That's to say nothing. This is common knowledge. It's only to say that for the first time in almost 250 years, these fundamental foundational principles and values of the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States have been drawn into question by the President of the United States of America. Again, for that reason I regard myself as merely a scrivener of that which every American citizen today knows a great deal.
- [13:08]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, yeah. No, and the part that jumps out to me and you know, I think this could be worthy of discussion where you talk about every person's rights, liberties and freedoms, as well as the rights of the majority and minority are best secured and safeguarded by separation of the respective powers of the legislative, executive and judiciary and by separation of the powers of each of the branches of government from the powers of the others. The powers of each of the three co. Equal branches of government are limited and checked and balanced by the powers of the others and judge. You know this all too well. This has been a subject of conversation going back to the Watergate era, that the executive branch has expanded to the powers of the executive branch have been expanded to the point where it does cause concern that things are out of balance, that things are not in check. And what we've seen, and I know we don't want to drift too much into current events, but what we've seen in recent years is The Trump presidency just. And many folks feel as though this has been done by the Supreme Court, has just been given almost a blank check, carte blanche to keep expanding its powers. The immunity decision by the Supreme Court perhaps being the Exhibit A in all of this. Your thoughts, did any of that come into mind when you were talking about this particular section, when you're writing this particular section?
- [14:34]
J. Michael Ludig
Of course, Jim. And today and what America has experienced over the past six to eight years, that was in the forefront of my mind in every single word of this document. But to answer the implicit question for your audience, the parallels, the parallels between the Declaration of Independence and the American colonist articulation of the grievances against the British Crown and King George iii. The parallels, Jim, the parallels, if not identity, of those issues exist today for the first time in American history.
- [15:42]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. And Ryan, I mean, to hear, you know, federal judge say that, you know, that that sets off alarms, alarm bells for me. I don't know about you, Ryan, but it sets off alarm bells for me. Yeah.
- [15:56]
Ryan Lizza
I think that's what I was trying to get at before when I said that this was the first time in my life reading this piece and reading it carefully, where I had any sense that the ideals that this country was founded on and went to war over and overthrew a monarchy, that those events that seem, when you learn about them in grade school, seem not that dissimilar than a fantasy movie that you might watch. You know, and I was growing up in the 80s Star wars and learning about the Revolutionary War might have been, you know, they're just from totally other realms. And reading this piece was the first time where I felt a. A weird connection to the origins of this country, because the way that the judge has spelled out the things that the colonists were fighting for, the capitalization's a little funky, the clothes are different, all the elements of modernity are absent. But in so many other ways, it is very, very, very similar to the discussions we are having right now in the United States about an executive that is hell bent on expanding its authority beyond what is normal in this country. The checks and balances that are built into our system are eroding. And I encourage people to spend some time this July 4th reading the declaration and then reading the judge's piece. And I think it will be a wake up call to a lot of people who still have this idea that. That we are, as modern Americans, you know, isolate or insulated from history.
- [18:01]
J. Michael Ludig
Yeah, go ahead. So that's just the highest compliment that you could ever Pay to me. And thank you for that. My primary goal in writing this piece was to make accessible to the American people today all that was self evident in 1776, almost 250 years ago next year. And that's my veiled reference to being a mere scrivener, by which I mean that all I did, and I take no credit whatsoever, is just making all of these principles and values that underlie the Declaration of the Independence and the Constitution of the United States accessible to all Americans today.
- [19:20]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. And that is such an important point. Yeah. And you absolutely nailed it, Judge. I mean, the thing that pops into my head listening to all of this is I had this conversation with this young influencer the other day, Aaron Parnas, and he was saying something to me that just blew my mind, which is his first real recollection of the presidency was that of Donald Trump, because He's in his mid-20s, and so he has no basis of knowledge going back beyond that. But besides looking at archival footage or watching the occasional PBS special on the Clinton presidency or Bush presidency or whatever. And that is why I think this project is so very important. What you've done is so very important, because people need to understand that it's in our DNA. It's who we are. It's rebelling against an undemocratic king who's out of control and maybe out of his mind is very much a part of the fabric of the founding of this country. It's an exciting story. It's an adventure. It's something that we should all learn about and kind of revel in. So I'm glad you did it, Judge. It's just remarkable.
- [20:33]
J. Michael Ludig
Well, thank you, Jim. If I have achieved that accessibility to all that has gone before us, then I will have achieved my ultimate objective in writing this piece. Just bringing forward two and a half centuries. All that was self evident at the founding of the United States of America.
- [21:10]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. And, Ryan, I mean, and Judge, feel free to weigh in on this. Although I don't want to pull you into too many current events, but I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't bring up the fact that, I mean, just in the last week or so, we've had discussions about the 14th Amendment, about birthright citizenship, about the limiting of nationwide injunctions, and there's been a discussion as to, you know, well, that hasn't always been around since the founding of the republic and so on. But. And Judge, feel free to weigh in on this. But I mean, some of this stuff I just always thought was sort of, you know, these were, these would be things and matters that previous compositions of the Supreme Court would probably dispatch fairly quickly and say, why are we even dealing with this stuff? And yet the country is now smack dab in the middle of this. It just feels like a daily constitutional crisis that evolves in various different directions depending on the day of the week.
