Brandon Sutton (5:11)

Impossible.

Sam Cedar (5:14)

And the Democrats, one of the stipulations to the continuing resolution they want is a fix to the asa, excuse me, the Affordable Care act subsidies. Really not a fix, just an extension of these subsidies that have been ongoing for several years. Remember, health insurance rates are going to go up simply because of the people who are being kicked off of Medicaid, because we're going to see people come into emergency rooms and seeking care, hospitals are going to have to pay for.

Josh Orton (5:58)

That.

Sam Cedar (6:01)

All of their rates are going to go up, etc. Etc. And insurance companies are already planning a gradual rise and increase in the prices of their premiums relative to what it would be if they just did it in late 2026 when those Medicaid provisions come in. However, the other issue is, of course, why would you vote for a budget when the President and the head of the Office of Budget Management have already said they're not going to abide by this budget anyways, that they can at any time they want unilaterally cut funds and withhold funds that have been appropriated. So why would you participate in that process? That is part of the demands of the Democrats. It's not the one that they're pushing because they apparently don't think the American public can understand that. Maybe, maybe not going to argue with the success that has existed to this point. But understand the Republicans could pass this budget if they wanted to. They have so called nuked the filibuster on already three different occasions this year. They have done it for appointees to the Trump administration. They have done it with restricting California's ability to increase their CAFE standards. And there's been at least one other occasion I can't remember off the top of my head. But the, the fact is they have shown that the filibuster is not sacrosanct when they want to get rid of it. They just don't want responsibility to pass this budget without these extensions on the ACA subsidies because then they know they are really in the hot seat as far as I'm concerned. Let's get rid of the filibuster. Let's get rid of it. Let's let the American public understand the implications of voting for one party or the other, and let's make both parties own their votes. The filibuster has been, in too many situations, a way to help both parties simultaneously avoid taking votes that they think are politically untenable or politically dangerous or risky. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has floated the idea of not paying furloughed workers. That is against the law, but again, he's been ignoring other laws. So whether he can do it and get away with it is two different things. What the government could do right now is they could fund a bill to pay people who are working and not getting checks. They could do this for federal workers, too, who are furloughed. They're supposed to get back pay. If you're working now in the military or in the Gestapo, otherwise known as ice. Ice, I think ICE is like some German acronym for Gestapo. Yes, sir, apparently. But they could be paid now with just a piece of legislation. Remember, Congress has been told to go off on vacation, but they can be called back. Congress and the Senate still can pass laws. They could still swear in Congresspeople. But Mike Johnson doesn't want to do that. Here he is taking a call on C Span and lying to a constituent.

Military Wife Caller (10:15)

Hi, Mr. Johnson. So my question or comments are related to what you said yesterday about not being open to pass any legislation to ensure that military gets paid. I'm sure you can tell by my voice I'm very shaky. Just want you to hear a little bit about my family. I have two medically fragile children. I have a husband who actively serves this country. He suffers from PTSD from his two tours in Afghanistan. If we see a lapse in pay come the 15th, my children do not get to get the medication that's needed for them to live their life because we live paycheck to paycheck. I heard you earlier say that you side with President Trump on anything that he says. Well, I just read an article this morning that said he absolutely, wholeheartedly believes that there needs to be legislation put in so that we do not miss a paycheck. You have the power to do that. And as a Republican, I'm very disappointed in my party and I'm very disappointed in you because you do have the power to call the House back. You did that or you refused to do that just for a show. I am begging you to pass this legislation. My kids could die. We don't have the credit because of the medical bills that I have to pay when regularly. You could stop this. And you could be the one that could say military is getting paid. And I think that it is awful. And the audacity of someone who makes six figures a year to do this to military families is insane.

Mike Johnson (11:50)

All right, Samantha. Samantha, I'm so sorry to hear about your situation. The reason I've been so angry this week and they've been calling me out on media. Johnson's angry. I am angry because of situations just like yours. He's lying in the military district, and my district is the home of the Global Strike Command at Barksdale Air Force Base and Fort Polk, the Joint Readiness Training Center.

Sam Cedar (12:07)

I have.

Mike Johnson (12:07)

That's irrelevant districts, military families in America. I have a lot of airmen and soldiers who are deployed right now. And they have young families at home and they have children in health situations like yours. This is what keeps me up at night. I want you to hear something very clearly. The Republicans are the ones delivering for you. We had a vote to pay the troops. It was the continuing resolution. Three weeks ago, every single Republican but two voted to keep the government open so that your paycheck can flow. Every Democrat in the House, except for one, voted to close it. The Democrats are the ones that are preventing you from getting a check. If we did another a vote on the floor. Hey, troops. It's not a lawmaking exercise because Chuck Schumer is going to hold that up in the Senate. He is demonstrating by voting now six times to keep the government closed that he does not want the troops to be paid. And you should listen to his comments last night. As President Trump reported this morning, he is enjoying this. He said, every day gets better for us, quote, unquote, Chuck Schumer and the Democrats are preventing your family from getting the care they need, not Republicans. And my heart goes out to you.

Sam Cedar (13:07)

And I don't know what it is in Mike Johnson's private life that has made him so good at lying. Like, I mean, he. To get that good at lying, you almost have to live a lie in your private life. But that's not important. What's important is. Let's just go. I think this. This is a clip from literally hours earlier. It was this press conference yesterday. No, this is two days ago. So this was one day earlier. Here is Mike Johnson being asked that same question. Are you open to passing legislation? Because at the beginning of the call, the woman said you said you weren't open to passing legislation. He may have said that on Wednesday, but on Tuesday, this is what he said. And guess what? It was not Chuck Schumer who came in and said, we won't pass that in The Senate. Watch this clip.

Josh Orton (14:10)

I know you said the House has done its job.

Sam Cedar (14:12)

However, military members are going to be.

Josh Orton (14:13)

Missing a paycheck on October 15th. Critical air traffic controllers are already missing from the job in some areas. Would you be open to pay for members of the military and air traffic.

Sam Cedar (14:23)

Controllers as an emergency measure in the.

Josh Orton (14:25)

Next week or so or two weeks?

Unnamed Speaker (possibly a staffer or another guest) (14:27)

Yeah, we're monitoring it day by day. I'm certainly open to that. We've done it in the past. We want to make sure that our troops are paid. I have colleagues like Congresswoman Jen Kiggins of Virginia, who has a big military district. She's already filed legislation to pay our troops. We're looking forward to processing all this as soon as we gather everybody back up. But again, the most immediate thing is turn the lights back on here and keep Congress working so we can take care of all this important business.

Sam Cedar (14:50)

And honest and honestly, I mean, you don't need that.

Unnamed Speaker (possibly a staffer or another guest) (14:53)

You don't need to. Obviously, there are certain constituencies, many of whom are going to be impacted in a very negative way by what's happening here. But the simplest way to end it.

Sam Cedar (15:03)

Okay, all right, let's stop it right there. Watch Mike Johnson's head. He's just said, we're open to doing that. And then John Thune, who is the majority leader in the Senate, he doesn't want to bring that bill up. And Mike Johnson, like the little puppy he is, he nods, yes, sir. Like Thune comes in and says, little guy, get out of the way.

Brandon Sutton (15:30)

Excuse me. Let's get the six foot guy in here.

Sam Cedar (15:31)

Yeah, exactly. Listen, four foot, three, step over the side. I'm going to come in here and tell you why this is wrong.

