The Voting Rights Act Is Again Under Attack

Summary

What A Day - "The Voting Rights Act Is Again Under Attack"
Release Date: August 6, 2025
Host: Jane Coaston | Producer: Crooked Media

---

Introduction

In this pivotal episode of What A Day, host Jane Coaston delves into the pressing issue of the Voting Rights Act's 60th anniversary and the renewed threats it faces. Through in-depth discussion and expert insights, the episode unpacks the historical significance of the Act, recent Supreme Court challenges, and the broader implications for American democracy.

---

The Voting Rights Act at 60: A Historical Overview

Jane Coaston opens the episode by highlighting the monumental impact of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Enacted during the height of the civil rights movement, the Act was designed to eliminate discriminatory voting practices that disenfranchised African American voters. Jane explains:

“Before its passage, millions of [Black Americans] were subject to bullshit voting tests that kept them out of the voting booth and out of political power.”
— Jane Coaston ([00:33])

She underscores the Act's role in abolishing oppressive measures like literacy tests, moral character assessments, and grandfather clauses, which systematically excluded Black voters from the electoral process.

---

Supreme Court Decisions: Undermining the Act's Protections

Jane transitions to discuss the challenges the Voting Rights Act has faced over the past decade, particularly focusing on Supreme Court rulings that have eroded its core protections. She introduces Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UCLA, to shed light on these developments.

Rick elaborates on the preclearance provision, a key component of the Act that required certain states and jurisdictions with histories of racial discrimination to obtain federal approval before making any changes to their voting laws or practices:

“The idea is, if you're in a state like Texas and you want to redistrict, you have to draw new districts for your voters. You had to go to the Department of Justice or to a federal court and show that the change wouldn't make minority voters worse off.”
— Rick Hasen ([04:47])

However, in a 2013 decision, the Supreme Court invalidated this preclearance requirement in Shelby County v. Holder, arguing that the criteria were outdated. This landmark ruling significantly weakened the Act's enforceability, making it easier for states to implement potentially discriminatory laws without federal oversight.

---

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act: Current Challenges

Jane shifts the conversation to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race, regardless of voter turnout. Rick explains:

“Section 2 has been enforced by the Supreme Court since 1986, especially in cases where racially polarized voting patterns necessitate fair representation for minority voters.”
— Rick Hasen ([07:54])

The episode spotlights a contemporary case from Louisiana, where the creation of a second, likely majority-Black congressional district is being contested. Non-African American voters argue that this redistricting violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by considering race too heavily in drawing electoral maps.

---

Supreme Court's Latest Ruling: A Threat to Section 2

Rick expresses deep concern over a recent Supreme Court order related to the Louisiana case:

“Assuming that race was what predominated in drawing, that second district doing that to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act now unconstitutional. In other words, race-conscious districting itself violates the Constitution.”
— Rick Hasen ([08:16])

This ambiguous ruling suggests that the Court may soon deem Section 2 unconstitutional, either partly or entirely, posing a severe threat to the safeguards currently in place for minority voters.

---

Implications for American Democracy

The potential nullification of Section 2 has profound implications. Rick warns:

“The Supreme Court has almost never been the leader on voting rights. It's going to have to come from the people, and it may mean constitutional amendments, it may mean a new civil rights movement.”
— Rick Hasen ([13:04])

He argues that without Section 2, minority voters could again face significant barriers, undermining the democratic principle of equal representation. This erosion could spark renewed activism and calls for legislative reforms to restore and bolster voting protections.

---

Broader Political Context

Beyond the Voting Rights Act, the episode touches on several other significant news items:

• President Trump's Olympic Task Force: Jane reports on Trump's executive order establishing a task force for the 2028 Los Angeles Summer Olympics. During the signing, Trump emphasized security and success, while controversially praising efforts to exclude transgender women from women's sports.