- [22:05]
J. Michael Ludig
No, I will feel that first, Jim, because all of this is known by every American citizen. So to take your question in its most specific form, the president of the United States has challenged, openly challenged.
- [22:35]
Unknown
Almost.
- [22:36]
J. Michael Ludig
If not every one of these foundational principles of the United States of America, then speaking again, because it's public knowledge, you know, the bullet where I talk about, you know, no person is above the law, that's, of course, today's equivalent of no man is above the law. And it's a matter of public record that when the Supreme Court decided Trump against the United States, I said that that decision cut the heart out of the United States of America and the Constitution of the United States again, which now at this moment is just to state the obvious, that notwithstanding the Supreme Court's abhorrent decision in Trump against United States, it is still and it will forever be the case that in the United States of America, no man is above the law, least of all the President of the United States of America.
- [24:07]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. Your thoughts, Ryan?
- [24:09]
Ryan Lizza
Well, just to add what you said and to be a little bit more, you know, political and, and sort of talk, talking down in the weeds of the, of current events, and I haven't talked to you about this, Judge Ludig, but when I look at the last month, just take a step back and see the federalization of the National Guard in California, sending troops to la, sending the, the, you know, Marines to la, bombing Iran without any congressional authorization, and obviously without any UN Authorization, that wouldn't ever cross Donald Trump's mind. And the bill that's going through Congress right now, which will massively expand ice, which has not proven itself this year worthy of that kind of expansion without some serious checks from Congress. And then finally, the Supreme Court's decision, which I know it's a technical decision, I know there's a little bit of debate about it, but the way I read it is to neuter at least any lower court's ability to rein in Trump. I guess there's a bit of a question mark and debate about whether the Supreme Court still has that ability. I suppose it does, but it certainly seems to have neutered the lower courts and will eventually invalidate a lot of These national injunctions. You have Congress, the Supreme Court, ceding power to Donald Trump, and you have Donald Trump in the meantime, amassing more executive authority in ways that are unchecked. And that's just in the last month, those events. We're only in June, excuse me, we're now in July. We're only in July of the first year. So that's why I say this piece could not be more timely. The things that I just discussed are not even mentioned in this piece. But this piece underlies the principles that this piece discusses, underlies everything that I just talked about.
- [26:19]
J. Michael Ludig
You know, Ryan and Jim. All I will say as to that profound observation is this, which is all that need be said. The founding fathers of this nation, the authors of the Declaration of Independence and the framers of the Constitution of the United States, foresaw this day, this day and this president and feared this day and this president literally, as a matter of historical fact, more than anything else that they could imagine 250 years ago. That's why, that's why that these self evident truths of both freedom, but also tyranny are so manifestly applicable today for the first time in American history.
- [27:53]
Jim Acosta
And do we, do we, I know we don't want to get into the current occupant too much, but do we think based on what you just said, that Trump has cracked the code here and how to sort of rip this document apart and create a king like position for himself in this country or is on the path to doing that? Or is it partly because these institutions have allowed it to happen and contributed to this and made it possible? And I guess that's the danger.
- [28:29]
J. Michael Ludig
That's a complex question and I'll try to ravel it a piece at a time. I would never use your phraseology, but yes, Donald Trump has, quote, cracked the code, but in the United States of America, that ought to be to say nothing whatsoever. The goal is not for the President of the United States to crack the code. The goal, objective and only duty of the President of the United States is faithfully execute the laws of the United States, including the paramount law in this nation, the Constitution. So the, the current president, the, the incumbent, he hasn't cracked anything. He wouldn't say that himself. He says every day of the week that he is confronting America. He is confronting the Declaration of Independence and he's confronting the Constitution of the United States and he's proud of that. He's confronting the federal judiciary, he is confronting the Congress of the United States of America. So that's what he would say and has said. So again, in the judicial world, we would say we can take judicial notice of all of that. We're not talking behind this president's back. He's telling, he's talking, he's talking like this every single day of the week to the American people.
- [30:34]
Ryan Lizza
So that's, that's. When you say judicial notice, you mean that if you're a judge sitting, you shouldn't ignore the extracurricular comments, what he's putting out on social media and all the rest. You don't have to just listen to the words of the. Of the lawyers that show up in court. Is that what you mean by that?
- [30:54]
J. Michael Ludig
No, but it's not your fault.
- [30:56]
Ryan Lizza
What is judicial notice?
- [30:58]
J. Michael Ludig
Notice means that the court can take notice of what has happened, that there is no debate as to what has happened. It's not a factual question or in this instance, a legal question. Take, for example, this president's executive order challenging the 14th amendment's, you know, birthright citizenship revision. Okay? That's about as open and notorious as could ever happen in the United States of America. That's a President of the United States saying that he fundamentally disagrees with the Constitution of the United States of America, and he's imploring the Supreme Court of the United States to change the Constitution. Okay? That's something that we could take judicial notice of, Ryan.
