Link: https://www.telos.news/p/ryan-lizza-talks-to-former-federal
Please see the link above for the source text.
Trump’s lawlessness
Michael Luttig and Ryan Lizza
May 2, 2025
"It would be impossible to say, after Donald Trump's first 100 days in office, that America has a government of laws, not of men.”
Transcript
Hey everyone, I'm Ryan Lizzo with TELUS News, and I have an excellent guest today, one of my favorite observers of what is going on in the country, one of the most important writers about Trump and the legal issues that we all need to pay attention to, and that is Judge Michael Ludig.
Judge, let me just give a quick introduction. He served for 15 years. as a federal judge. And I think a lot of people know Ludwig from his testimony before the January 6th committee. But he has been for a long time now, one of the most trenchant and important observers and critics of Trump, his administration.
And I think it's okay to use this word, his lawlessness. But if that's not correct, judge, you will correct me. Um, and one of my favorite people, uh, to, to talk to. So, uh, judge, thank you for doing this.
Thank you, uh, Ryan, for having me on. It's, it's been some time since we've seen each other and, and, uh, it's just, uh, I, I welcome you to your, your new platform and, uh, I couldn't be any happier for you. It gets you back into the business of driving the news rather than curating the news. And from my vantage point, that's where you belong.
Well, thank you. One of my earliest paid subscribers is Michael Ludig.
So, you know, do like Ludig. And, you know, if you haven't done so yet, pay for a subscription. All right, Judge, we got a lot of serious stuff to get through. You have a forthcoming, a major piece that's in the pipeline.
I know you're working on some fact checking and getting it finished. And, um, we were corresponding offline with some of the, some of the things you're going to, you're, you're going to get to in that piece. Um, and I'm going to, I'm just going to ask your permission, judge.
Is it okay for me to read the first line of that? Or do you want to save that for, uh, uh, for the, no, go ahead. No, go ahead. Because I just, I think this sets up our conversation quite well. Um, you say, um, For not one of his signature initiatives during his first hundred days in office, does Donald Trump even have the authority under the Constitution and laws of the United States? And then you go through, by my count, 15 different items that he does not have. the authority under the constitution laws of the United States for.
Um, it's a remarkable list when you put it all together and I cannot wait to read this article. Um, but let's, let's do a little preview of a judge. And I want to start with number one on your list. Um, not for the crippling global tariffs he ordered unilaterally. Let's talk about that.
Yes. We'll be glad to, uh, Ryan, uh, I was asked to write a piece on the rule of law and Donald Trump during the president's first 100 days. And I was honored to accept that invitation. And I expect the piece to come out in the next day or two.
It was an interesting vignette for your listeners and viewers. I began the article only maybe 10 days ago and three or four days into it, I told the people I was writing it for that I just couldn't even do this because every single day there were three or four major,
major issues of law and constitutional law that came up and I would end up having to rewrite on that day everything that I had written the day before. And I said, we just have to wait until there's at least a hiatus of two or three days or we'll never get this out the door.
And then two days later, Trump did something, and I returned and said, look, let's do this, and I'll get you a draft as quickly as I can. But that kind of is a setup for that first sentence of one of the paragraphs, early
paragraphs in the piece.
And, of course, Ryan, you know, and I hope your viewers know that I don't put a single word down on a piece of paper or speak a single word that I can't back up, okay?
I do know that.
And so when I say that for not one of his signature initiatives does he have constitutional authority or authority under the laws of the United States, I mean just that. So I've read, you know, many of the briefs that have been filed challenging those actions.
And I've, of course, reviewed the court decisions that have disposed of those claims to date. And then, you know, I came up with my own conclusions of law like I always do. And that conclusion was that for not one of these signature items does the president have authority. So let's start with the tariffs, which are, you know,
the president has unilaterally ordered crippling global tariffs that threaten global to bring on inflation and recession, not just domestically, but globally. And so today, several months later, uh, you know, the world is roiled by Donald Trump's unilateral imposition of those, those tariffs. Now on the law, um,
The Congress of the United States is given the authority in the Constitution to levy taxes and tariffs. Now, in this instance, not in this instance, years ago, Congress delegated some authority in limited circumstances to a president to order tariffs in an emergency. And If the president does that, the tariffs that he orders must be very narrow.
very tightly circumscribed to the particular emergency. In fact, the law seems to contemplate tariffs against a single country, for instance, and then those tariffs are to be very limited in duration. So there's no question at all that Donald Trump does not have the authority under the particular statute delegating him authority. It's the IEPA.
to order the sweeping tariffs that he did. And that's just the first example in that list of mine.