  “The United States will not let men steal trophies from women at the 2028 Olympics.”
  — Donald Trump ([16:52])

• Israel-Gaza Conflict: Updates on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's potential plans to fully occupy the Gaza Strip amid ongoing conflict, highlighting the international tensions and humanitarian concerns.

• Rwanda Accepting US Deportees: Rwanda becomes the third African nation to agree to accept US deportees, following South Sudan and Eswatini. This move mirrors Rwanda's previous agreement with the UK to accept asylum seekers, albeit details remain sparse.

• FEMA Funding Lawsuit: A federal judge blocks the Trump administration from reallocating billions intended for disaster protection, citing constitutional issues over FEMA's authority to redirect these funds without Congressional approval.

• Jeffrey Epstein Case Developments: The podcast covers Ghislaine Maxwell's transfer to a minimum-security facility, the House Oversight Committee's subpoenas for documents related to Epstein, and controversial remarks by Greg Kelly of Newsmax defending Maxwell despite evidence of her involvement in sexual abuse.

---

Conclusion

Jane Coaston wraps up the episode by reinforcing the critical state of voting rights in America. She emphasizes the need for vigilance and active participation to safeguard democratic principles against judicial and legislative overreach. The episode serves as a clarion call for listeners to remain informed and engaged in the fight to protect and enhance voting rights for all citizens.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• Rick Hasen: “The idea is, if you're in a state like Texas and you want to redistrict, you have to draw new districts for your voters...” ([04:47])

• Rick Hasen: “Section 2 has been enforced by the Supreme Court since 1986...” ([07:54])

• Rick Hasen: “Assuming that race was what predominated in drawing, that second district... now unconstitutional.” ([08:16])

• Rick Hasen: “We could see a new civil rights movement emerge out of this.” ([13:04])

• Donald Trump: “The United States will not let men steal trophies from women at the 2028 Olympics.” ([16:52])

---

Implications for Listeners

For those who haven't tuned into the episode, What A Day provides a comprehensive and engaging exploration of the Voting Rights Act's current challenges, contextualized within broader political developments. The discussions underscore the fragile nature of voting protections in the United States and highlight the urgent need for collective action to preserve democratic integrity.

Listeners are encouraged to stay informed, participate in civic activities, and advocate for policies that ensure equitable voting rights for all Americans.

---

Transcript

[Jane Coston]

It's Wednesday, August 6th. I'm Jane Coston, and this is what a day. The show, enjoying another episode of a Republican town hall goes horribly wrong. Here's Nebraska Republican Representative Mike Flood finding out just how his constituents feel about President Donald Trump's big, beautiful law, gutting Medicaid.

[Rick Hasen]

And more than anything, I truly believe.

[Donald Trump]

This bill protects Medicaid for the future.

[Jane Coston]

You're doing great, sweetie. On today's show, Trump signs an executive order establishing a task force on the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. And Rwanda becomes the third African nation to agree to take in US deportees. But let's start by talking about the Voting Rights act, which turned 60 today. The Voting Rights act of 1965 was passed at the peak of the civil rights movement. It was aimed at ensuring that the constitutional right to vote could actually be enjoyed by actual black Americans. Before its passage, millions of them were subject to bullshit voting tests that kept them out of the voting booth and out of political power. And when I say bullshit voting tests, I mean like literacy tests, moral character tests, or the so called grandfather clause, which helped ensure that no one whose grandfather couldn't vote, say, because they were slaves, would be able to do so themselves. The Voting Rights act ended that, but now it's at risk, or at least what's left of it. About a decade ago, the Supreme Court gutted one key pillar of the Voting Rights act. And now it's facing a second major challenge, which ties back to our new favorite redistricting. We've been talking a lot about redistricting on the show lately. As of our recording time Tuesday night, eastern Texas Democrats are still in Illinois and New York to prevent Republicans from pushing through new congressional maps that would help Trump in next year's midterms. That's despite threats from Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott to have them arrested and Trump saying that the FBI may have to help round them up. But now redistricting fever has hit California, Missouri, Maryland and Indiana as red and blue states alike contemplate redrawing congressional maps to make sure their party stays winning. But back to the Voting Rights Act. On Friday, the Supreme Court asked for briefs from opposing parties in a Louisiana case centered on the creation of a second congressional district that would likely be majority black. This is a long running debate, but the TLDR is that the new district is a result of a lawsuit. But then that district is being challenged by non African American voters for violating the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. Basically, a map created to ensure that black voters have Electoral power in a state where roughly a third of all residents are black is being challenged by non black voters who are arguing the map is racist. I know it's a lot. So to explain this case, the Voting Rights act, and why some of your favorite legal experts are very anxious right now, I spoke to Rick Hasson. He's an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. Rick, welcome to what a day.