Unnamed Speaker (possibly a staffer or another guest) (15:39)

Look at this one of that. We've done it in the past. We want to make sure that our troops are paid. I have colleagues like Congresswoman Jen Kaggins of Virginia, who has a big military district. She's already filed legislation.

Sam Cedar (15:50)

Oh, there's already legislation. Is that right?

Unnamed Speaker (possibly a staffer or another guest) (15:52)

Processing all this as soon as we get.

Sam Cedar (15:54)

So we can do. We can do this if you just.

Unnamed Speaker (possibly a staffer or another guest) (15:56)

Called everybody back on here and keep Congress working so we can take care of.

Sam Cedar (16:00)

Well, you could call them back in and they can keep looking. Watch his head. I mean, watch his head. You don't need that. That.

Unnamed Speaker (possibly a staffer or another guest) (16:05)

You don't need to.

Sam Cedar (16:06)

Right, right, right, right. Oh, I screwed up, sir. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We could, but we don't need. I'm sorry, Daddy. I'm sorry. Like a ventriloquist arguing with his dummy. Exactly. But I mean, look at how Mike Johnson was able to take that call from a military wife, mother of two children, who. She's afraid they're going to die. The most desperate circumstances, and he then just does a 180 from what he had said 36 hours before. Completely lies about it. Completely lies about it. They. And here's the thing. If you think the Democrats could hold out, if you think Chuck Schumer is going to stand in the way of military personnel getting paid, you're nuts. Put aside whether they should be getting paid now or not. Frankly, all federal workers should be getting paid while they're furloughed. They're supposed to get back pay. We should be paying them right now. But if you think Chuck Schumer is going to stand in the way of that. No. Jon th and his little yes man, Mike Johnson, they don't want to take the pressure off. They want to force the Democrats to vote for a continuing resolution even though it means nothing. Donald Trump can stop paying whatever he wants because they're not holding him to it. Johnson is just. I mean, the. I mean, this guy is a violent allergy to the truth. You just sitting there, like, grinding out lie after lie.

Brandon Sutton (18:08)

Chris, have a Christian podcast about, like, how to have your principles reflect in politics and just be the most flagrant liar.

Sam Cedar (18:15)

Yeah, it's unbelievable. Like, the truth goes through a meat grinder with this guy, honestly. All right, in a moment, we're going to be talking to Evan Simcoe Bednarsky. He's a documentary photographer and journalist covering transit for the New York Daily News. And then we will be talking to Josh Orton, president of Demand Justice. First, a couple words from our sponsors. This is a product, actually, that I've used for, I don't know, 10 years. And thank you. Thank you for it. Delete me makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. I'll tell you, not only have I been using this for 10 years just because of the nature of this business, but it also helps dramatically with, like, phishing scams. And they're just getting significantly more sophisticated when your personal data is scrubbed from these ad, these media, what are they called? Info brokers. Folks who steal information or buy information on the dark web. Can't match it up. It's very, very helpful. I recently met a reporter who writes about a lot of the stuff going on in the right wing. And the first thing, like, we asked each other was, do you have Delete Me. And we both were like yes. Delete Me does all the hard work of wiping you and your family's personal information from data broker websites. Delete Me knows your privacy is worth protecting. Sign up, provide Delete Me with exactly what information you want deleted and and their experts take it from there. Delete Me sends you sends you regularly personalized privacy reports showing what info they found, where they found it and what they removed. It is not Delete Me is not a one time service because these broker sites they repopulate so it's constantly going out there and doing takedown notices. It's very effective. Thanks to Delete Me for sponsoring the Majority report and for its service in general. Frankly, take control of your data. Keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your delete me plan when you go to www.joindeleteme.com Majority use the promo code Majority at checkout. The only way to get 20 off is to go to join DeleteMe.com Majority. Enter the code Majority at checkout. That's www.joindeleteme.com Majority. The code is Majority. We'll put that in our podcast and YouTube descriptions. Also sponsoring the program today. I haven't been sleeping well. In the middle of the night I get up and I want a snack. And I don't know what it is about cereal but it's obviously it's easy. But there's also something that I find like it's, it's like a comfort food for me. But I don't want to go up and get a bunch of sugar inside of me because then it's hard for me go back to sleep. So hello Magic Spoon. Magic Spoon's been a go to made for also, I don't know, five or six years since, since they came out.

Josh Orton (22:01)

Long time.

Sam Cedar (22:02)

It's been a long time. Every serving of Magic Spoon high protein cereal has 13 grams of protein, 0 grams of sugar, 4 grams of net carbs. They come in nostalgic, homey, like you were a kid flavors of fruity cocoa and frosted. They also have seasonal flavors. And now they also have these high protein treats which are like, I don't know, they're like bar, they're bars. But they're like crunchy, airy, easy way to get 12 grams of protein on the go. They come in flavors like marshmallow and chocolate, peanut butter and dark chocolate. And now I'm hungry. Both are great on the go or pre or post workout or as a midnight snack.

Mike Johnson (22:49)

There you go.

Sam Cedar (22:51)

I like to have my eating habits reinforced. Get $5 off your next order at magicspoon.com majority report or look for Magic Spoon on Amazon or in your nearest grocery store. That's magic spoon.com majority report for $5 off. Check it out. You will enjoy these, I promise you. Quick break and we'll have Evan Simcoe Bednarsky on from the New York Daily News union to talk about their fight for a fair contract. Be right back after this. We are back, Sam Cedar on the Majority Report. Emma Viglin out today. Joining us now, Evan Simcoe Bednarsky. He is a journalist covering transit for the New York Daily News and he is also the vice unit chair of the Daily News union and also a majority report. Emeritus producer Evan, welcome back to the show.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (24:34)

Happy to be here. Happy to be here.

Sam Cedar (24:37)

All right, so I saw a recently a testimony that you gave in front of the New York City Council, give us a sense of like of what the situation has been with the Daily News. And for people who are outside of New York, maybe give us a little bit of a history of the Daily News because it's it really is the most local of New York papers, it seems to me. And yours is a story of the demise of local news in many respects or the threat to the local news. And if it can happen in New York, it's gonna happen anywhere.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (25:20)

Yeah, the Daily News represents what a lot of papers used to represent in the city. You know, it's a hardscrabble tabloid from when that wasn't a bad word. And, you know, we covered the city for about 106 years. I think we're coming up on 107. And it was one of the first papers to really run photographs in a big way. Anything that's happened in this city, the Daily News has covered it. The Daily News was responsible for, you know, breaking the case wide open on the fact that the air wasn't safe after 9 11. You know, the Daily News famously reported on President Ford not bailing the city out during the fiscal crisis of the 70s. You know, it is to the extent that New York has a sort of, you know, working class shoe leather local daily newspaper anymore. It's the Daily News. And about four years ago, the company that owned the Daily News Tribune was purchased by Alden Global Capital, which is a private equity firm that has sort of earned the odious moniker of destroyer of newspapers. And we have been we unionized shortly after and have been trying to negotiate a contract ever since.

Sam Cedar (26:44)

So you guys have not had a contract since the. Since the new owner took over?

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (26:49)

Correct. We've been at the table a little bit more than three and a half years now.

Sam Cedar (26:55)

How much, like, what does it do to the morale when you get bought by somebody or some entity like that?

