Hi. Hey. I was mid-application. Um, how was your flight?
It was good. I just, I was on a flight, but the bigger news, if you guys haven't seen, Jessica Tarlov's book is out. "I Disagree" is out now and it's a number one new release on Amazon.
Okay, that's a big deal though.
I'm just saying. And also I don't want to... I am excited but I am trying to also be less excited because it makes me more nervous and then I feel sick and so I disagree and I feel sick. Um, but I'm excited also.
Well, I'm excited for you. Uh, so welcome back to The Parnas Perspective. I'm Aaron Parnas with The Parnas Perspective and right with me is my co-host Jessica Tarlov with Raging Moderates.
Look at you just reading the whole intro. It's great to be here. I don't know. I told you I'm nervous. I can't even speak anymore. My book's out. I'll see you guys tonight if you're in New York. Should we talk about Canada? And wait, we should say this. We'll be in DC next Thursday, September 24th, 7 p.m. at Politics and Prose. The big one. The good one. Connecticut, on Connecticut Avenue.
The big one. Uh, so we need to fill it up. Uh, Aaron and I will be there talking about "I Disagree" and I will be more coherent than whatever you're about to hear for the next 26 minutes.
Okay. I want to talk about Canada. Mark Carney, I'm just very into him. Um, and it seems like the whole world is actually, as the US-Canada trade war appears far from over. That is our fault. Uh, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is in Europe this week pushing for a, quote, "unique alliance" between Canada and the European Union. He's pressing for 10 EU countries who have yet to ratify the trade deal with Canada to move forward. He puts the odds at 18% of the US and Canada finalizing their trade deal by November 1st. That matters, November 1st. It could even be November 3rd. That's when the election is. Uh, Donald Trump knows that this is an issue that is becoming a huge drag on their ratings for the economy, his personal approval, and whether people think that Republicans can do the job. Here's Carney talking yesterday about his relationship with Trump.
I went to the White House in the spring of last year and at the end of the meeting, the President gave me... "I want to give you, Mark, I want to give you something really special." President Trump. Yeah. "President Trump. I want to give you something very so special, Mark. So special." And I open this box and it's this big gold key. I was like, "Wow, Mr. President, that's fantastic." He's like, "Yeah, it's a key. It's a key to the White House. You just bring it. They'll let you in." And then he says, "Maybe they'll shoot you." I was like, and that sort of sums up the relationship that we have.
Okay. So, there's substance to this, but I really like when world leaders also kind of talk like housewives, you know, and when he goes, "and I was like, uh, um..." This is very Trumpian obviously, and that it being a gold key. I like that Carney, you know, did the hands which Trump, you know, "they might shoot you." What does it mean for the future? It seems very clear that the EU is down with this new relationship and is happy to have them. It feels quite serious though that they are taking this kind of action.
Oh, it is. And I think it brings me back to, I don't know if you remember, but during Davos, the economic forum earlier this year, Mark Carney went up there and said, quote, "Middle powers must act together because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu." And that quote really kind of rings true today. Mark Carney is realizing and has realized over the past many months that he doesn't have a viable partner in the President of the United States. He has a very... the best way I think I could explain it is just a very, I don't want to say reluctant, but more kind of chaotic partner. It's not consistent. You don't know what you're getting out of this government. And so he's looking elsewhere. He's looking abroad and justifiably so. And so he's looking to Europe. He's looking elsewhere to strengthen ties, to kind of redefine the world order in a way because what we're seeing right now really is a change in the world order. We are seeing America becoming more isolationist. We're seeing Canada, which was once our closest ally, not just in distance but also an allyship, is now moving further from us and closer to Europe, and that's our doing. We did that. So, not surprised. I'm curious to see whether or not Canada becomes an associate member, the first ever of the EU. I think that would be significant. Another part of it that was really significant to me, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, was the mutual defense discussion. They talked about establishing NATO-like protections for EU countries, which would be significant not just for Canada but also for Ukraine ultimately when Ukraine joins the EU, which will happen in the next 5 to 10 years. So, it's a major shift in the world order, but I think it's justifiable.