- [31:59]
Ryan Lizza
And yet, and I know Jim's going to jump in with the exact same question. And yet, Judge, the Supreme Court took a case where the basis of it was that executive order and was absolutely silent. The majority, at least on the merits and the substance of the Supreme Order, and instead decided this narrower question over national injunctions was. We haven't talked about this offline. What was your. What's your view of that?
- [32:31]
J. Michael Ludig
It's reprehensible. The bit that the Supreme Court of the United States abdicated its responsibility to the American people by deciding that case in the way it did, not saying a single word about the executive order itself. I'm not saying that the Supreme Court erred in deciding the injunction case the way it did, though.
- [33:05]
Unknown
I.
- [33:06]
J. Michael Ludig
It did. And I would take this opportunity to say to the two of you that in deciding the case the way that it did, it gave its official imprimatur to the suspicion of the American people that the law is what each individual federal judge says it is and that there is no such thing as the law in America. That's what we've had up to 250 years ago. That's the nefariousness of, of the Supreme Court's holding last week in the nationwide injunction case. I would never in my life have decided that case without addressing the only issue that really mattered. And the court did a grave disservice to the country by doing so.
- [34:26]
Jim Acosta
And so when, when you hear people question, you know, whether or not this, this court, the, the Roberts led court is, is simply there to do Trump's bidding or feels that they're there to do Trump's bidding, or they have a specific idea in mind about what the power of the presidency should be or his presidency should be. I know you don't want to cast aspersions here or anything like that, but I mean, I would have to assume that you might think that some of those feelings are okay to have, that people have a right to be a little suspicious of the Supreme Court right now.
- [35:07]
J. Michael Ludig
I do. But the way I will respond to and answer your question in the, in the narrowest way that I can think.
- [35:19]
Jim Acosta
Of.
- [35:22]
J. Michael Ludig
Which is that in this case, but also in every case that the Supreme Court has heard over the past six months on a so called emergency basis at the request of the President of the United States, the court has, I think in every instance accommodated the President of the United States in a way that I think is, is regrettable.
- [36:05]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, well, and all the more reason for everybody to read your piece, Judge Litig. I, I, I, you know, to me, if, if you don't read this this weekend, you're not doing your homework as an American citizen. The Fourth of July weekend is much more than, than barbecues and trips to the beach. Ryan, any final thoughts from you? I mean, I, I've got to lift my jaw up off the floor here. I appreciate the judge's candor. I appreciate it.
- [36:33]
Ryan Lizza
You know, someone in the comments said, listen, when people who talk deliberately and slowly, they're usually the smartest people in the room. And there's like a lot of commenters. I see this all the time when I do these interviews with the judge is people say I could listen to him talk all day long.
- [36:49]
Jim Acosta
Me too.
- [36:50]
Ryan Lizza
And that's how I feel about him. He's probably sick of listening to me because I've been driving him crazy for the last two days getting this piece out. But watching him and how detailed he was with every comma, every word, sending me texts, this is precisely how this line has to be. It was just a joy to watch that process and a brilliant man work on a piece for the ages. I was very, very proud to have a small part in it. And I just have an appeal to your listeners and readers. Jim, I told Judge Ludig the first name I mentioned the show I wanted him to do to talk about this piece was your show. And so thank you for having us on. And, you know, you have almost 4,000 people watching this right now. I hope everyone will download the piece, grab a link to that piece, and just share it with 1, 5, 10, 20 people. You know, social media, your email lists, your Christmas card list.
- [37:52]
J. Michael Ludig
Just share the piece widely.
- [37:54]
Ryan Lizza
I promised Judge Ludig if I published this piece, if he published this piece with Telus News, I would do everything I could to get as many eyeballs on the piece as possible. And I hope everyone out there can help. Thank you so much, Jim, for getting the word out on it.
- [38:11]
J. Michael Ludig
Thank you.
- [38:12]
Jim Acosta
Oh, you're welcome.
- [38:13]
J. Michael Ludig
Thank you both. Jim and Ryan, it's. It's really an honor for me to be on with the two of you.
- [38:23]
Ryan Lizza
Stop it.
- [38:24]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, well. And right back at you, Judge. It's a. It's such an honor. And when Ryan called me yesterday to say that we were going to do this, I. I couldn't really contain my excitement. I was very excited to just. Just to reconnect and speak with you again. It's really terrific. And, And Ryan, I owe you a stake or the meal of your choice. So, you know, that's. That's definitely on me. But. And. And I will say this.
- [38:48]
J. Michael Ludig
This free, both of you. At some point. I. How about I treat the two of you?
- [38:55]
Jim Acosta
Sounds good. That sounds great. I never, never refuse an order from a judge. I. I try not to do that.
- [39:01]
Ryan Lizza
I'm going to break the news here.