[Rick Hasen]

Great to be with you.

[Jane Coston]

So on this anniversary, since many people have the memories of goldfish, can you remind us why the Voting Rights act was so significant in 1965 and what it was able to achieve? Something I've been thinking about is, you know, my grandfather, African American, born in Mississippi in 1920, he would be subject to grandfather clauses that would make him uneligible to vote because his grandfather couldn't. That ends with the Voting Rights Act. But can you tell us a little bit more about the legislation?

[Rick Hasen]

Well, let's talk about Mississippi. In Mississippi, before the Voting Rights act, the rate of African American voter registration was 6.7%. I mean, that is abysmally low by any standard. And it was the lowest in the country. And after the Voting Rights act, within four years, that number was over 50% and kept growing. And so Voting Rights act in 1965 required federal registrars to be allowed to come in and register voters, federal examiners, to make sure their voting was being conducted right. And one of the most important things it did, it said, if you're a state with a history of race discrimination in voting, you've got to get federal approval before you make changes in your voting rules so you don't make things worse off. So that was a really good start in 1965.

[Jane Coston]

Now, despite its landmark status, the Voting Rights act has taken a lot of hits in the past decade or so since the Supreme Court struck down something called the preclearance process. What was that case, and how has that changed voting laws around the country?

[Rick Hasen]

So that preclearance is exactly what I mentioned about getting federal approval of voting changes. The idea is, if you're in a state like Texas and you want to redistrict, you have to draw new districts for your voters. You had to go to the Department of Justice or to a federal court and show that the change wouldn't make minority voters worse off. And so this stopped the most egregious bad things from happening. And the court repeatedly upheld this as constitutional, even though it was a big infringement on state sovereignty. So in 2013, the very conservative Roberts court came up with a ruling that said that even though it used to be constitutional, it's no longer constitutional. And the reason it was no longer constitutional, the court said, is because the states that were picked for coverage under this preclearance provision were picked based on data that went back to the 1960s and 70s. That's too old. You need to show a current problem in order to justify this law. To which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in dissent said, yeah, that's like putting away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you're not getting wet. That is, you know, if you don't know how much you're getting protected by this until you actually lose it. And now we know it made a difference.

[Jane Coston]

Now it appears that one of the remaining protections for voters, Section 2, will again be challenged in court. Before we get to the latest, can you remind me what Section two is and how it's supposed to apply in redistricting cases?

[Rick Hasen]

So back in 1965, when Section 2 of Voting Rights act was included, there was a Section 2, but it basically just restated the 15th Amendment. That's the amendment that came after the Civil War that said that you can't have race discrimination in voting, didn't guarantee anyone the right to vote, but said, if you're going to hold an election, you can't discriminate on the basis of race. Well, that provision wasn't well enforced by the Supreme Court. The Voting Rights act started us on the road of helping, but it wasn't enough. And in 1980, the Supreme Court said, yeah, you know, we're not going to make things better under the Voting Rights Act. We're just going to make sure they don't get worse in those states with this history of discrimination. So Congress responded to a 1980 case called City of Mobile, again, Alabama vs Bolden, and said, we're going to say that the Voting Rights act is going to protect minority voters and ensure that they have the same opportunity as other voters to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. That's kind of murky language. But in a 1986 case called Jingles v. Thornburg, the Supreme Court said, here's how it applies to redistricting. If you've got racially polarized voting, whites voting for one set of candidates and minority voters voting for another, and the minority group is large enough, you could draw a district in which they'd have a fair chance to elect their candidate of choice, you've got to give that chance to the minority voters. And so that is what Section 2 has required. The Supreme Court has enforced it since 1986. It reaffirmed it most recently a couple of years ago in another case out of Alabama called Milligan.

