On this week’s episode of 3rd & Fairfax, the official podcast of the Writers Guild of America, the guests are Hacks creators & showrunners Lucia Aniello & Paul W. Downs & Jen Statsky.  They talk about returning for Season 3 of their Emmy-winning comedy series, reflections on the 2023 WGA strike, and why writing is essential at every stage of the show’s process.

The guests on this week’s Al Franken podcast are by two veterans of the DOJ: Barbara McQuade, professor at University of Michigan Law School, and Daniel Richman, professor at Columbia Law School.  As the show writes, “In his second term, Donald Trump has upended many American institutions, but perhaps none more than the Department of Justice. He's filled the DOJ with lackeys, like AG Pam Bondi, who are corrupting our system of justice in ways never seen before.
 
“We're joined by two former lawyers from the DOJ: Barbara McQuade and Daniel Richman. We discuss the disturbing tendencies of Trump's Justice Department: from emphasizing immigration enforcement, to investigating Trump’s political rivals, to firing agents en masse for prosecuting the Jan 6th cases, and so on. The damage being done will take years, if not decades, to undo.
 
“Plus, the Epstein Files continue to impact Trump’s presidency. Why is Ghislane Maxwell being treated so well? It’s almost as if Trump hopes she’ll exonerate him in exchange for a sweetheart deal.” 

The contestants today are Janie and Andrew Wittenberg from Cincinnati, Ohio.  I got the hidden song pretty quickly, and I thought others should have a solid chance to do so, as well – though the contestants were stumped, as was (surprisingly) host Fred Child, so maybe not.  As for the composer style, I thought it was a completely different era, but finding out the correct answer, I should have guessed it, but didn’t.

On this The Weekly Show podcast with Jon Stewart, his guest is CNN's Kaitlan Collins, anchor of The Source with Kaitlan Collins and Chief White House Correspondent.  As the show writes, “With the Trump administration generating headlines at breakneck speed, Jon is joined by Kaitlan Collins. Together, they examine how to cut through the noise and ask the right questions, discuss the ins and outs of covering the White House, and explore what goes into producing effective journalism in an era of information overload. Plus, learn all about Floribama and what journalists could stand to learn from John Mulaney fighting three 14-year-olds.”
 
Here is the show’s "breakdown" of when specific topics are covered during the conversation, so you can jump to the sections that most interest you.  Those time codes are hyperlinked to the video on YouTube and will jump you automatically to the right spot.  But for those who watch it here, this is the schedule.
 
0:00 - Intro
4:55 - Kaitlan Collins Joins
8:50 - Day in the Life of a White House Correspondent
11:44 - Covering Trump vs. Covering Biden
24:58 - The White House Press Can Learn from John Mulaney
31:46 - What Does a Successful Press Interaction Look Like?
34:42 - The Bukele Press Meeting
44:52 - No President should have a Bubble Around Them
52:35 - The Republicans Won't Go Against Trump
59:35 - Trump & Musk's Mutually Assured Self-Destruction
1:02:40 - Has the Conversation Amongst Reporters Changed?
1:05:14 - Breaking Down the Discussion

Tomorrow, Saturday, August 30, Turner Classic Movies is showing a tremendous movie directed, produced and co-written by Billy Wilder, "Ace in the Hole."  It's not one of his best-known films and doesn't get shown a lot, so it's worth sending a notice about.

The movie stars Kirk Douglas and is most-definitely not a comedy.  It's one of his darker films, more in the vein of "Double Indemnity" than "The Apartment" or "Sabrina.

When a man is trapped in a cave-in, a media circus is intentionally created to cash in on public interest and extend the rescue efforts in order to help lengthen national attention, as hucksters and other self-interests gather at the site.  It's a scathing film about human nature and media manipulation, and one of the most remarkable things about the movie is that it was made in 1951, when people got their news from newspapers and radio, long before the importance of TV news took a hold, and many decades before 24-hour news channels and their "Breaking News!" endless coverage was even imagined, almost a half-century far ahead of its time.

TCM's airing starts at 10 PM Eastern time, 7 PM on the West Coast.