- [39:02]
J. Michael Ludig
I'm.
- [39:02]
Ryan Lizza
I'm gonna. He's in Charlottesville right now.
- [39:05]
Unknown
Or.
- [39:05]
Ryan Lizza
And I. I'm.
- [39:06]
J. Michael Ludig
We're.
- [39:07]
Ryan Lizza
Wherever you are, Judge. I'm gonna try and get him to record an audio version of this piece and. And release it as a podcast before July 4th. So now I've said it out loud, Judge. Now you have to do it perfect.
- [39:20]
Jim Acosta
And don't forget this. This program that we're doing right now will go into record mode, and people will be able to watch it all weekend long. We typically get tens of thousands of views after this is over. And so I think a lot of folks are going to see this, and, you know, really just. I'm absolutely blown away and really honored that you came on this program to do this, Judge and Ryan, thanks to both of you very much.
- [39:41]
Ryan Lizza
Thank you, Jeff.
- [39:42]
J. Michael Ludig
Have a good afternoon.
- [39:43]
Jim Acosta
All right. Happy fourth of July. Happy Independence Day. Really appreciate It. All right. Thanks to both of you. Judge Ludig and Ryan Lizza read it on Telus. Fantastic piece. One for the ages, as Ryan was just saying. I want to quickly, we're going to switch gears in a major way right now, and I'm going to go to my buddies, the Good Liars. I figured, you know what, we need a little, a little levity as we're heading into the Fourth of July weekend. And these guys, they bring it every single time. So stand by. I'm going to bring them in in just a second here. It's going to take just a moment to bring them into the conversation. But, you know, it's, you know, it's astounding what the judge there just said. And I'm going to have to go and, you know, pull the tape. And as you know, I know it's not really tape, it's digital video, but I'm going to have to go and pull the transcript and what the judge just said there because his comments, I think, on the birthright citizenship ruling by the Supreme Court, I think is going to make some news. I think his comments on his views on how the current composition of the Supreme Court is handling these cases made some news. Some, some very important comments there from Judge Lodig, but also just a terrific conversation with the judge and Ryan about this very important piece that he's written. All right, I'm bringing in the Good Liars, Jason and Davran. There's Jason right there. Did I do this correctly? That is, that is the question right now.
- [41:16]
Unknown
We had the same thing last time. Yeah. Devram has a separate one. It's the Devram. Oh, wait, here we go.
- [41:22]
Jim Acosta
I think I put you both in at the same time. So just the wheels of the substack, the hamster and the wheels of the substack machine. He can only run so fast. And it's a bit of a MacGyver operation. It's sort of like my folks growing up had the aluminum foil on the antennas, but we got it to work. Jason and Davram, great to see you both. How are you? How are things?
- [41:44]
Unknown
Good, good, good. I want to get it out that steak. Can I get it in the steak dinner? This judge is just offering steak dinners. I feel like I'm owed one. I think Devram's owed one now as well.
- [41:56]
Jim Acosta
I think five guys. I'm thinking of five guys for you guys, if that's okay.
- [42:00]
Unknown
Okay, fair enough. Fair enough.
- [42:02]
Jim Acosta
No, no. We can do a steak anytime. It's on me.
- [42:04]
Unknown
Happy to do it.
- [42:05]
Jim Acosta
Happy to do it. We'll put it on the substack account.
- [42:07]
E
It's not, it's all a negotiation, guys. Five years it is.
- [42:10]
Unknown
Exactly.
- [42:12]
Jim Acosta
We start at burgers and we go up from there. No, listen, we gotta talk about a couple of things. One is, first of all, I was spinning through some of your highlights over the last several days, and we have to talk about Trump's birthday party down on the mall, because I know you guys down there and I covered it too. We were covering these no Kings protests and it was, it was fascinating to see just the, the whole country and, and, and people just taking to the streets and so on, but the, the vantage point that you guys had, and you guys decide who goes first, but the vantage point you guys had down on the mall, right by the stage, I think it was. You could see there was not the turnout he was hoping for. And, and you also got just some incredible comments from the people who were there, which I want to get into as well. But was it the shitty, crappy turnout that it looked to me and many of us looking at it through the Internet.
- [43:05]
E
Yeah, it kind of was. We were wandering around before the gates were kind of officially open, and having been to Trump rallies before, we were saying to each other, this just doesn't have the energy that we've seen before. And we actually couldn't really find where the people were for a while, which was, which was new to us. And eventually we did and we got in there and yeah, it was a little underwhelming, I think, to say the least. It was, that was, that was what we arrived feeling like, looking around and kind of the feeling we left with.
- [43:39]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. And Jason, you found a woman who was not sure if JFK Jr. Was going to be at the birthday party and you went back and forth with her. I mean, it was breathtaking. I mean, some of the things that you guys just. And, and it doesn't, it's not, not like you're dentist and you're pulling teeth here. I mean, some of this stuff just sort of flows out of the folks that you're talking to and it's just, it's breathtaking.