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (27:05)

It's not great. I mean, the thing about the Daily News is you work at the Daily News because you believe in this place. I mean, I grew up. I mentioned in my testimony, I grew up reading the paper at my grandpa's table. Our unit chair, Michael Sheridan, he's a legacy member of the Daily News. His dad was a rewrite guy for many years. It's someplace that you work because you really believe in the institution and the work. And, you know, morale has taken a hit because it's clear that our owners don't view us that way. You know, we're out there working really hard every day, you know, hours that we don't always get paid for. And, you know, it's not. That's not reflected in the investment. You know, you mentioned that, you know, this is a story of the demise of local news nationwide. And it is and it isn't because to the best of our knowledge, the Daily News still turns a profit. We just don't get to see any of that. That's not invested back in the paper in any way.

Sam Cedar (28:10)

I mean, what. What do you think? I mean, what's the agenda of somebody who buys a newspaper and then sort of starts to starve it? Like, I mean, like, it. I mean, the Daily News, like, you say it makes a profit, which is rare in the newspaper world. If you want to make a profit, you don't necessarily buy a newspaper.

Josh Orton (28:35)

Like, it's not.

Sam Cedar (28:36)

Like, that's not what you would go and do for an investment strategy, I guess. Like, what do you think is the agenda of an ownership group that buys a paper, starves the employees? Like, what's. What's the. What's going on there?

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (28:56)

I mean, we don't really know. And I think this is, you know, as good a time as any to say, like, Alden Global Capital and Heath Freeman, who's, you know, the head of it. It's an extremely opaque entity. We went out to Montauk to try to ring Heath's doorbell, and there isn't even a doorbell at the gate at the end of his very long driveway up there. We had to leave a handwritten note. So these guys don't, you know, they don't always respond to the request for information that we make at the bargaining table. They don't, you know, we don't always even have staff meetings. It's very opaque. But the sense that I get is that this is like anything else that private equity invests in. You know, there's something with nominal value. You buy it, you squeeze as much of that value out and then you drop it. You know, they sold our printing plant in Jersey City for $90 million. None of that money has come back. One of the things that happens a lot at this newspaper is that when people leave either for better paying jobs or they retire, those positions don't get backfilled. So there's headcount floating around, you know, ostensibly. And it's not gone to, you know, we don't have an Albany reporter. We don't have. In this year. We don't have a politics editor. We have very good politics reporters, but no editor who is in charge of managing this very fraught, very important election year.

Sam Cedar (30:23)

What ends up, like, does the paper get smaller or thinner or is there, oh, can you hear me?

Josh Orton (30:34)

Sorry.

Sam Cedar (30:37)

Okay. Has the paper gotten smaller or thinner? Like, what ends up, what ends up filling the, the space? If you don't have a reporter in Albany? Let's say.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (30:53)

It'S, you know, so I cover the trains and the trains are funded in large part by Albany. When I started out, we did have an Albany reporter. And I would often, you know, call up the Albany reporter and just talk, just, you know, shoot the shit. Like what's going on with funding on this thing? You know, where do you think, you know, X, Y and Z legislatures are on this issue? And it was useful, it was really useful to be able to understand, you know, what was happening that would ultimately trickle down and affect our readers. You know, in terms of what train lines were getting upgraded, you know, what, what kind of repairs could be expected, that sort of thing. You fly blind when you don't have that. And that's just, you know, my little tiny local beep.

Sam Cedar (31:36)

But also on top, I mean, obviously, like it makes the report. I mean, not have somebody in Albany, it just seems crazy to me. But how do you fill the pages? Like, I mean, is it you, Are you, are you responsible now to produce X more X plus words? Or are they getting syndicated stuff or what is. How do they make up the difference?

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (31:59)

We do end up running a lot of wire copy. It does not translate so far into sort of an increased quota or anything on our end. But there are holes in the coverage and the paper is, you know, if you pick up, if you're a regular reader of the Daily News and you pick it up, you'll notice that it's a little bit lighter. It's hard to see. It's hard to see this paper that has been sort of a giant of covering, you know, power in the city and state.

Mike Johnson (32:31)

No longer really be able.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (32:34)

To fill as many pages as it used to. We're very proud of the work that we're doing. We've still managed to do some excellent coverage on the mayoral administration. We've managed to hold a lot of folks to account for various things over the past couple of years. But that's all coming from the reporters working hard. We don't have a newsroom, which is something that I think people don't fully appreciate who read us regularly. The newsroom was, you know, it was closed like many newsrooms were during the COVID lockdown. But when other papers started to come back, our owners decided it wasn't worth paying the rent on the space anymore. And so, you know, I work, I'm in my apartment right now. We have had more than one occasion reporters who are collaborating on a story sort of meet after hours, you know, around their kitchen table or something.

Sam Cedar (33:30)

I was going to ask like, do you guys get together like in a informal. Come up with your own makeshift newsrooms and like a diner or something to that effect?

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (33:42)

Yeah, kind of. I mean, you know, we will get together to plan things out and to compare notes. We're on the phone with each other a lot. You know, I. When I can like to go into there, there are still press rooms in certain places around the city, like in city hall and in some of the courthouses, you know, and that's someplace where you can sort of set up. Alden did shell out to rent a six desk co working space in midtown. But we really kind of go there to, you know, charge our laptop batteries, which by the way, the laptops that they issued us have very poor batteries.

Sam Cedar (34:20)

So imagine at this point.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (34:22)

Yeah.

Sam Cedar (34:23)

So give us a sense of like, what were you doing in front of the city of City hall in terms of like testifying and what are you guys asking? I mean, I get a better sense. Obviously you want a contract and I know you guys are looking for like fair wages and cost of living increases. I mean, very sort of like vanilla requests here for, for, you know, basic. For workers, job protections, benefits even for part time workers, some measure of security and some standard benefits. What. What were you asking from the city council? And what can folks do who read the paper do?

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (35:11)

So city council A couple of folks in the labor committee reached out and wanted to offer a non binding resolution in support of our contract fight. And we're, you know, when people that you cover not always favorably want to back you in a fight, that's a good sign. So you know, that we were, we were speaking in support of that resolution as last week. And I mean really what we're asking for, like I said, it's not super Radical. We have 55 full time employees and seven part time employees covering the city of, you know, eight and change million people. And we want a living wage. We want to be able to, you know, live in the city that we cover and you know, about 90. So we've got, like I said, 55 full time employees. 19 of those folks are making less than $65,000 a year, which is not livable in the city. We even have some folks making less than 55,000. We want some of the money that we make to come back and be reinvested in this newspaper and for that to come to us in the form of a real tangible wage increase. Some of the folks who took wage decreases at the beginning of COVID in lieu of a furlough have not been made whole. None of them who took that have been made whole. So you've got folks who've worked here for, you know, a decade or so and are making less now than they did when they started. So we in a very real way need to be able to afford to live in the city if we're going to cover it well and we're going to do our jobs for our readers. But the other things we're asking for are things that I think most folks assume people like Daily News reporters already have. We want paid parental leave. We want to be paid on days when we have to go to jury duty, which they don't want to pay us in the upcoming.

Sam Cedar (37:04)

I thought that was illegal. I thought you had to pay people.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (37:08)

I mean, you know, there are legal guidelines for things like.

Sam Cedar (37:13)

He was on like a grand jury for like six.

