Barry

Okay, guys, let's dive right in. Last week, J.D. Vance, before he was inaugurated as vice president of the United States, he did an interview on Fox that a lot of people paid attention to because he was asked about pardons for the January 6th rioters. And he was very clear. He said, if you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn't be pardoned.

And lots of other prominent Republicans agreed, including the woman who's about to become our next attorney general, Pam Bondi. But J.D. Vance's advice is not what Donald Trump followed. On his first day in office, he signed a sweeping executive order that granted pardons to about 1,500 people who had been arrested that day, including those who violently attacked police.

And lots of other prominent Republicans agreed, including the woman who's about to become our next attorney general, Pam Bondi. But J.D. Vance's advice is not what Donald Trump followed. On his first day in office, he signed a sweeping executive order that granted pardons to about 1,500 people who had been arrested that day, including those who violently attacked police.

And lots of other prominent Republicans agreed, including the woman who's about to become our next attorney general, Pam Bondi. But J.D. Vance's advice is not what Donald Trump followed. On his first day in office, he signed a sweeping executive order that granted pardons to about 1,500 people who had been arrested that day, including those who violently attacked police.

And this is a kind of amazing phenomenon considering that the GOP was long considered the party that talks about backing the blue, about being the party of law and order. And it just strikes me as kind of a watershed change. And I wondered what you guys made of it. I want to start with you, Batya.

And this is a kind of amazing phenomenon considering that the GOP was long considered the party that talks about backing the blue, about being the party of law and order. And it just strikes me as kind of a watershed change. And I wondered what you guys made of it. I want to start with you, Batya.

And this is a kind of amazing phenomenon considering that the GOP was long considered the party that talks about backing the blue, about being the party of law and order. And it just strikes me as kind of a watershed change. And I wondered what you guys made of it. I want to start with you, Batya.

I think it's possible to kind of hold two ideas in your head at once when it comes to January 6th. On the one hand, and this is where much of the right has been, and I think there's a lot of merit to this, it's pretty clear that the FBI and the Justice Department were very overzealous. in their prosecutions of people who were at the Capitol that day. And indeed, the Supreme Court said so, right?

I think it's possible to kind of hold two ideas in your head at once when it comes to January 6th. On the one hand, and this is where much of the right has been, and I think there's a lot of merit to this, it's pretty clear that the FBI and the Justice Department were very overzealous. in their prosecutions of people who were at the Capitol that day. And indeed, the Supreme Court said so, right?

I think it's possible to kind of hold two ideas in your head at once when it comes to January 6th. On the one hand, and this is where much of the right has been, and I think there's a lot of merit to this, it's pretty clear that the FBI and the Justice Department were very overzealous. in their prosecutions of people who were at the Capitol that day. And indeed, the Supreme Court said so, right?

The government charged people under this statute criminalizing the obstruction of official proceedings, and the Supreme Court later said it shouldn't have applied. And of course, there's what Batya pointed out, which is, I mean, the misuse of power on the part of President Biden from sort of preemptively pardoning people, as Batya noted, in his family, but also people like Fauci and others.

The government charged people under this statute criminalizing the obstruction of official proceedings, and the Supreme Court later said it shouldn't have applied. And of course, there's what Batya pointed out, which is, I mean, the misuse of power on the part of President Biden from sort of preemptively pardoning people, as Batya noted, in his family, but also people like Fauci and others.

The government charged people under this statute criminalizing the obstruction of official proceedings, and the Supreme Court later said it shouldn't have applied. And of course, there's what Batya pointed out, which is, I mean, the misuse of power on the part of President Biden from sort of preemptively pardoning people, as Batya noted, in his family, but also people like Fauci and others.

I guess the problem, though, is that it's sort of a race to the bottom. It's like one side saying, hey, you weaponize the justice system. And they did. And the other side is saying, hey, you weaponize the justice system. And they did. How do you end that sort of like cycle? Is there any way to end it at all?

I guess the problem, though, is that it's sort of a race to the bottom. It's like one side saying, hey, you weaponize the justice system. And they did. And the other side is saying, hey, you weaponize the justice system. And they did. How do you end that sort of like cycle? Is there any way to end it at all?

I guess the problem, though, is that it's sort of a race to the bottom. It's like one side saying, hey, you weaponize the justice system. And they did. And the other side is saying, hey, you weaponize the justice system. And they did. How do you end that sort of like cycle? Is there any way to end it at all?

Let's talk about just the pure political strategy of this move. How is the MAGA movement, how's the base responding to this? Was this essential for Trump to do?

Let's talk about just the pure political strategy of this move. How is the MAGA movement, how's the base responding to this? Was this essential for Trump to do?

Let's talk about just the pure political strategy of this move. How is the MAGA movement, how's the base responding to this? Was this essential for Trump to do?

Do you guys think that if he had made the distinction between the people who had not attacked police officers and those that had and really been specific in who was pardoned, that it would have gone a long way to kind of restoring just the total degradation of trust in the rule of law? You have one side that each side feels like there's like a two-tiered justice system.