And I believe next Tuesday, a week from yesterday, the first will be the first significant court action challenging those tariffs. If I could ask you
one kind of wonky question about that, Judge, not to get too in the weeds, but it's being challenged, if I've got this right, under the major questions doctrine. Yeah.
Um, is that, what can you tell us about that? And is, is that sort of, is that, um, you know, if you were serving as a federal judge, looking at this case, is that the, is that the way you would, um, uh, is that the, is the major questions doctrine, the, the, the right way to challenge his use of the IEPA or is it something simpler than that?
Well, that's a very astute question, Ryan, and it's both more complicated but ultimately simpler for this reason, that the plaintiffs are challenging him first under the IEPA.
They're saying that there's not an emergency. There's not an emergency, okay? Right, right. Now, in adjudicating that claim, any court would have to address the so-called major questions doctrine that was set down by the Supreme Court several years ago. In essence, that holds that for any major question of the allocation of power between Congress and the president, Congress must have spoken exceedingly clearly about in order for the president to have the power and authority that he claims. Now, how is that relevant here? Well, it's very relevant for this reason. The IEPA doesn't even mention tariffs. No president of the United States has ever invoked the IEPA to order tariffs. And that's for all good reasons. That's kind of astonishing.
That's actually just astonishing. That's the way to wrap that point up. It's astonishing. But we should say that for all of these assertions of power, the constitutional and legal arguments that Donald Trump is making— border on the frivolous. And most of them are contemptuous of the Constitution and the laws of the United States.
I want to, I'm glad you mentioned that because I wanted to mention, um, there was a decision, an opinion out of Colorado, uh, yesterday and forgive me because I don't have the judge's name at my fingertips. Um, but it's on the issue that I wanted to talk about next.
Um, and in this opinion, um, which is similar to a lot of opinions, you really just, um, uh, She kind of has the same tone that you just had with the Trump administration's lawyers saying that their arguments are just not even worth her time reviewing.
I just want to read it and see if you can help us unpack what she's saying here. Respondents' arguments are threadbare costumes for their core contention, which she quotes thusly. as for whether the acts preconditions are satisfied, that is the president's call alone. The federal courts do not have a role to play.
The act at issue here is of course the, um, uh, the, uh, The Alien Enemies Act. Yeah, AEA, the Alien Enemies Act. I keep getting that wrong. She goes on to say, this sentence staggers. It is wrong as a matter of law and attempts to read an entire provision out of the Constitution.
The court declines respondents' invitation to engage in such a revisionist exercise. And then I like this, her citation, her first citation here is, you know, see U.S. Constitution Article 3, Section 1.
Yeah, no. And this is exactly what I was talking about. And the first thing that must be said is that the federal courts across the land are beginning to understand what's afoot with Donald Trump.
Yeah.
As each one of these courts listens to his claims about the Constitution and the laws of the United States, the federal judges across the country are flabbergasted that the president would even make such absurd arguments. Now, turning to the Colorado case in particular, let me diagram that passage quickly. So this case is a case involving...
one of the deportations uh of of uh immigrants some of them illegal some not uh to the united states uh this has probably been his um most spectacular uh initiative uh because it's aimed at ridding the nation of of its uh illegal immigrants uh But it's also been one of his most spectacular failures.
The same could be said, Ryan, about his tariffs. But as to the deportations, the president has invoked the Alien Enemies Act, which requires an emergency. an invasion, an invasion of the United States. And Donald Trump, the president of the United States, has gone into the
courts of the United States and says the United States has been invaded by this handful of illegal immigrants from Venezuela, for instance. Well, the argument's laughable. And he knows what he's doing. And he's got the full-throated support of the Attorney General of the United States who is telling him that these arguments are credible. When, in fact, not only are they incredible, they're contemptuous of the federal courts.
and of the Constitution of the United States. But the reference to Article III, just so your viewers can understand it, is what that judge was saying is that Donald Trump wants to read out of the Constitution Article III, which establishes the federal judiciary, as the final interpreter of the Constitution.
But the judge's statement was hacked because not just in these Alien Enemy Act cases, but, for instance, in the tariff cases, the executive order cases against the law firms, Donald Trump is literally, as a matter of constitutional law, is asserting the power to interpret the Constitution of the United States. Nothing short of that, Ryan.
I think you talked about this recently. Is there a kind of legal... brain in the last few decades that he is drawing on at all is or is this just um you know is this just totally uh making it up as they as they go along is there any
kind of intellectual framework when these guys when when these judges are going before these courts and saying no you don't even have the power to review this decision um so you know we shouldn't even be here well the
I don't know what's inside the president's mind, and I will not report to, but I doubt that he has any idea what he's saying or what his lawyers are saying. Now, what his lawyers are saying to the lawyer, Ryan, at this point, is that the federal courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, does not have the power to review these actions by the president. That runs through... Yes.