Brandon Sutton (37:16)

Months special extended one.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (37:19)

There are legal requirements for like parental leave and things of that nature. And you know, and that's, that's what they're saying as well. We'll, we'll give you that. You know, but I listen, I raised one of my two kids on that when I was working at a different outlet. And it's not great. You know, it's not great. They're, you know, trying to eat away at our vacation days. It really is just sort of nickel and Diming stuff. You know, in the grand scheme of things, we want to just be able to keep paying our rent and keep doing our jobs.

Sam Cedar (37:48)

So what, what can folks who want to support the Daily News workers do, whether they read the paper on a regular basis or not? What can folks do to help?

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (38:04)

One thing we know is that the private equity firm that owns us, Alden Global Capital, and their head honcho, Heath Freeman, they don't like when their names get dragged out. They like to do their buying and selling in secret. And so just talking about it, just like raising the issue, just.

Sam Cedar (38:22)

A L, D E N as in Alden Global. Okay. Just curious.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (38:29)

And they are, you know, if people can sort of join their voice to the city council resolution, we have a petition that you can find@nydnunion.com and sign off on that, that helps us sort of leverage the, the support of New Yorkers. But I think part of what's going on here is private equity firms buy something because they think it's valuable and they sell something once they think it's not valuable. So any demonstration of the value of this paper to this city is good for us. It helps us. It helps us be able to continue to do our jobs. We don't want to inflict any pain on our owners. We want our owners to invest in us and we want to be able to do our job. So, you know, anything as simple as subscribing to the paper, buying the paper, talking about the coverage we have, you know, making it clear that we're still a power in the city, is important and helps.

Sam Cedar (39:26)

This is where getting on social media can actually have an actual impact. Evan Simcoe, Banarski. We will put a link to the, to the New York Daily Union, NYDUnion.com and the petition as well. Thanks so much. Great to see you again. Have you on the show.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (39:49)

It's been a lot of years.

Sam Cedar (39:52)

15 years.

Josh Orton (39:53)

14.

Sam Cedar (39:53)

15 years.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (39:54)

All right.

Sam Cedar (39:55)

Really appreciate it, Evan. Thanks so much. Good luck and hope to see you again soon.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (40:01)

All right.

Sam Cedar (40:02)

All right, folks, we're going to take quick break and when we come back, we'll have another former producer of the Majority Report on Josh Orton, who is now the president of Demand justice after working for Bernie Sanders and the Labor Department and Russ Feingold all come home. We'll be right back after this.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (40:35)

Sam.

Sam Cedar (41:10)

We are back. Sam Cedar on the Majority Report. Emma Vigland out today. Joining us now, Josh Orton, former advisor to Senator Bernie Sanders, former advisor at the White House, former advisor to Senator Russ Feingold and Harry Reid and now president of Demand justice and of course, former producer of the Majority Report, going back to the Air America days.

Josh Orton (41:40)

Former executive producer of. Former executive producer. And, you know, we'll start this off on a bad note of getting bumped behind a more junior former producer. So I just.

Sam Cedar (41:51)

Well, that's called the lead in. That's the opener.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (41:54)

Yes.

Josh Orton (41:55)

Good.

Sam Cedar (41:55)

All right, Josh, great to see you and congratulations.

Josh Orton (41:59)

Thank you.

Sam Cedar (42:00)

I was so excited about this. We had. It was Bill, your predecessor on Brian Ryan Fallon. Fallon on this program years ago at the beginning of the Biden administration, maybe leading up to the Biden administration. And he had worked for Obama and had acknowledged that they really blew it when it came to judges. And, and this organization was meant to sort of move Democrats and have them appreciate what goes on with the judiciary, which, of course, you know, has been one of my bellywicks for a long time. So very excited when you took over this organization, or I should say became. It's. What do you call it?

Josh Orton (42:49)

President, President.

Sam Cedar (42:50)

President. Tell us about Demand Progress. I mean, Demand justice, rather, and what the agenda is before we go into the things that you want to do to execute it.

Josh Orton (43:02)

Yeah. So I guess when I first became aware of Demand justice, it was when I was actually doing work for NARAL then, which is now Reproductive Freedom for All fighting the Kavanaugh nomination. And, you know, you and I have the sort of same experience with this. I remember, you know, back in law school reading, you know, 14th Amendment abortion cases and the Democratically nominated Supreme Court justices were talking in the medical terms and, you know, being precise and accurate and apolitical. And you had the Republican nominated justices like Scalia or Thomas, using Frank Lunt's language, partial birth abortion in the opinions. I mean, we were a generation behind on the left or more behind Republicans in the federal society and Leonard Leo and sort of stacking the federal courts. And so when Demand justice sort of came about in 2017, I almost felt this, this is what I worked with naral like, the sense of relief that finally an organization, and I think NARAL was doing this well, too. Finally an organization was like speaking openly and truthfully about what was going on with the judiciary and was not sort of talking in like laborious, like, you know, elitist terms about sacrosanct institution. I mean, the Republicans have been treating this as a political fight for a generation, and we as Democrats or progressives just had not been. And so one of the things that most appealed to me, to me to Demand Justice's work was that willingness to be Blunt and transparent about how the fight for the judiciary Supreme Court on down was political, but then also push Democrats who, you know, were sort of clinging to norms and you know, comedy C O M I T y in the Senate and sort of a belief that our democratic institutions would sort of like protect themselves and not realize that if we want to protect our rights, if we want to fight for these institutions, if we want them to protect us, we actually have to fight to protect them. This is sort of like my slogan interviewing for this job was that I worked for Harry Reid in sort of high level Democratic politics before I ever stepped foot in law school. And so the idea that judiciary and these domination fights weren't another institution that we had to fight to protect, that we couldn't just trust, you know, the jig was sort of up by the, by the time I stepped into law school. So that was why Demand justice was so appealing to me. I think that you're absolutely right that the Obama administration like blew it on judges. And to me, the sort of the, I think the moment or the incident that sort of crystallized to me everything that was wrong with the Democratic approach to judges was when Justice Scalia died and when President Obama nominated Merrick Garland as his replacement. Knowing that Mitch McConnell was saying, well, we're not going to confirm anybody with the election coming up in November. And you know, so Obama was basically making a choice of whoever we're nominating is essentially a message choice.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (45:58)

Right.

Josh Orton (45:58)

We're trying to send a signal to who Democrats believe should sit on the Supreme Court. And rather than nominating someone who had a clear record of protecting civil rights, had a clear record of protecting worker and union rights and standing up to corporations, he ch someone that I think he and his political advisors would make the Democrats look reasonable on judges. And you know, that strategy was not only a failed one, but it has an audience of no people. Right.

Sam Cedar (46:26)

And so that's what I was gonna like to whom?

Josh Orton (46:28)

Correct.

Sam Cedar (46:29)

Who is it that's out there that is going, well, it's absurd that Mitch McConnell's not like Merrick Garland is very temperate. He's got a total judicial Right.

Josh Orton (46:39)

Right. It's like as if, as if the case that had to be made was that Mitch McConnell was unreasonable. It's like, it's the argument like, we don't need to prove that Mitch McConnell was unreasonable. We have to defeat Mitch McConnell and win the fights that Mitch McConnell is engaging in. And to me, that, that to me was the epitome of everything that's wrong. And how the Democratic Party has approached the judiciary for generations. And so my agenda now with Demand justice is, you know, we've already seen, you know, in Trump 2.0, I think in Trump won the first Trump administration. He did the sort of standard thing of outsourcing the nominations to Leonard Leo and the Federal Society. You know, they had Republican nominees just.