I love the optimism that you think that Ukraine is going to join the EU in the next 5 to 10 years. Um, I love the optimism about it. You know, long overdue and probably would have helped them before even, you know, Putin took Crimea. It feels quaint now, back in 2014. But that would be great. The EU with the open door to this. Um, Ursula von der Leyen, or Vonderlane, I always mispronounce it.
It's von der Leyen. You know, posting that they want to have this relationship. He's getting very good marks even from conservatives like Stephen Harper. And it's been interesting to see folks who followed the Canadian election last time around and kind of put Mark Carney in this bucket with Justin Trudeau and said like, oh, you know, Liberals aren't going to be good at managing the economy. And he's put forward all of these new reforms. And I thought it was particularly telling that Blackstone's President Jon Gray was talking about how Canada is a sleeping giant economically. He went to this investment summit in Toronto and that's where Stephen Harper said, "I wish that we had done this frankly and that you wouldn't expect this to be coming from the Liberals, though you do have a central banker as Prime Minister in Mark Carney." So it seems like things are going his way. And I can't say that I thought that my colleagues who said that the trade war would end on time and even were talking about that happening on Labor Day, right, and that this would never go into effect at full force, were correct. But this feels like it is deteriorating much quicker than expected and that Carney is really not waiting around for any further conversations with the US before he makes these new plans. The common defense pact that is going to be much of the world, and we discussed this on last week's Parnas Perspective or maybe the one before, but the thawing of military relationships or talks with China is also an enormous deal when it comes to this. There's not much sunshine for Americans in terms of what's going on on the global stage.
No, there isn't. And it's going to take decades to kind of fix the damage of the past 18 months and the damage of what the next two years will bring. Especially the lack of soft power America currently has abroad. Whether it's through cuts to USAID or just this kind of unipolar vision that Trump has of America, his isolationism. And if JD Vance somehow becomes president, it's only going to get worse. So, it's going to take a long time for us to kind of get back to where we once were. Something else that is going to take a long time to get back to where it once was is our election system and confidence in our elections. And voting is officially underway right now in North Carolina. But that...
Oh, you're like literally hosting today.
Yeah, but you're the lawyer. No, it was great. Do you feel like I'm not going to get there or do you want to try this out?
I want to try it out. I want to... I just saw... I...
Show everyone off your reading skills.
Okay. Voting is officially underway in North Carolina, but that hasn't stopped Trump's push to restrict mail-in ballots, which has been in and out of courts. The Supreme Court has now blocked Trump's plan to have the Postal Service screen and potentially withhold mail-in ballots in a brief unsigned decision, noting that the plan was likely unlawful. I will note there were two dissents, and it was actually to me a much closer decision, and I'm happy to talk about why, because just the mechanics of the Supreme Court. Trump responded in kind on social media, attacking his own justices, saying, "These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court. They are merely a shell of their original selves." Amy Coney Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch are in fact the same people he once interviewed. But Jess, I do want to get your take on the ruling itself, because you talk about this ruling and just generally voter suppression tactics on Fox News all the time. How are you feeling and how are your colleagues feeling?
They're not talking about it that much, which I always take to mean that it's disappointment, like when it gets real quiet. So, I think that disappointment can be taken two ways. So, one, that it might have been for this plan in some way and they feel like there's a lot of voter fraud that's committed through mail-in voting, which Donald Trump does himself, just so you know. And then the other way that I could take it is that they know that mail-in voting is not riddled with fraud and that there are many states, including ones controlled by conservatives, that rely on mail-in voting. And there is anxiety that we are heading down a similar path to 2020. Not necessarily in terms of the full shebang like the January 6th insurrection, but that there are going to be so many court cases that they're going to bring and what lawyers are going to be taking them. I also thought, and I mean you can connect it to this if you want, but you know, watching Todd Blanche do the job of a press secretary is... I'm dying inside from it. I understand, you know, coming out there and answering some questions about the DOJ, for instance, but the back-to-back weeks of speaking at the RNC convention and then taking the podium in that way and wearing your biases and your extra-constitutional view of the presidency does not bode well for the future, especially when it comes to elections and what this guy is going to be willing to do.