- [44:02]
Unknown
Yeah, it was interesting because the, the QAnon stuff, we've heard it now for so long after going to all these rallies. You know, you've heard like the Biden, Biden body double replacement theories and all the, all these really out there things that now like when we hear, we just kind of like take it in stride, like, oh, yeah, we are going to hear A couple times that JFK Jr is alive.
- [44:23]
E
But confirm or deny, Jason, look.
- [44:31]
Unknown
But it was, it was interesting about this is. And when you step back and think about it, it makes perfect sense. There were a lot of Q people there because this was a military parade, and Trump was having this military parade. And in their minds, there's all these, like, pretty dark fantasies that Donald Trump is going to take over the military and use it to arrest all the, you know, evildoers, the. The Democrats and whoever who are going against Trump and do put them in Guantanamo Bay. And a lot of these people thought that the parade was not really just a birthday party. It wasn't really just for the 250th or the 250th anniversary of the military. It was for the. For Donald Trump seizing power and enacting martial law. So, like, a lot of people that we talked to, not like the majority, but there were a few people there that were saying that they thought this was not really just a military parade, not just a birthday party, something big was going to happen. And I guess the big thing was that a lot of people didn't show up. That became the big story of it.
- [45:34]
E
But, yeah, it was afterwards.
- [45:37]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, no, that ended up being the big story. And you're right. I mean, there were so many, you know, Trump defenders.
- [45:41]
Unknown
How.
- [45:42]
Jim Acosta
How dare you shit all over the 250th anniversary of the US Army? This is. We're saluting the troops and all this. And then. And then you both found all of the. It was like a cuckoo palooza down there. Davram, you talked to a guy who said that January 6th was an inside job, but then you said, oh, so was Trump in on it? Because if. If it was an inside job, then I guess Donald Trump was in on this. And it was. We talked about this the last time we got together. There are sort of these inception moments where they, you know, that just. They can't quite, you know, make sense of their own conspiracy theories.
- [46:16]
E
Right. Well, I, you know, I thought I asked the right question, which was, you know, did this conspiracy go all the way to the top? Because Donald Trump told people to go there, you would think he would have had to be involved. And the conversation went on longer. And I asked, you know, do you think he was just being used by, like, smarter people? He was like, yeah, yeah, he was. So, you know, I guess his conclusion was Donald Trump was definitely not part of the. Part of it, but he was being used in some way.
- [46:45]
Jim Acosta
And of course not to go on A tangent, but it was an inside job in the. To the extent that he was the one who incited this. They would not have been there on January 6th had it not been for him being a crybaby and not accepting that he lost at the election. But anyway, I don't want to go down that road. And I'm not trying to say it wasn't inside job. I'm just saying that when you think about it, he was.
- [47:05]
Unknown
Yeah, what are you saying there?
- [47:07]
Jim Acosta
He was trying to overthrow the goddamn government. So, in a sense, it kind of was. But anyway, I don't. You know.
- [47:14]
E
No, you make a good point. It's hard to completely disagree with January 6th being an inside job when the guy at the top told people to go there, which is. I almost got tripped up in asking the questions, like, because I was having the same mental gymnastics that you were. You know, it's a ridiculous idea that it was an inside job, but at the same time, if the president tells them to do it, then it kind of is by definition. So I don't know if either of us left understanding the other more or not, but I will say it was really hot and boring.
- [47:43]
Jim Acosta
All right, I have to. And I don't mean to stump you guys, maybe I should have, like, give you a heads up on the fact that I wanted to ask about this. But, I mean, the thing that I. The thing that. Our minds are blown every day by Donald Trump and what he has done since coming into office, but the way he tries to grift people is it's kind of astounding. And I wonder if you guys ever talk to people about the griftiness of what he does. But this week, he came out with the Trump fragrance, and I was thinking about.
- [48:13]
Unknown
I'm wearing it right now. Yeah.
- [48:15]
E
Can I show you the bottle?
- [48:16]
Unknown
Yeah, Put a little.
- [48:17]
Jim Acosta
I can smell it from here.
- [48:19]
Unknown
Yeah.
- [48:20]
Jim Acosta
Yeah.
- [48:20]
Unknown
It smells like pure gasoline.
- [48:21]
E
Real pits of fake gold in it.
- [48:25]
Jim Acosta
Well, I was thinking about buying it just to see if it was flammable or if it was straight rubbing alcohol, but the Damn stuff is $199 a bottle. I'm not wasting that on a bit, but anyway, your thoughts?