Sam Cedar (47:19)

I know this. But remind people who the Federalist Society is and who Leonard Leo is, because I don't think people, you know, I mean, you can imagine every couple of weeks I'm talking about this, but I don't think it can be said enough. There has been. There is nothing equivalent even remotely equivalent. There was an attempt at one point, like I'd say 10 years ago to do the AJS, and that ended up like almost backfiring, like the Federal Society. You need to join the Federal Society. As a conservative in law school, they do. If you want any future, you cannot be appointed to the judiciary unless you are a member of this society.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (48:05)

You.

Sam Cedar (48:06)

It's the one that Barry Weiss is now famously went and spoke to and said, I know you're against my marriage because I'm gay, but we all want tax cuts. I mean, that speaks about both parties in that instance. But the Fed just remind everybody who Leonard Leo is in the Federal Society.

Josh Orton (48:23)

So I would sort of equate the Federal Society. And your way you're describing is actually right. Is absolutely right. It's like it is basically the if. If the road to the if. The Supreme Court is the major leagues, right? The Federal Society is the whole farm system where you have to join in the sort of, you start in the farm leagues and you play single A ball and then double a ball and triple a ball. Joining Federal Society is the path upward. If you ever, as a law student and a practicing lawyer, if you ever want to be nominated to a federal judgeship and, you know, to others, too. But they essentially raise political lawyers from, you know, pups to be not just sort of legal thinkers, but to sort of dual track them as like political mercenaries and jurists at the same time. And you sort of see the evolution of this in the last couple Supreme Court nominations from Trump is they are extremely good. They are very, very almost, you know, they are almost geniuses at being able to talk in legal terms in a way that masks political ideology to try and achieve some far right extremist goal, some very pro corporate goal. The Federal Society is essentially, if you want in, if you want any chance of being a federal judge nominated by a Republican president, you have to join the federal society, you basically have to follow their ideology. Leonard Leo is essentially its head and has been, I think, the singular figure in Republican politics and nominations to the federal judiciary going back several Republican presidents. Now, he is the point person, right? And so he and the federal society see the vacancies on the federal bench. They, you know, I'm sure they encourage existing Republican nominated judges on the federal bench to take senior status to retire. They have an inventory of what the vacancies are, and then they essentially create lists and manifests of who they want to appoint to those judgeships. And Republican White Houses have traditionally outsourced this whole project to Leonard Leo because he's basically built an outsourced farm system for these judges. And so what you have is a combination of people who have either far right credentials or corporate credentials, or some combination of far right and corporate credentials who they can place depending on, you know, the makeup of the Senate on these federal benches. And it has been this way for a very long time. And in Trump's first term, it was sort of the standard that way, right? They, they did it that. They did it that normal way. And, you know, they, you know, said the right things on the corporate issues. They said the right thing on, you know, the sort of individual rights, the gay marriage and reproductive rights, where they sort of hedged enough, you know, that they wouldn't be called out on it explicitly. What's interesting is I think that actually Roberts was the last. And as they've gotten more brazen, as this has become more successful and as Democrats have not fought back the nominees, if you could see the evidence of this in the hearings, as they've gotten more successful, the nominees have actually answered less as they realize they can get away with answering less. I believe, and I'm sure someone will check, I believe that John Roberts was the last SCOTUS nomination nominated by a Republican to actually defend Brown v. Board on the merits. Right? He actually sort of endorsed while, yes, Separate but Equal is inherently unequal. He was the. And since then, they've realized they don't even have to answer those questions. They can just sort of duck those questions. This has been a massively. It is one of the most successful institutional political projects that the right wing has and has built over generations. And to your point, Democrats have had nothing in response, and not just institutionally nothing, but they haven't even sort of talked about or treated the judiciary as a political entity that has to be fought for in order to preserve either the rights that already exist or the progress that we make legislatively and electorally.

Sam Cedar (52:32)

There's a couple things that come to mind. One is that Trump was able to place somewhere around 260 people on the federal judiciary to lifetime appointments, which was record breaking up to that point, because there were so many that were empty from the Obama years because it was not considered a priority, both as a policy matter and as a political matter.

Josh Orton (52:55)

Yes.

Sam Cedar (52:55)

And those two things go hand in hand.

Josh Orton (52:57)

Yes.

Sam Cedar (52:58)

The blue slips that were ignored under, in the blue slip is just an old tradition in the Senate where the norm, senators from a certain state have to basically give their sign off to any potential judicial nominee from that, that may be in that circuit court or in those district courts. And if they don't, if they hold their blue slip back, they don't even have to make a substantive argument of argument against it.

Josh Orton (53:26)

And blue slips are respected regardless of the party. Right. So in other words, even if it was a Republican nominee, and there was one from the seventh Circuit today on Pastor, Senate Judiciary, and Tammy Baldwin from Wisconsin did not return the blue slip. They ignored it. They sort of voted the Democrats respect. Respected it. Yes, correct.

Sam Cedar (53:44)

Even after the Republicans had ignored it under Trump won. And then they went back. And the big thing that I think it was at the time was it from Vermont, I can't remember his name. The Senator Leahy was like, we're going to reinstitute blue slips. When. As if like the whole country was like, thank God we've returned to normalcy electorally.

Josh Orton (54:06)

When you look at the issues, when people really like the difference between a regular voter and irregular voter getting off the couch and voting is like, does this candidate support the blue slip system?

Sam Cedar (54:17)

That, I mean, that is. And then of course, as soon as the Republicans take control again, blue slips are ignored by Democrats, of course.

Josh Orton (54:23)

And this is out the window. And this is like, this obviously follows a pattern in the Democratic caucus generally and especially in the Senate where, like, you know, I think this is sort of indicative of what I would call the post Harry Reid Senate in the Democratic caucus, like, you know, to the extent that, you know, they still existed under Harry Reid, there was some notion that you can't, like, if the norms were getting away, getting in, if sort of norms and procedures were getting in the way of achieving our ideological gains in sort of, you know, if they were used improperly, if they were sort of, if they were used unfairly and they were like, there was at least some notion that like, maybe they shouldn't exist anymore. And you saw this when Harry Reid used the nuclear option to be able to confirm district court judges with 50 plus under Obama because he was so frustrated that not only was Obama not nominated enough that the Republicans were filibustering all of them like Harry would actually sort of. And you know, he took a lot of flack from all the normies at the time for using the nuclear option to be able to confirm Obama's lower court nominations on district court and circuit court judges with, with just 51 votes instead of 60. But there's none of that now in the Democratic caucus.

Sam Cedar (55:37)

No. And so let's, let's talk about where we are. And someone just asked, is there a progressive or liberal version of the fairless society? And again, like I said, the ajs, I think, was the American ACS attempted and has yet to really sort of like develop that type of thing. There really is nothing equivalent even remotely close. And the only thing that comes, you know, like, it seems to me that demand justice is doing like one part of that job, which is sort of the training and educating the senators in particular or hoping to, in getting Democrats to understand whether they are rank and whether they are lawmakers or voters. This is important. I mean, right now, the only thing standing between the full deployment of, you know, military in these places, in this instance, it happens to be a judge appointed by Ronald Reagan, I think it was. But largely speaking, if Joe Biden, one of the things he deserves credit for, and a lot of this is a function frankly, of, of, of demand justice.