Here's the trailer. It gives a very good sense of the tone of the film, but needs to hide a lot of the twists and turns, so it really doesn't do the movie full justice.  The trailer is good -- the movie is riveting, thoughtful and timely, though made almost 75 years ago.  Perhaps more timely today than then.

​A couple of days ago Chief Justice John Roberts made an unexpected statement. It didn't get any attention on TV -- not surprising given how much news there was, though very surprising given that he is, after all, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, so his words are substantive.  What he said was --

​"I'm worried the President is stretching the rubber band of democracy in ways it simply has never been stretched before."
 
I am 100% certain that I am not alone in a wide range of thought instantly popping into one’s head.  And all of them had the same basic theme.  And pretty much all of them likely included the wish that Chief Justice Roberts was there with you at the time so that you could yell your immediate thought to him.
 
I took the more polite route when responding on social media.  Arguably less emotionally satisfying, but potentially more effective if it turned out that the Chief Justice was on TwiXter and read my timeline. 
 
(And yes, I know that’s dancing on the edge of improbable.  But it nonetheless leaves me with a sense of hope, as opposed to teeth-gnashing, head-banging fury, so I went with the former.)
 
What I replied was --

​“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

And I added that, hopefully, Chief Justice Roberts will remember his part in the past and remember his comment now, and when cases come up before the Supreme Court, his worry will help rectify that past so it is not repeated.  Not just in shifting his vote, but also giving his role as Chief Justice an added gravitas that would help convince the two (maybe, possibly, kind of, sometimes three) semi-partly flexible conversative votes.

Mind you, I don't expect this from the Chief Justice, once it comes down to voting, rather than ruminating about how worried he is about stretchy rubber bands, since he's never shown that side of himself all that much.  But, well, he did knowingly say this publicly.  So...
 
As I’ve often said, I live in reality, but I have a vacation home in the Land of Hope.
 
My reaction aside, what I also thought upon reading the comment by Chief Justice Roberts when hearing it was – what on earth could have been going on in his head that lead him to say that?  I’m guessing that once Supreme Court Justices have heard all the arguments, deliberated and voted, then they’ve made up their mind and locked it in and that’s their position.  And it’s terribly flexible.  Yes, there might be some cases where someone is open to more convincing arguments at some point.  But “at some point” seems uncommon, especially those whose politics are best on protecting what they believe is good from the past.  And most especially when that past often goes back 250 years.
 
So, how horrified must John Roberts be to say -- and say publicly -- "I'm worried the President is stretching the rubber band of democracy in ways it simply has never been stretched before."
 
By the way, why he couldn’t have seen that at the time, when he cast his vote to give the presidency (and in this case specifically Trump's presidency) close to a free pass to do pretty much anything he wanted that fell under the purview of presidential responsibilities without fear of ever being sued and face consequences?  If I could easily see then – along with several tens of millions of other Americans – what he is seeing now, it’s almost bewildering that Roberts didn’t back then, as well.

Yet it’s nonetheless stunning to discover that Chief Justice Roberts did actually get to the point where he now, in fact, can see it.  And more shockingly, say so in public.
 
Much as I’d have loved him to say that Trump is breaking the law and undermining the U.S. Constitution in every way imaginable, I know he can’t.  Even if (hopefully) he believes that.  For that matter, even if he doesn't.  Any Justice has to keep the appearance of an open, unbiased mind to sit in judgement of future cases.
 
Here’s hoping, though, that since he was willing to say publicly what he did say, then this means he is at least thinking to himself, “Man, that Trump guy sure appears to be breaking the law and undermining the U.S. Constitution in every way imaginable,  So, the next time a case comes before me that concerns him, his Justice Department lawyers had better have an incredibly great explanation, and one so great that I can’t even imagine it yet, or he is going to lose.  Badly.  Every single time.”
 
Or at least I hope that Chief Justice Roberts is thinking something like that, that touches the concept at its edges.

I don't expect it, but I do hope it.  After all, they were John Roberts' own words.  And public thought.
 
“I'm worried the President is stretching the rubber band of democracy in ways it simply has never been stretched before."

Or been meant to.
 
Justice is blind.  It is never supposed to be fascist.

And the thing is, he should be worried.
 
Welcome to our world.  Finally.
 
Here’s hoping.
​​