- [48:36]
Unknown
Well, there's always Griffs with Trump, right? Like, it's like they're. We've the Meme coin, which, you know, that maybe he's making billions of dollars off of this coin that's, you know, worthless, and that's the bigger one than the fragrance or the Bibles or. Or any of that stuff. But it's really the shamelessness of it, which is, like, always, Donald Trump has never changed. He's always been the same guy who's like, I'm going to make a buck however I can. I'll open up a fake university and, you know, charge people thousands of dollars to learn all my, my tricks. But he did that with his books, too. You know, he had, he had Art of the Deal, and then he had like, seven other books that were basically the same thing that, that he kept putting out. So the thing that shocks me is talking to the Trump supporters and seeing how excited some of them get about some of these products, like the Trump shoes that were, I don't know, don't quote me on this, but I think they were like 500 bucks or something like that. They were very, very expensive, ugly gold shoes. And people were wearing them at rallies being like, yeah, I got them. These are the real deal. Can you believe it? Can you believe it? And the Bibles we sold, sold fake, fake Trump Bibles with our own verses about Trump at a rally last year.
- [49:51]
E
Our own caution.
- [49:52]
Unknown
People were, yeah, they were cautious parables about Donald Trump.
- [49:56]
Jim Acosta
Maybe you better be careful. He's going to ask for the proceeds from that. He's going to ask for a cut.
- [50:00]
Unknown
No, I know. He's like, yeah, I get a cut. And then I'm, you know, God gets a cut, too, but you can just give that cut to me, too. This is the Bible. But we were surprised that people, like, were excited about buying these things even after, like, we thought that the joke was obvious. So Trump really can just put his name on anything and he will have a large percentage of his supporters be totally excited to get it.
- [50:21]
E
There was one exception. We talked to a guy about the meme coin. He had a bitcoin shirt on. So I asked was the meme coin a scam, and a meme was a scam? Well, should you be trusting a guy who's, who's doing something you're readily will admit is a scam? Like, yeah, he's good. But the coin, the coin definitely is a scam. So his allegiance to crypto bumped up against his allegiance to Donald Trump, and neither gave way. He just said, like, both are true.
- [50:52]
Jim Acosta
Well, that's incredible that you got that kind of confession, because I was wondering in the way that Trump never really breaks character. His supporters rarely break character. And I mean, they will mentally break down in front of you on camera, which is sort of like the January 6th inside job guy, but they usually won't admit what you're just saying there that he's full of good.
- [51:14]
Unknown
They want to get that. It's like the cult of personality of it, but they will disagree with, like, policies for the most part. And I want. This is, like, I don't want to say this is everybody, but some people will agree that, that you should. Rich people should pay taxes. Billionaires should pay more than school teachers and all these things. But then also, if they hear that Trump is for a certain tax break, then they're like, well, I'm sure he's got a good idea as to why he would do that. He's a. He's a businessman. He's a smart guy, so we trust him. So, like, it's the two things that, like, it's the. It's. It's kind of like the pop fandom and, like, loving somebody, like, Die Hard, you know, Britney fans. And I don't want to get hate from Britney Spears fans because that I'm scared of.
- [51:57]
Jim Acosta
No, no, don't do that.
- [51:59]
Unknown
The same, the same feeling, though, when you, like, have an allegiance to, like, a pop star or a celebrity or something like that. It's like that, but for politics, which is weirder because there's, like, policy that is involved in all these things and different ways of running the government, but it really is just the allegiance to the man, Donald Trump, which is why this is so scary, and it's why we kind of run into certain boxes whenever we go out.
- [52:26]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. I mean, you spoke to that woman who said that she's all for Trump in 2028, and you asked her. This was, I think, also down the mall. Even if it's against the Constitution, I don't want to violate the law, but. Okay, so you can't do it then. And then she said, no, no, Trump 2028. I mean, so.
- [52:42]
Unknown
Did you not hear me? I said, Trump 2028.
- [52:45]
J. Michael Ludig
Yeah.
- [52:46]
E
I also said I value the Constitution and, And don't want to go against the constitution. But also, Trump 2028, you can't have one with. Again, it exists at the same time. It's wild. I like that you phrased it as a compliment, Jim. You said they don't break character. Like, they're just really committed. They're part of the business out there, which is. Yeah, they're part of it. And don't break character. And I feel like that's part responsibility when we go and talk to these people is, you know, whether or not the moment feels interesting or funny. It's kind of like, just stay in it as a person wanting to know more. Don't break character. So I'm thinking about it in a new way now. We're just all trying not to break character when, when we talk, which is always possible.
- [53:26]
Jim Acosta
What's that?
- [53:28]
Unknown
Everything's pro wrestling in the world.
- [53:29]
Jim Acosta
Everything is.
- [53:30]
Unknown
I'm saying this as a wrestling fan, and I just wanted to sneak it in anyway. Can.
- [53:33]
Jim Acosta
Where is it? Kayfabe or whatever they call it.
- [53:35]
Unknown
Exactly.
- [53:36]
E
Kayfabe. Nice. Can't break kayfabe.
- [53:38]
Unknown
Yes, yes. Hey, hey. Maybe we'll get that meal at WWE SummerSlam.
- [53:43]
Jim Acosta
There you go. Great.
- [53:44]
Unknown
We'll do it.
- [53:44]
Jim Acosta
We'll do it. We'll do the stakes there. I hear they're good. But you guys are now on Substack. Now. You've made the jump in the substack. Tell us about that. You know, another avenue for folks to see everything that you guys do, which is absolutely brilliant.