[Jane Coston]

So as you mentioned, Section 2 has been argued before the Supreme Court before, but this latest case involves a challenge to Louisiana's congressional map. The court first heard arguments in March, but then punted a decision to next term. Briefly, if you can, what is this case about? Because as far as I can tell, it's about maps and people saying that doing something good for black people is secretly racist.

[Rick Hasen]

Well, that's probably a good shorthand. The legal case is quite complex. So basically, Louisiana has six congressional districts. In the past, one of those six was drawn to give black voters a chance to elect their candidate of choice. There was a lawsuit after the latest round of redistricting that said you've got to draw two because there are many black voters who are not being represented in that one district and you can draw another one and whites and blacks still prefer different candidates. And so Louisiana kicking and screaming drew a second district and then that drew another lawsuit. And that lawsuit claimed that drawing that second district was unconstitutional. How could it be unconstitutional? Because the Supreme Court has said since the 1990s that when you take race into account too much, when you make it the predominant factor in drawing districts and you don't have a compelling reason to do so, then that violates the equal protection clause. And so what we thought the case was about when it was argued back in March was what was the predominant factor that Louisiana was relying on when it drew that second district? Was it race? In which case you'd have to have a compelling reason to draw these lines, or was it really about politics? So we thought it was going to be just another one of these racial gerrymandering cases. But the Supreme Court Last Friday after 5 o' clock in the beginning of August, I mean, if you really want to hide something, that's the time to do it. They issued this very opaque order where they said, here's what we want to hear in re argument of this case next year. Assuming that these are not the Court's words, but my words, assuming that race was what predominated in drawing, that 2nd district is doing that to comply with section 2 of the voting Rights act now unconstitutional. In other words, race conscious districting itself violates the Constitution, which would mean that Section 2 is either partially or totally unconstitutional. They never mention Section two. They never, they never say the word Voting Rights act, but they obliquely point to some pages in One of the briefs that argue you can't use the Voting Rights act to justify taking race into account in drawing districts in this way.

[Jane Coston]

So a statute that is supposed to protect the rights of minority voters is being argued before the Supreme Court because the plaintiffs say that doing so protecting the rights of minority voters is. Violates the equal protection clause and is racist.

[Rick Hasen]

Yes. I think I hear in your voice a sense of irony, and it's one that I share.

[Jane Coston]

Okay, so you described that this move last Friday, you know, at the when you wanna release bad news time, that move, you said it was, quote, deeply disturbing. Why does it have you worried?

[Rick Hasen]

Well, you know, the court that decided Shelby county versus Holder, the case that killed off one of the two big pillars of the Voting Rights act, was less conservative and less radical than the current court. In that last Alabama case that I mentioned from a couple of years ago called Allen vs. Milligan, where the Supreme Court said that Alabama had to draw another black congressional district, it was a 5 to 4 decision. And Justice Kavanaugh, who was one of the two conservatives who sided with the three liberals on the court in upholding the decision to require the drawing of this majority minority district in Alabama, Justice Kavanaugh said, you know, this isn't the case, but I'd love to hear some arguments about whether time's up for Section two as well. And so he's probably decided now's the time to hear those arguments just before we get into a midterm elections. I think that there's a fair chance. We don't know, but there's a fair chance that the court strikes down Section two or more likely could kill Section two by a thousand cuts. They've already started to do that, but they could make it effectively inoperable without actually saying we're overruling Section two and try and avoid the wrath of the voters. I think, and I said it in my Slate piece, we could see a new civil rights movement emerge out of this. If the Supreme Court knocks down both major pillars of the Voting Rights act. Really, what is the court but somewhat at war with American democracy itself? We can't expect the Supreme Court's going to save us. The Supreme Court has almost never been the leader on voting rights. It's going to have to come from the people, and it may mean constitutional amendments, it may mean a new civil rights movement, but I think things are going to have to come to a head because the current situation where the Supreme Court is siding against the voter is simply unsustainable for a democracy.