You've reviewed all of these... Yes. ...violence.
That runs through them all. Yes. And that argument is grounded in
constitutional doctrine and Supreme Court cases for almost 250 years. But... The general doctrine is only that in national security matters, national security matters, there are times, very, very few in number throughout our history, where the president wants to take action in defense of the nation.
The Supreme Court has held that in those very limited instances, Ryan, the courts cannot sit in judicial review of those very limited decisions. Contrast that with the arguments that Trump's made in his first 100 days. Not one single one of them falls into that strain of constitutional interpretation that you identified.
Right. So he's declaring emergencies, trying to use the idea of national security and having the lawyers go into court and saying, you know, this is not reviewable because it's part of this subset of issues that you talk about as very, very narrow issues. Um,
and he's trying to sort of blow a hole in that kind of judicial loophole, you might call it for, for, for lay people.
Yes. Yeah. Yes. And that brings to mind the executive orders that, that, that, that utterly corrupt. Let's go through those. Yeah. Executive orders that the president has issued against the nation's law firms and individual lawyers.
Yeah.
That it began with Perkins Cooley and, uh, And for that, I would just cite your viewers to a single paragraph in the Williams and Conley brief in support of Perkins Coie. I don't have it here in front of me, but it's one of the most remarkable paragraphs that has ever been written in all of
American history in a brief before a federal court. And Williams and Conley just ticks off like the paragraph that I sent you that has in front of me, but as to executive orders, They have a paragraph just like that, Ryan, that says the president's executive order against Perkins Coie violates the First Amendment for this reason.
It violates the 14th Amendment for this reason. It violates the Fifth Amendment for this reason. It violates the Sixth Amendment for this reason. It violates literally the separation of powers for this reason. And you can expect to see that paragraph quoted in this article that I'm going
to do. Judge,
on this one, I personally was, and I think a lot of people who are not in big law, were astonished that some of these firms decided not to fight this, not to sue, which you think these law firms are pretty good at suing, and decided to cut these deals as well. What's your view of that? Yeah. you,
you have a particularly, um, uh, you, you, you know, so many of these characters, you know, some of these firms by, by reputation. So you process the fact that in the beginning, most of them were willing to sort of back down, cut deals.
Yeah, Ryan, it, it, it was, uh, offensive, uh, the, the, the four or five or six firms now that, were some of the so-called big law firms, by which is meant big New York law firms and or Washington law firms. And, you know, it began with Paul Weiss.
And, you know, Paul Weiss, they sold out their own lawyers and, They sold out their own clients. They sold out their sister law firms who had also been subject to targeting executive orders by the president. They sold out the legal profession. And ultimately...
Ryan, they sold out the rule of law in America solely to protect their own partner draws. And of course, two or three or four law firms chose a different path at great cost to the firms and to their lawyers, but that's because those firms believe in the Constitution and the rule of law,
and they made the decision that I would have made, which is, you know, I would have spent my last penny if that's what it took to challenge this palpable unconstitutional act by the president. And it's not just, uh, unconstitutional and unlawful, uh, Ryan, as, as you know, uh, this, this is,
this is pure personal vendetta against these law firms and, and their clients and, and lawyers that were there in the past. And, uh, Never before in American history has a president, as much as, it never has occurred to a president to do something like this. And of course, Donald Trump has ignored the federal courts on that.
And because he knows that whether a court ever agrees with him or not, he will have achieved his objective, which was to ruin the these law firms,
and the individual lawyers, like, not lawyer, but honorable American citizens like Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor. This is unforgivable stuff, Ryan. Tell us about,
Judge, on those two, what's the legal argument about... I mean, politically, they're just... awful and disgraceful. And I never thought I would see the day where a White House executive order just targeted an American because the president didn't like the person. But legally, you call them the corrupt executive orders against honorable American citizens and former officials.
You cite the ones citing Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor. What's the case that those are illegal?
Okay, I thought you were going to ask me what was Trump's case. Well, I can answer that faster. The president has, not only does he have no constitutional authority or authority under statutory law, this is corrupt under the Constitution. and under the laws of the United States.
If a president in the past would have issued one of these executive orders of personal vendetta, that would have been, you know, ample grounds for impeachment.
You think so? You think that itself is an abusive power that should bring the impeachment power to bear on it?
Oh, my God, of course. I mean, let's just think out loud about that for a moment. The President of the United States levels his own presidential powers and the powers of the entire federal government. against an individual citizen because he doesn't like them.