Josh Orton (56:56)

The pressure from the left. Absolutely.

Sam Cedar (56:58)

The pressure that came in. Joe Biden put 250 some odd justices on the court. And it was also justices that came that were sociologically, economically, legally correct. And you know, it wasn't just a question of identity.

Josh Orton (57:16)

It wasn't just all corporate lawyers. Right. From white shoe firms.

Sam Cedar (57:18)

It was defense attorneys. It was antitrust lawyers. It was.

Josh Orton (57:22)

Dale Ho is a, was a voting rights attorney from the ACLU and now sits on a district court in New York.

Sam Cedar (57:25)

Yes, that was hugely. That was a huge innovation. It seems to be.

Josh Orton (57:30)

Well, and I think so. I think there's, there's sort of two problems that I want to sort of talk about the macro problem for a second because I think there's a chicken and egg thing and one of them is, you know, the problem, I think in this is having fallen a generation behind. You know, I think the senators look at the Democratic base and see that they just have not been as activated and don't care about the courts over the years as much as the Republican base has. And so they've been less reactive on these things because they don't think they have to because they don't think they're going to get pressure from the base if they're crappy on judges. And I think, you know, and I think on the right you see, you know, you see the aggressive corporate, you know, the corporate actors who know that they need pro corporate judges in order to sort of externalize all their costs, right. So they're so that, you know, to strike down regulations so they don't have to pay to clean up their own pollution. You know, there is a financial gain for them in investing in organizations that build a right wing judiciary. And there hasn't been that kind of like they almost have like a fiduciary responsibility to corrupt the judiciary. Right. And there just hasn't been that kind of a incentive structure on the left. And I think. So there's a bit of a chicken and egg thing of like, at what point are we sort of, who's going to sort of take the lead? And so Demand justice has sort of like has a couple of different projects ahead of us. One of them is just, you know, is making sure that we get to. And I think that, you know, I'm sort of, I want to sort of say like Normie Dem base is aware of how much the judiciary is at stake, how much it matters, how much is a political fight because Democrats have been treating it as like an academic fight for too long, right. And so there's sort of this weird feedback loop. So we actually have to have Democratic activists demand that their senators fight for the judiciary. The second is that to your point about who are we nominating, what are these, like, what is the make of these courts? Obama, like President Biden deserves a lot of credit. And if you remember, Demand justice at the beginning of the Biden administration when he was elected, had a list, not just had a list, but started a campaign, demanded that the new incoming Biden administration not appoint a single federal judge who is a corporate lawyer. Now do I think the Demand justice thought that the Biden administration was going to follow that to the tee? Probably not. But I think Ron Klain and the Biden administration understood that that gave them space, you know, they were being pushed and that gave them space to appoint, like you were saying, people who are, I don't know, public defenders, voting rights attorneys. Right. And so that moved the whole conversation. So there's a couple things we have to sort of activate. We have to, you know, for all the people that are outraged at whatever the assault on the rights are the invasion of the National Guard, the deportations, the, you know, the fifth Circuit ruled. A few weeks ago, a Trump judge of 5th Circuit ruled the NLRB was like, like blanket unconstitutional in favor of Elon Musk and SpaceX. Right. Nobody said a peep about that. So we actually have to sort of, our job is to sort of connect people in and how their rights and their sort of, you know, how corporations are screwing them, how their rights are being taken away. All that leads back to a judiciary that the Democrats have not been fighting for for a generation. And I think the second thing is we have to move. So part of that, we have to move the conversation to demand that Democrats actually do things that they have been one, uncomfortable doing because there is a. They want to sort of all get along and not, you know, plant their feet and make things awkward in the caucus whenever possible. And no more so than on the Senate Judiciary Committee. And two, get Democrats and activists and progressive activists to hold them accountable when they don't. And I think one of the. We can sort of talk about what happened last week, but I think in Trump 1, he was breaking the law. And I think the urgency here in the second Trump administration is he's sort of systematically dismantling not just the rule of law, but all the institutions that uphold the rule of law. You saw, he's going after law firms and getting them to sort of capitulate. That was intentional, right? That was intentional. And demand justice. This spring, launched a campaign called Big Law Cowards to call them out for doing it. We degrade everyone's rights. We sort of shift the power towards the powerful when we don't fight back against the right wing takeover of the judiciary and the rule of law.

Sam Cedar (61:44)

So let's talk about what your action is right now that you're looking to do and why.

Josh Orton (61:50)

Yeah. So one of the things that we saw when in Trump 2 is every single judge who's nominated for the federal bench under Trump has to essentially take a loyalty pledge. This is unlike it was in Trump 1, because every one of the senators is asking about who won or lost the 2020 election and what happened on January 6th. And if you are to be in Trump's favor, and unlike the first administration, he announces all these nominations on truth. Social people don't know about him ahead of time. So it's clear that he's looking at every single one of these federal judicial nominations very closely. Every single one in order to be nominated by Trump. You cannot have said that he lost the 2020 election. And you cannot be truthful about what happened on January 6th. So every single one of these judges, in every everyone has been asked.

Sam Cedar (62:38)

And just be clear, this is not a comedy routine that you're saying this is actually true.

Josh Orton (62:42)

Correct.

Sam Cedar (62:43)

You literally have to make sure that your record on any public discourse. Yes. And in any.

Josh Orton (62:50)

In this process, you cannot say that Trump lost the 2020 election. And to the extent where you see every one of them has essentially the same language in their written questions, it's like they're out. Is. Well, officially the House certified Biden as the winner, which is not, did he win? It just says that this third party said he won. Right. And then on January 6, they say some version of, well, I'm weighing in on a political matter, and there's active litigation about the pardons, which is like, mostly not true. They can't, because we know those are the two things that Trump, you know, if you on the wrong side of those things, you are done with Trump. And I think it's funny because can you imagine any single one of these nominees in a hearing, if they're asked the question, who lost the 2020 election? If they said, Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, everybody who pays attention to politics, everybody knows that their nomination would be yanked the same day they would be done. Right? And so yet we have all of these people being nominated to federal judges at a time when he's weaponizing the doj. He's like, he's initiating these revenge prosecutions against his political enemies. And last week we saw Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee them last week, and now Hirono today, more have voted to approve these judges and report them out favorably to the floor. And none of these people can say that Trump lost the 2020 election. And to me, that means they're politically compromised. Why? Like, so we launched an ad campaign. We were spending six figures and we're gonna increase. Why are they doing this? That's a great question. Part of it is log rolling. Like, part of them might want the, you know, might need the vote of one of these home state senators in the future. I think part of them, like, wanna look like they're bipartisan, but as a result, they're sort of enabling Trump to lower the bar of what constitutes is qualified. They're essentially enabling the authoritarianism by saying these judges are qualified when they have to take political loyalty oaths. And like, here's the thought, here's the sort of experiment here. None of them yet were, like, none of them were nominees to the Eastern District of Virginia, where the pac, Lindsey Halligan is prosecuting Jim Comey.

Sam Cedar (65:01)

Yes.

Josh Orton (65:01)

Imagine if one of these nominees was being nominated to a district court where Trump had installed, had fired the United States attorney for refusing to prosecute his political attorneys. His political enemies had put in a crony like Lindsey Halligan to file BS charges against his, against his political enemies. And you had a judge presiding over that case in Roe. Did not say that.