Yeah, for sure. I will say I want to just talk about, because I'm a nerd when it comes to the Supreme Court and just legal stuff. So, it was a 7-2 decision on its face. You have two justices dissent, Thomas and Alito. What I found interesting was that there was a Kavanaugh concurrence where Kavanaugh essentially said, "Hey, I agree that this USPS executive order is actually fully constitutional. I just think that it'll cause too much chaos between now and election day, which is why I'm siding with the majority." To me, what...
Which means that it could be okay for 2028.
Yes, but no, it won't be. And I'll... and this is why I don't think it'll be. Kavanaugh, what a concurrence is, what a lot of people don't realize is that yes, I agree with the ultimate outcome, but I don't agree with how you got there. And so Kavanaugh saying that he agrees with the fact that the order itself is constitutional and having to write that separately in a concurrence tells me that there are five justices, Coney Barrett, Roberts, and the three liberals, who are all saying without actually saying it that the order itself is unconstitutional. Because if all six agreed that the order was constitutional, Kavanaugh would not have written that concurrence explaining why he's agreeing separately. And so the ruling is actually a real signal to the Trump Justice Department: if you bring this up on the merits of the court, you're going to have five justices who are not going to agree with you. And the five are Roberts, Coney Barrett, Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan. And then you have the four others in the minority. So, I think that's a real signal that I think the Trump Justice Department should learn from this. It's not a constitutional order, and I don't think the justices think it is.
Do you think, I mean obviously he's going to do the online bullying, but how much behind-the-scenes persuasion or conversation do you think is going on between, I would say the courts in general? I'm sure that some reporter would find out if a Supreme Court justice was low-key dining with Russ Vought or, you know, the President or something like that, but how much coordination do you think they are attempting at this point?
So I think it's all... I mean, they can't really do much coordination. It's all public persuasion. If they are doing anything behind the scenes and that ever gets out, I mean, you'd have a Supreme Court justice impeached. I mean, it's just a breach of any judicial code of conduct.
Oh, I meant more also judges downstream.
Oh, all of the above. It doesn't matter which, it doesn't matter justice or judge. But I will say it's interesting. Supreme Court doesn't actually have a code of conduct and they govern themselves. So, it's a little bit of a different story. But across the board, what I think the biggest takeaway right now over the past 18 months and especially over the past several weeks, judges, even conservative appointees, are fed up with the administration trying to laugh in their face. And what you see is appointee after appointee, Bush appointee, Reagan appointee, liberals, conservatives, all kind of uniformly rejecting the Trump executive orders, the Trump agenda, because they want to signal to the executive branch that we still have this strong third branch of government, the judiciary. I was on an interview, I spoke with a Bush-appointed federal judge, Middle District of Pennsylvania, Judge Jon Jones. He was retired, so he can speak out, and he told me that he's not shocked and he expects actually more conservative judges to be coming out and blasting this administration in waves to preserve the integrity of the judiciary, whatever integrity there is left. So, I'm not surprised and I think it's only going to get worse for this administration.
Well, that seems like a good thing that people are finding their voice. I know this guy is retired. But the courts have been the major backstop against the Trump administration that we've seen. And this Supreme Court has, by the way, I mean, I think a lot of people like say like, "I hate the Supreme Court. They always rule for Trump." They don't actually always rule for Trump. They do on many occasions. And they have some terrible rulings. And I'm not going to...
Absolute immunity seems like a horrible, horrible ruling, but like...
Birthright citizenship. They could have ruled for Trump on a number of cases that they actually ruled against the President. So, it's not always a guaranteed win for this administration. So, he didn't get what he thought he was getting.
Not always. And that's to me, I think he's very upset at one man, Leonard Leo, the former head of the Federalist Society. He was the one who kind of ushered all of these justices in. And I guarantee you, when Alito retires next term, it's not even an if. I think Alito will retire next term, Trump is going to install one of the craziest conservative justices you'll ever see. Emil Bö or Eileen Cannon. Just watch.
I was going to say, I feel like it has to be Eileen. I mean, he was so...
I think he also likes the positive press that he gets when he puts a woman on the court.
So, he can be like, "Oh, what's your problem? Oh, you're not a feminist anymore."
Oh, the favorite argument of conservatives. Oh, but Trump's cabinet has women in it and Trump's cabinet has a black man in Scott Turner. He has black friends.
He also dated a black woman once.