- [53:59]
Unknown
Yeah, we're really excited about it. We're going to not only have our podcast on here and have exclusive interviews not just with people from the world of politics, but comedians, actors, friends of ours that we've met along the way. But we're also going to be writing about some of our experience that we've had on the road. And Devram just finished a piece that we're going to be putting out tomorrow about visiting the Creation Museum in Texas. We were down there a couple weeks ago for the Southern Baptist Convention, and there is a Creation Museum that says the earth is 6,000 years old and it's all backed up by science.
- [54:34]
E
And it proves it. And it proves it.
- [54:36]
Jim Acosta
Oh, it proves it.
- [54:37]
E
Oh, yeah. Through an unbelievable video presentations. I cannot imagine the amount of money that went into this. We were impressed.
- [54:45]
Unknown
We were impressed. We should say dinosaurs. Humans existed at the same time. And we also learned that dinosaurs died off around 1200, 1200 A.D. so I.
- [54:57]
E
Don'T know what that humans hunted them to extinction, which I thought was interesting that they were like, you know, humans have been doing this for ages. But also to piggyback on, on what Jason said about all the stuff that's going to be on Substack. Like, we, we put out these short videos. There's so much more that happens on these trips. So this is like the perfect way for us to share that, write about some of our experiences and put different video content up here that you wouldn't see anywhere else.
- [55:23]
Jim Acosta
Awesome. Well, I can't wait to watch, guys. It's gonna be a lot of fun. I, I, When I get on to the Good Liars on Instagram, I Feel like I have to keep. It's sort of like watching Jiminy Glick videos. I just have to keep scrolling. I just. I can't stop. And then, like, two hours have gone by, and I'm like, where the. Where the. Did all that time go?
- [55:42]
E
But what happened to my brain?
- [55:44]
Unknown
Oh, no, exactly.
- [55:45]
Jim Acosta
What happened? My brain. Exactly. Now I want Trump 2028. Just kidding. It's a joke. It's the fragrance I can't get. You know, it won't rub off. It won't wash off. But, guys, thanks for doing this.
- [55:56]
E
Get into the bloodstream.
- [55:58]
Jim Acosta
Yeah.
- [55:58]
E
Thank you so much.
- [56:00]
Unknown
Excited for dinner? Thanks for having us.
- [56:02]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. I'll send the steaks your way. Omaha steaks are fine. They'll be in the middle. Trump steaks. Oh, sorry. Yes.
- [56:09]
Unknown
Only the best.
- [56:11]
E
Resurrect those. I'm sure there's still some in some freezer somewhere.
- [56:14]
Unknown
Let him soak in the fragrant fragrance first.
- [56:17]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, put a little fragrance on there. It's a nice marinade. Throw that right on the grill. Watch. Watch the whole neighborhood blow up. It'll be fine. Perfect.
- [56:26]
Unknown
Perfect. A perfect metaphor, too.
- [56:28]
J. Michael Ludig
Love it.
- [56:29]
Jim Acosta
Great to see you guys. Thanks a lot. Devron and Jason, the Good Liars, they're the best. I think Trump is the goat, though. When it comes to the Good Liars, these guys are just good. Trump's the goat. But they are incredible. Please check them out on Substack. They've just. I mean, again, like I was saying, you know, I do love the Jiminy Glick videos, and it's a weakness of mine. I just. I'll just continue to watch those for hours and hours. But the Good Liars, I mean, they're right up there. What they do is just absolutely brilliant. And I hope, you know, maybe we'll get this out there the next time I speak with them. But I do wonder if some of the folks that they speak to go home and just sort of think about, oh, maybe. Maybe I am wrong a little bit about, you know, Trump running for a third term because it would be against the Constitution. Maybe I shouldn't believe in that sort of a thing. I just. I do wonder sometimes. Maybe they hear from these folks afterwards. All right, guys. I do. I. Another sharp left or right turn, however you want to put it, to close out the show. I cannot end the show without addressing the surrender over at Paramount, the surrender over at cbs, bending the knee to Donald Trump, Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow. They would be ashamed of what Sherry Redstone and Paramount have done this According to the New York Times, Paramount said late Tuesday that it has agreed to pay Trump $16 million to settle his lawsuit over the editing of an interview on the CBS News program 60 Minutes. As the Times puts it, an extraordinary concession to a sitting president by a major media organization. Paramount said its payment includes Mr. Trump's legal fees and costs and that the money, minus the legal fees will be paid to Trump's future presidential library. I mean, that in and of itself, that in and of itself, and this is me interjecting here, not reading the article anymore, should have come across as a bright red, lava red warning sign to Paramount to not pay this ransom, to not pay this bribe. And yet they paid it anyway. They did exactly what ABC did, exactly what Disney did. Instead of settling their bullshit lawsuit, they paid millions of dollars to the Trump Presidential Library. Which, by the way, has anybody thought this through? What is that presidential library going to be like? Are they going to have the January 6th wing of the Trump Presidential Library where they reenact the attack on the Capitol on January? I mean, think about some of the. Are they going to have an alligator Alcatraz wing of the Trump Presidential Library? I mean, it's a crock of shit. And so to Paramount, what you have done is just in bending the knee to Donald Trump is you have encouraged the bad behavior to continue. He is obviously going to file. And the CBS lawsuit, the lawsuit against