Sam Cedar (65:26)

Completely ranked.

Josh Orton (65:27)

It's a banana republic at this point. And here's the thing. Yes, some of they weren't appointed to the Eastern District of Virginia, but a couple of them were appointed to district courts in Alabama. Imagine if one of Trump's enemies was Doug Jones. Was former Senator Doug Jones. Like, you can't, you can't. There is no, there is no moral, historical, or frankly, political rationalization for voting for any of these judges.

Sam Cedar (65:51)

And the reason why seven Democratic senators and more will sign off on these is because there is no political price for them to pay.

Josh Orton (66:01)

Correct.

Sam Cedar (66:01)

To do it. And it's, it's the easiest. I mean, this is the way they always make decisions. Right? It's like, okay, there's some marginal benefit. I might need a, I might need a favor from somebody, whatever it is, and there's no price to pay. So why. That's it. That's the equation.

Josh Orton (66:18)

And imagine, and imagine 20 years from now when we're looking back at these, these, these votes in Senate Judiciary Committee where, you know, Peter Welch was one of the first, and he gave this quote about, well, I found a needle in a haystack. I found a Trump judge that was qualified. Qualified to do what? Right. This guy had, you know, had a very scant record. He came from, he was the central, he came from the central district of Florida, I believe. He was the son of a, of a lobbyist who had defended police misconduct cases. Like, because they lack any smoking gun in their overt record, does not mean that, like, you are participating in the sort of shrinking down of what constitutes qualified because Trump is so bad. Like the, that's enabling.

Sam Cedar (67:00)

And there's no, again, there's no price to pay. So the idea is make it costly for these Democratic senators to cast this vote. Make them feel like there is a downside to making these votes because people are paying attention to it. And so what is the current campaign that you guys are doing?

Josh Orton (67:21)

So the first campaign we launched last week, we're spending, you know, six figures. We're targeting both Durbin, who's the ranking member, and Chris Coons, who's a longtime member of the Judiciary Committee, and has been sort of on the opposite side of some Demand justice campaigns in the past. Billboards and digital ads in their home states and online, basically asking the vote. I'm like, what are they thinking? Right? They voted to capitulate to Trump.

Sam Cedar (67:44)

Why is Durbin, of all people, doing. Isn't he retiring?

Josh Orton (67:47)

I don't know. I mean, I think maybe to give cover to other Dems on the committee. I just don't know. And we saw even Schiff in California vote for one of them, like, one of them favorably off the committee last week. And so today we're going to expand that to a couple more senators. We saw, you know, Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island, Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota, Maisie Hirono, sadly, from Hawaii, even voted one off favorably. And I think one of the things, the funny thing is last week when they did this, they had talked. Some of these senators who, who did this had talked earlier in the committee, like, moments earlier, bemoaning the weaponization of the DOJ to prosecute Comey, and then turned around moments later and voted for these judges who could not say that Trump lost the 2020 election. And so, like, part of this is going back to this whole notion of, like, thinking through the Obama nominating Garland for the Supreme Court, of it all, right? Is that part of this is that if they're going to sort of send these angry tweets, if they're gonna go on cable news, like, calling Trump an authoritarian, you can't then, in the sort of confines of the Judiciary Committee, when you're sitting next to your Republican colleagues and it's sort of all friendly and you're sort of arguing about norms like, you can't then vote for his judges. Right. You actually have. If you're going to, you have to act honestly, you have to act consistently with what is going on in the world outside with the attacks on the doj, you can't. You can't have it both ways. You can't sort of, like, try and show some bipartisanship and at the same time say the sky is falling because Trump is attacking the rule of law.

Sam Cedar (69:21)

Right. And the idea is on some level reflective of what's happening now with the government shutdown. People are paying attention. Democrats are signaling this is not normal, what's going on here. The president is, you know, trying to unilaterally cut the budget. There's no point in saying, like, it creates an awareness of what the issue is, because people need to be engaged with the courts and with the idea that every judicial nominee is going to have implications down the road, maybe next week, for that matter, or six months from now or whatnot. And even more so when we have a president who is assaulting the foundations of, I mean, the judiciary. It's.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (70:09)

Yes.

Josh Orton (70:09)

I mean, on some level, I didn't expect to have to do this so quickly after I took over dementia. I mean, on some level, I feel like it's almost absurd that we're having to do this, that we're having to call on these, we have to sort of put pressure on these Democrats for voting for these Trump judges.

Sam Cedar (70:24)

It's.

Josh Orton (70:24)

I'm a little gobsmacked about, I mean, I guess I should never overestimate the Democratic Senate caucus or at least some of them. But to me, this is, I can't believe that we have to do this. And I can't believe, and I think, especially, look, you're going to say, people are going to say, well, why are you going after Dems? You should be going after Republicans. Like, here's the thing. There is, it's not just sort of a historical and moral argument for doing it this way. There's an election coming up next year. And one of the biggest problems Democrats have now that they need to sort of work on is they are seen by the general ruling public as incapable of going to D.C. and taking on the big fights and reforming the institutions so that government serves people better. They are not seen as people who are strong on taking on the fights for reform. And so part of this is this is in their own political interest to actually be consistent and plant their feet and do their job. Right. This isn't just a moral question. This isn't just a historical question. There's like a political imperative here to actually standing up to Trump.

Sam Cedar (71:26)

Josh Orton, we'll put a link to demand justice. Demandjustice.org People can go there, support your organization, support your work, petitions. And also you get cues as to which senators you should be calling and saying, how are you? Like, I know there are people, I've seen it in our IMs. People are like, what, Maisie Hirono or any Democrat, it's voting for Trump's nominees. People just aren't aware of it. And I'm glad you're in a position now to help raise people's awareness. And we'll talk again soon.

Josh Orton (72:02)

Yeah, I hope. And next time, let's get a little better spot on the program. Sam maybe a little earlier.

Sam Cedar (72:07)

Yes, we're upgrading and I'm sorry, it's Very hard to find.

Josh Orton (72:11)

Talk about it later. We'll talk about it.

Sam Cedar (72:12)

It's hard to find here. We'll get to the.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (72:15)

All right.

Sam Cedar (72:16)

Thanks, Josh.

Josh Orton (72:17)

Thank you, Sam.

Sam Cedar (72:18)

All right, folks, before we go into the fun half, let's bring on another former producer of the program. This is the most form producer. Well, Brandon. That's not Brandon.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (72:29)

What?

Sam Cedar (72:31)

Oh, we don't have Bender yet.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (72:32)

It's normal.

Sam Cedar (72:33)

What is he doing? Brandon Sutton. Welcome. Where? Which one is where?

Brandon Sutton (72:38)

He's not on here yet.

Sam Cedar (72:39)

All right, let's bring it.

Josh Orton (72:41)

You're not on, Brandon.

Sam Cedar (72:44)

You're not.

Brandon Sutton (72:44)

You're not.

Josh Orton (72:45)

We can't hear him yet.

Sam Cedar (72:46)

Oh, we can't hear you.

Brandon Sutton (72:47)

No.

Sam Cedar (72:47)

Oh, that's too bad. What's going on? In a moment, Brandon Sutton will be joining us. I see him. Wisconsin Disco just said, can't wait for Brian to go on to lead the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Matt Bender (73:10)

Nice. Nice.

Sam Cedar (73:12)

There he is.

Matt Bender (73:15)

I was starting to think I was a hallucination.