[Jane Coston]

Rick thank you so much for your time.

[Rick Hasen]

It's been a pleasure talking to you. I wish we could have talked about something a little more uplifting.

[Jane Coston]

Me too. That was my conversation with Rick Hassan, an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. We'll get to more than it is in a moment, but if you like the show, make sure to subscribe, leave a 5 star review on Apple Podcasts and share with your friends. More to come after some ads Whataday is brought to you by DeleteMe. DeleteMe 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. Data brokers make a profit off your data. Your data is a commodity. Anyone on the web can buy your private details that can lead to identity theft, phishing attempts and harassment. But now you can protect your privacy with DeleteMe. As someone with a very active online presence, privacy is really important to me. I fortunately have never been a victim of identity theft, but I do know people who have been. And I think Delete Me can help take control of your data and 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 JoinDeleteMe.com wad and use promo code WAD at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com WAD and enter code WAD at checkout. That's JoinDeleteMe.com waad code WAD think you.

[Greg Kelly]

Know your breaking point? If you're a woman with weak bones due to osteoporosis after menopause, sadly, you may not. Women can lose up to 20% of their bone density within five to seven years after menopause, making bones weaker and more likely to break. And after the first fracture, we're five times more likely to break another bone within a year. It could happen from a simple slip or just bending to lift a bag of groceries. Don't wait for a breaking point. Visit bonebreakingpoint.com to learn about how osteoporosis medications can reduce the risk of fractures from the cascades to PDX to your kitchen. We recycle like we live here. That's why governments, brands and recycling companies are all just joining together to bring change to make recycling better. As in trusting that your recyclables end up in the right places to be made into new things and having brands help fund the cost of recycling you can find the Latest updates at recycleon.org Oregon From Mount Hood to the bin under your desk, together we can do this.

[Jane Coston]

Here's what else we're following today. Header Lines.

[Donald Trump]

The United States is fully prepared to welcome the world to Los angeles for the 2028 Summer Olympic Games. Very exciting day of my life when we got nominated and we ultimately got it. And I didn't think I'd be here for the Games in this capacity, but it worked out that way, so I'm very happy about that.

[Jane Coston]

Speak for yourself at some point after President Trump gallivanted on the roof of the White House Tuesday, he came down to sign an executive order establishing an official task force on the 2028 Summer Olympics. The Games will be held in Los Angeles, the first Olympics to be hosted by the US since the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City, Utah. Trump said the task force would make sure the Games are safe and successful. During the signing Tuesday, Trump also praised Gene Sykes, the chair of the U.S. olympic and Paralympic Committee Board of Directors, for the committee's move to effectively bar transgender women from competing in women's sports. But for some reason, that accomplishment or accomplishment didn't receive the hurrahs Trump was hoping for. Aww.

[Donald Trump]

It's amazing the way I don't hear any applause for that when everyone feels it to 97. Don't worry about it. That's a 97 3. It's not 80 20. It's 97 3. But nobody wants to clap. It's crazy. The United States will not let men steal trophies from women at the 2028 Olympics.