CBS in 60 minutes was complete horseshit. And all you have done, Paramount, is encourage Donald Trump to do this again. He's going to do this to yet another major news organization in this country. As long as there is a giant company that owns a news organization and that giant company has business before the administration. And this is according to the New York Times, Sherry Redstone, the chair and controlling shareholder of Paramount, told her board that she favored exploring a settlement with Trump. Some executives at the company viewed the president's lawsuit as a potential hurdle to completing a multi million, or I should say multi billion dollar sale of the company to the Hollywood studio Skydance, which requires the Trump administration's approval. And so anytime you have one of these situations where a major media company that owns a prominent news organization wants to push through one of its media deals and has to get the blessing and the sign off with the Trump administration, Donald Trump is going to put that company over a barrel. You have to understand this. I mean, lawyers who work for these companies in many cases, I would have to think, go to like Ivy League schools, go to really good law schools, don't they? Why you know, I didn't do any of that stuff. And I can make heads or tails of this. He is obviously going to, in every one of these cases, try to extract some concessions. And keep in mind to the lawyers who think that this is a good idea, you really need to pull your head out of your ass. You need to pull your head out of your ass. Because not only is he going to continue to do this because of your bending the knee, he's going to do this because he wants to spike the football on what he describes as the fake news media or the enemy of the people because it works for his base. It is like catnip. It is like a bucket of hamburger meat for his base. And so every time you pay one of these extortion amounts to Donald Trump to settle these bullshit, ridiculous, bullshit lawsuits, you are not only encouraging the behavior, you are handing him more ammunition. You are handing him more ammunition to attack the free press in this country. And that is why I have been saying that we need a new media infrastructure, news and information infrastructure in the United States of America. The corporate media ownership model has been blown to bits by Donald Trump. There's going to be a segment of American society, and for good reason, that is just going to not have faith and confidence in these news organizations anymore when it comes to covering Donald Trump because of the pressure, because of the leverage he can apply in these kinds of media deals, media mergers, these sales of media companies that they want to see approved by the Trump administration. He has these companies over a barrel. And so this is why I have been recommending, and I think it's high time that we see this happen. It's not going to happen with Republicans controlling the Congress. But we need to have an investment not only in independent media, and that requires the kindness and generosity of the people watching these kinds of programs on independent media. But we need a stout and an unshakable public broadcasting and public information infrastructure in this country, much like the BBC, much like Canadian broadcasting that our friends enjoy up in Canada. I think I told this story earlier this year when I said I was in Norway for a media conference. There, they don't have Fox News. They don't deal with these kinds of issues because their news organizations in their country behave in an ethical and an honest way. But here in the United States, we don't have that right now. We have these large media companies that own news organizations. And you have to just understand that that construct is now compromised. Donald Trump has cracked the code in how to harm these companies and how to Put them over a barrel. And so I just have to say to Sherry Redstone, I mean, it may not mean much to me or it may not mean much to you that I am saying, shame on you, Sherry Redstone, and shame on you, Paramount. But, Sherry Redstone, you must understand. And I get it, it doesn't mean anything to you. It doesn't mean anything to Paramount that I say shame on you. But you must understand that if Walter Cronkite were alive today and I worked for CBS News in the early 2000s, I was a correspondent there, covered lots of different things, covered the war in Iraq, covered Hurricane Katrina, covered John Kerry's presidential campaign. Very proud of my time at cbs. I'm very proud of the people at that news organization. And they don't deserve this. They don't deserve this. But you must understand, Sherry Redstone and the people at Paramount that there is no doubt in my mind. There's no doubt in my mind that Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow would be absolutely ashamed of what you have done. You have weakened the Tiffany Network. You have weakened one of the standards of American broadcasting in this country. You have damaged this company, this institution here in America. And you should be ashamed of yourselves for what you've done. You've weakened a nation by bending the knee to Donald Trump. You have weakened a nation. And as Walter Cronkite would say, that's the way it is. That's the way it is. Sherry Redstone, you have weakened America by paying this ridiculous bullshit lawsuit to Donald Trump. That's the way it was. My thanks to Judge Michael Ludig. My thanks to Ryan Lizza. Check out Judge Ludig's piece on the Declaration of Independence, 2025, on the Telus substack account. I'll make sure that I put it up on all my socials. My thanks to the gentlemen at the Good Liars, and my thanks to all of you for tuning in. Really appreciate it. Still reporting from Washington, I'm A. Jim Acosta. Have a good evening, everybody. Thanks a lot and good night. Bye.