Sam Cedar (73:18)

I honestly, I don't know what was going on. But.

Josh Orton (73:24)

You'Re not here Thursdays.

Sam Cedar (73:25)

And where is. Where's Bender? He's just gonna. Okay. All right, we got Bender in here. We got one more former producer of the Majority Report to join the show. Number three of the day is gonna join us.

Matt Bender (73:40)

Yeah, you're a king maker, Sam.

Sam Cedar (73:46)

Well, we just, like.

Josh Orton (73:47)

We just.

Sam Cedar (73:48)

We just fire. We just fire people. Why is it messed up because of me? Oh, because you're used to having that other different layers.

Mike Johnson (73:54)

Don't worry about it.

Josh Orton (73:55)

There we go.

Sam Cedar (73:56)

There we go. All right. Matt Bender, Brandon Sutton. It's Thursday and Emma is out today, so sadly you have her substitute. Why don't you guys. Brandon, tell me what's happening on the Discourse before we go to the break.

Matt Bender (74:15)

Yes. So today we checked out Pam Bondi's escapades in front of Congress. And tomorrow we will be diving crying in the background. No, she'd never do that. And tomorrow, I don't know if you have been keeping up with the adventures of Patrick Bet David, but he had the foremost expert on the dustification of the twin towers on 911 on to discuss what really happened to the Twin Towers. Dr. Judy Wood. And so us on the Discourse will be asking a sort of, I guess, meta question of what happened to the quality of the Patrick David podcast, while also, I guess, finding out the true nature of what happened on 9 11. So join us.

Sam Cedar (75:00)

Answered at the simultaneously. We need to get some of that footage and examine it. I actually think that Patrick Bad David could be a hologram. By now. So that could be Matt Bender. How are you? What's going on on your, like, multiple podcasts that you do? I'll keep it short. Just tune in tonight 8:30pm at YouTube.com Matt Bender for leftist mafia. And you got to keep those kids quiet. Yeah, I know, I know. All right, we're gonna take a break. Head into the fun half. Just a reminder, it's your support that make this show possible. You can become a member. Join the MajorityReport.com also just Coffee.co op, Fair Trade coffee, hot chocolate. Use the coupon code majority. Get 10 off.

Josh Orton (75:48)

Matt.

Sam Cedar (75:49)

Left reckoning.

Brandon Sutton (75:50)

Yeah, left reckoning. We had a show, Michael Aravalo, talking about a guy stealing valor in the Rogan manosphere.

Sam Cedar (75:58)

Also, what has gone on with our society? It's just like this is.

Josh Orton (76:02)

Yeah.

Matt Bender (76:03)

What kind of valor?

Josh Orton (76:04)

I remember what valor meant.

Mike Johnson (76:05)

Caster valor.

Brandon Sutton (76:07)

No justification of valor. The proper military saying. I had a bronze medal of honor with valor. Somebody asked me, do you have one of those with valor? And he's like, yep. And the cool thing about saying things yep instead of yes is like, it's faster. So, like the lie. You might be able to get out there with the lie. And then Justin Chen, who represents union workers for the federal government, particularly at the epa, talking about the shutdown. So check that out, folks.

Sam Cedar (76:36)

All right, folks, quick break then fun half. Three months from now, six months from now, nine months from now. And I don't think it's going to be the same as it looks like in six months from now. And I don't know if it's necessarily going to be better six months from now than it is three months from now, but I think around 18 months out, we're going to look back and go like, wow.

Matt Bender (76:59)

What?

Sam Cedar (77:00)

What is that going on? It's nuts. Wait a second. Hold on.

Josh Orton (77:06)

Hold on for a second.

Sam Cedar (77:10)

Emma. Welcome to the program.

Josh Orton (77:13)

Matt.

Sam Cedar (77:16)

What is up, everyone?

Josh Orton (77:18)

Fun hat.

Sam Cedar (77:19)

No, M. Keen.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (77:20)

You did it.

Josh Orton (77:21)

Fun hack.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (77:22)

Let's go, Brandon.

Matt Bender (77:23)

Let's go, Brandon.

Josh Orton (77:24)

Brandon on hat.

Sam Cedar (77:27)

Bradley, you want to say hello?

Josh Orton (77:29)

Sorry to disappoint everyone.

Brandon Sutton (77:31)

I'm just a random guy.

Sam Cedar (77:32)

It's all the boys today.

Josh Orton (77:33)

Fundamentally false.

Unnamed Speaker (possibly a staffer or another guest) (77:34)

No.

Sam Cedar (77:35)

I'm sorry.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (77:35)

Women.

Sam Cedar (77:36)

Stop talking for a second.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (77:38)

Let me finish.

Military Wife Caller (77:39)

Where is this coming from, dude?

Matt Bender (77:40)

But.

Sam Cedar (77:40)

Dude, you want to smoke this? 7A.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (77:44)

Yes.

Josh Orton (77:47)

I really.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (77:49)

This thing.

Sam Cedar (77:50)

Yes. Is this me?

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (77:55)

Is it me?

Sam Cedar (77:56)

It is you.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (77:59)

If it's me.

Josh Orton (78:00)

Oh, if it's me.

Sam Cedar (78:01)

I think it is you who is, you know, south every single freaking day. What's on your mind.

Josh Orton (78:10)

We can discuss free markets and we can discuss capitalism.

Sam Cedar (78:13)

I'm gonna go snow white. Libertarians.

Brandon Sutton (78:15)

They're so stupid.

Sam Cedar (78:16)

Though common sense says of course. Gobbledygook. We nailed him. So what's 79 plus 21? Challenge.

Matt Bender (78:23)

Man, I'm positively quivering.

Sam Cedar (78:25)

I believe 96. I want to say 8, 5, 7, 2, 1, 0, 35, 5 0, 11 half. 3, 8, 9, 11.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (78:32)

For instance.

Sam Cedar (78:33)

$3,400.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (78:34)

$1,900.

Sam Cedar (78:35)

5, 4. $3 trillion. Sold. It's a zero sum game, actually.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (78:41)

You're making me think less.

Sam Cedar (78:42)

But let me say this, you can call satire.

Josh Orton (78:46)

Sam goes satire on top of it all.

Military Wife Caller (78:49)

My favorite part about you is just like every day, all day, like, everything.

Sam Cedar (78:53)

You do, without a doubt. Hey, buddy, we see you. All right, folks, folks, folks.

Military Wife Caller (79:04)

It's just the week being weeded out, obviously.

Mike Johnson (79:07)

Yeah.

Sam Cedar (79:07)

Sun's out, guns out.

Josh Orton (79:11)

I, I, I don't know, but you should know.

Sam Cedar (79:16)

People just don't like to entertain ideas anymore. I have a question. Who cares? Our chat is enabled, folks.

Unnamed Speaker (possibly a staffer or another guest) (79:25)

I love it.

Sam Cedar (79:26)

I do love that. Got to jump. Got to be quick. I get a jump.

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (79:31)

Losing it, bro.

Sam Cedar (79:35)

Two o', clock, we're already late, and the guy's being a dick. So screw him. Sent to a gulag.

Josh Orton (79:41)

Outrageous.

Sam Cedar (79:42)

Like, what is wrong with you?

Evan Simcoe Bednarsky (79:45)

Love you. Bye.

Sam Cedar (79:48)

Love you. Bye. Bye.