Now, in the case of Chris Krebs, for instance, if the story can be worse, it is, right? Chris Krebs worked for Donald Trump, and his only sin against Donald Trump was that he didn't agree with Donald Trump that the election had been stolen from the president in 2020. Well, the only one that believes that that election was stolen from Donald Trump is Donald Trump and his own sycophants. And here is Donald Trump, however many years later, issuing an executive order throwing the weight of the entire federal government against this one former administration official of his because he dared to say that
the election was not stolen from Donald Trump. That's a high crime or misdemeanor within the meaning of the impeachment clauses without any question.
All right. Um, There's a lot to get through, so I want to move on to your view of... You're going to write about Trump's appearance at the Justice Department and that speech he made, which if people remember, if viewers remember, it ended with his campaign song, YMCA, being played at the end.
There's a lot to unpack with his relationship with the Justice Department, but What worries you or concerns you the most about that?
Well, the event itself tells the whole story. I mean, very few presidents... have ever gone to the Department of Justice to give a speech or remarks. And when they have, it's always been on a special occasion of honor at the Department of Justice or a particularly important signal event in the country at the time.
And no President of the United States would ever even have thought on any of those occasions to say a political word. Fast forward to Donald Trump, and he stood in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice and desecrated the Department of Justice with every word he spoke.
As you know, it was really an event for him to officially weaponize the Department of Justice against his personal enemies. And that's almost a direct quote from Donald Trump, as you know. So we don't have a Department of Justice today, Ryan. The Department of Justice is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Oval Office.
It's that bad. You must know people at the Department of Justice. Do you have any personal experience with sort of what some of the lawyers there that stuck around are experiencing?
No. Donald Trump, the first thing that the Attorney General did was get rid of all the good lawyers that followed the law and obey the law and believe in the constitutional laws of the United States. And they hired the kind of people that are making the arguments in front of the federal courts that we were just discussing.
And, you know, to no surprise, those lawyers, Brian, you can't even imagine how offensive and contemptuous the Department of Justice
lawyers are, to the federal judges' faces, in court, never, ever before has one single government lawyer spoken the way spoken to judges the way all of these have and as
you you you know or may know you know one of the their lawyers who told the truth in response to a direct question from the federal judge was summarily fired or suspended i don't know if they've been fired yet the judge who said that they made a mistake yes yes in the yeah yeah Thank you for doing this, Judge. This is incredibly informative. I said at the beginning that there's 15 different things on your list that you're going to write about in this article that you argue are all unconstitutional. And one of them I think that might surprise people,
because this one seems a little bit more up for debate by some of the scholars, but is the, and maybe I'm totally wrong about that, but you write his threats to fire Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jay Powell. I think a lot of us are struggling with this issue of independent agencies and the independence of the Federal Reserve.
And there seems to be a lot of, you know, legal commentators out there who think that maybe the Supreme Court will be sympathetic to Trump's arguments on this. Unpack the big issues when it comes to the Fed's independence. And do you draw a line between the Fed and some of these other independent agencies?
Or is it the same deal, you know, with, you know, pick your other independent agency that he's decided to take over.
Ryan, you are so smart and smart in the law.
This is why I like interviewing you because you always flatter me, but I don't know whether I trust you anymore when you say that, Judge, but anyway, I appreciate that.
No, so there is no scholar, there is no lawyer who would disagree with my statement today. that it is unconstitutional to fire Jay Powell of the Federal Reserve. Anyone who speaks further on the issue... would discuss the issue of the independent agencies and whether the law ought to be different. Got it.
Got it. No debate now about it being illegal. Right. Not at all. Given the current law.
Right. And so, again, for your viewers and listeners, what's at issue here is... statute, a Supreme Court case, Humphrey's Executor, which was decided in 1935. And that was the landmark case in which the Supreme Court held that the chairman or members of a so-called independent agency could only be removed for cause. Okay. Now,
That decision has applied to every independent agency and department since, up to and including the Federal Reserve. Now, so Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to overrule Humphrey's executor, and that's long been an issue for the conservative movement. Ryan and a legitimate issue. Okay. Um,
and if it's entirely possible that this Supreme court will agree with the president, uh, as to some of the independent departments and agencies, uh, I don't believe it will ever agree with respect to the Federal Reserve Board, for instance. But I don't take any position on it except this. We don't know.
There were no such things as independent departments and agencies at the time of the founding or the framing of the Constitution. But If the founders had known that the federal government would come to have independent departments and agencies, as it has in the 250 years since our founding,
the one thing I am certain of is that the founders would have forbidden this particular president from ever having control over the Federal Reserve because of his irresponsibility. And I've often thought over the past few weeks, being the lawyer that I am, that Donald Trump has been making, pro se,
the most compelling argument that could ever be made to the Supreme Court. Never. to overrule Humphrey's executors.