[Jane Coston]

Go fuck yourself. According to the White House, the task force will work with federal, state and local partners to manage security, transportation and entry exit processes for the Games. Trump will, of course, chair the task force and Vice President J.D. vance will be vice chair. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is weighing plans to fully occupy the Gaza Strip, according to reports from multiple news outlets. We're taping this at 8pm Eastern. This is a very fluid story, so things may have changed by the time you're hearing this, but on Tuesday, Netanyahu met with top security and defense officials to talk about the war. A statement issued by the prime minister's office said the Israel Defense Force's chief of staff presented him with, quote, options for proceeding with the campaign in Gaza. The statement continued, quote, the IDF is prepared to carry out any decision made by the Security Cabinet. During his press conference on the Olympics Tuesday, President Trump sidestepped a question about whether he'd support a full occupation of Gaza. He said he wasn't aware of the quote suggestion and insisted he was focused on getting aid into the territory.

[Donald Trump]

So that's what I'm focused on. As far as the rest of it, I really, I really can't say. That's going to be pretty much up to Israel.

[Jane Coston]

If Netanyahu does order the full occupation of Gaza, it would be a massive escalation in the war at a time when Israel's government is facing mounting domestic pressure to reach a ceasefire with Hamas and return the remaining 20 hostages who are believed to still be alive. It's also facing international fury over a growing starvation crisis in Gaza. Israel already controls around three quarters of the territory. It's unclear where Gaza's 2 million people would go, since Israel has also mostly sealed its borders. Rwanda has become the third African country to accept US Deportees as part of the Trump administration's plan to send people really wherever the hell it wants, no matter where they're originally from. A spokesperson for the Rwandan government said the country would accept up to 250 people and all the details are still being worked out. She said Rwanda would have the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement. South Sudan and Eswatani have also agreed to accept US deportees. Already a combined 13 men who the US described as dangerous criminals in the country illegally have been deported. Neither country has given any details about its agreements with the Trump administration, which is suspicious. The State Department said the US quote, works with Rwanda on a range of mutual priorities, but it did not directly comment on details of the deportation deal. This is somewhat familiar territory for Rwanda. Three years ago, it struck a deal with the United Kingdom to accept asylum seekers and got a ton of backlash for it. The current UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, spiked his predecessor's plan when his Labour Party took over the government last year. A federal judge in Boston blocked the Trump administration from reallocating billions of dollars meant to help communities protect themselves against natural disasters. The judge granted a preliminary injunction Tuesday sought by 20 Democrat led states as their lawsuit continues. Those states include the usual suspects, you guessed it, California, New York and Massachusetts. The Federal Emergency Management Agency initially announced it was ending the $4 billion program in April, but it later said in a court filing that it was just evaluating it. Hmph. The state's lawsuit says any attempt to redirect the funding would run afoul of the Constitution because it was already allocated by Congress. But what else is new? In his ruling, the judge said he was not convinced Congress had given FEMA any discretion to redirect the funds. And that's the news. One more thing. Let's talk about the Jeffrey Epstein case, because a lot has happened over the past few days. Last week, Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's partner and co conspirator, was moved from a Florida prison to a minimum security facility in Texas, where her new neighbors include disgraced Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes and Real Housewives of Salt Lake City glass thrower and convicted fraudster Jen Shaw. The move came after Maxwell, who is pursuing an appeal for case, met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, AKA Trump's personal attorney until his recent promotion, for nine hours over two days in July to talk about. Well, we don't know. The Justice Department is reportedly debating whether to release the transcript of their conversation, but in another episode of a continuing series I'm calling why is he being so fucking weird about this? President Trump said Tuesday that whatever Blanche asked, he's sure it's fine as long as he focused on the most important.

[Donald Trump]

Question, that whatever he asked would be totally appropriate. And it's not an uncommon thing to do that. And I think he probably wants to make sure that, you know, people that should not be involved or aren't involved are not hurt by something that would be very, very unfortunate, very unfair to.

[Jane Coston]

A lot of people, people who should not be involved. Hmm. Also on Tuesday, the House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas to the Department of Justice to release documents related to Epstein. And they sent subpoenas to 10 individuals, including former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and former FBI directors Robert Mueller and James Comey, to compel them to testify about what they knew about Epstein and the case against him. But one person who didn't get a subpoena was Trump's former Treasury Secretary, Alex Acosta, which is weird. See, back when Acosta was a Florida prosecutor in 2008, he's the one who signed off on a deal with Epstein that let him serve minimal jail time and ended an investigation into his alleged sex trafficking. Epstein could have gotten a life sentence for the crimes he was accused of, but Instead, he got 13 months in a work release program, had to pay fines and register as a sex offender. I think it's worth mentioning that Acosta is now a member of the board of directors for Newsmax, the television network for people who think Fox News is too woke. And on Friday, Newsmax host Greg Kelly sure had a fascinating take on Ghislaine Maxwell, a woman who the DOJ says sexually abused dozens of women and girls herself and with Epstein.

[Rick Hasen]

But that doesn't mean that Ghislaine Maxwell is guilty. And there is a hell of a lot of evidence out there that she's innocent. And a hell of a lot of evidence that they railroaded her. Part of a deep state media hysterical plot.

[Jane Coston]

No, there isn't evidence of that. There is tons of evidence, particularly from her victims, that Maxwell was a sexual abuser who groomed girls as young as 14 to perform sex acts with Epstein and herself. And based on this clip and others, there's also evidence that Greg Kelly is prone to acting like an asshole. Anyway, despite Trump's most desperate dreams, this case isn't going away. Foreign As a listener of this Crooked Media podcast, we wanted you to be the first to know that Crooked just announced its first ever Crooked Con in Washington, D.C. crookedCon is the first annual or once in a lifetime chance to join America's smartest organizers and least annoying politicians to strategize, debate and commiserate about where we go from here. Hopefully up on Friday, November 7, Crooked will be joined by some of the most influential names in politics for a full day of conversations, workshops and live pods as we all figure out how to build the big pro democracy movement we need to defeat rising authoritarianism before it's too late. If you like this podcast, you're definitely going to love CrookedCon. And while we can't say officially, I'd say there is a strong chance we'll be there. So get those tickets while you can. Head to crookedcon.com for tickets, lineup announcements and more. That's C-R-O-O-K-E-D C O N.com and we have a discount code that you can use to buy your November 7th ticket early. It's FreedomAndContent one word. All caps. Discount tickets are limited, so act fast. That's all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe. Leave a review. Don't take a morning stroll on the roof of your house and tell your friends to listen. And if you're into reading and not just about how the President of the United States, a 79 year old man, spent his morning shouting at reporters from the roof of the White House. Like me, what a Day is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and [e-mail] subscribe I'm Jayden Coston. Check on the seniors in your life. Make sure they're not taking a walk on the roof, even if they're Donald Trump.

[Rick Hasen]

Trump.

[Jane Coston]

What a Day is a production of Crooked Media. It's recorded and mixed by Desmond Taylor. Our associate producer is Emily Foer. Our producer is Michelle Aloy. Our video editor is Joseph Dutra. Our video producer is Johanna Case. We had production help today from Greg Walters, Matt Berg, Gina Pollock and Laura Newcomb. Our senior producer is Erica Morrison and our senior vice president of news and politics is Adrienne Hill. We had help with the headlines from the Associated Press. Our theme music is by Colin Gilliard and Kashaka. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America east did.

[Greg Kelly]

You know 39% of teen drivers admit to texting while driving. Even scarier, those who text are more likely to speed and run red lights. Shockingly, 94% know it's dangerous, but do it anyway. As a parent, you can't always be in the car, but you can stay connected to their safety with Greenlight Infinity's driving reports. Monitor their driving habits, see if they're using their phone, speeding and more. These reports provide real data for meaningful conversations about safety. Plus, with weekly updates, you can track their progress over time. Help keep your teens safe. Sign up for Greenlight [e-mail] podcast hi.

[Jane Coston]

I'm Angie Hicks, co founder of Angie. When you use Angie for your home projects, you know all your jobs will be done well, from roof repair to emergency plumbing and more done well. So the next time you have a home project, leave it to the pros. Get [e-mail].