In other words, a court that might be sympathetic to that might have second thoughts just because who the president is right now and how he might use that power.
Absolutely. The other way to think of it, and this is the substantive way to think about it, is that they are witnessing in real time what it would mean
to give a president control over the Federal Reserve. I don't know any judge, any judge that I've ever known in my life of the hundreds and hundreds that would ever let this president have control over the Federal Reserve, Ryan.
Judge, I know you got to go. I want to talk about one other thing, though, before you go. And you were one of the signatories on a letter this week, over 150 former state and federal judges condemning the arrest of Judge Hannah Dugan, I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly, in Wisconsin. Yeah.
tell let me tell us about your views on that arrest and just to play you know devil's advocate people can get mad at me but um uh i mean if judges break the law uh obviously they should be uh you know they should have the same consequences uh as as anyone else i think we all agree on that um what was so disturbing about this case no in a No one would disagree with you. If a judge breaks the law, the judge should, uh, be held responsible for that. Just like a president of the United States, Ryan. Now, well, the hypocrisy is, is almost incomprehensible, right? Um, But this was, in my view, a setup. It was televised. They arrested Judge Dugan, handcuffed her, and walked her out to the waiting FBI or other automobile, I guess, and took her down for booking.
Yeah, she was shackled and had a full booking experience, I understand. Yeah,
and every bit of that was contrary to Department of Justice practice and policy in the past. But no one cares today at the Department of Justice about practice or policy, right?
In other words, you wouldn't do that? What was their special guidelines for judges? No, no, no, for everybody.
Just think common sense to begin with. I mean, the guidelines are commonsensical, but you don't shackle someone who's done what they allegedly said she did. You know where she is. She's a sitting federal judge. She's not going to resist arrest. There was no reason whatsoever to
handcuff her or shackle her, and there was no reason whatsoever to do any of it, including the arrest. So what did they arrest her for and charge her with? Okay, so the facts are these, the relevant facts are these. There was an immigrant, illegal immigrant, I guess, I don't know, uh, uh, before her on misdemeanor charges. And, uh, and the, uh, and, and the immigrant and his, and his lawyer in the courtroom as this, the relevant event, events began to unfold. So, uh, as I understand it from the criminal complaint and affidavit, uh, Judge Dugan motioned and mouthed for the immigrant and his lawyer to come with her and come out of her courtroom through the jury door.
And then it appears that either Judge Dugan walked them down a very, very short hall to the public hallway in front of her courtroom. Or she just pointed to the door and said, that's the public hallway. Regardless, the immigrant and his lawyer ended up in the public hallway in front of Judge Dugan's courtroom, exactly where they would have ended up had the immigrant and his lawyer exited through the front door of her courtroom. And indeed, the agents were waiting for him there as Judge Dugan knew they were. And in fact, one of the agents rode down the elevator with the immigrant and his lawyer.
And so on those facts, they arrested a sitting judge and they charged her with obstructing a federal proceeding, I suppose the arrest, I do not believe that that's what was contemplated by that statute at all. It's analogous. I don't want to get into the weeds, but it's very analogous.
It could be the same statute for all I know that was at issue with the January 6 rioters. where the federal district court, and I think affirmed by the Supreme Court held it, that the riot wasn't trying to impede a proceeding within the meeting of that statute. Right.
That threw out a lot of the cases. That threw out a lot of the cases against the many January 6th defendants.
That's right. Now, I comment on this. Well, let me finish. And the second charge, and these are felony criminal charges, Ryan, felony criminal charges, for goodness sakes, against this sitting state judge. The other
one was that she tried to harbor a fugitive from justice. That is, their argument is that she was trying to escape him from the courthouse so that he could not be seen and arrested by the federal agents. Well, that's laughable. The judge knew everything about the case before she entered her courtroom. She knew the agents were out there to arrest him. And as I said, she exited him through a different door, but a door that went into the same public hallway in front of her room. It's hard to think of anything worse except the Pam Bondi statement. Pam Bondi, if I were still sitting, I would use her statements. to dismiss the charges, the Attorney General of the United States of America, Ryan, goes on national TV and says, you know, our judges, some of our judges are deranged and they're unwilling to follow the law. That's, you know, that's guilty evidence of motive and intention, in my view.
You believe this arrest of Judge Dugan was related to the general judicial review in a way that is not racking up a lot of victories for the Trump administration? Do you think the two things are related?
No question. No one can suggest otherwise, right? As I've said publicly for two months now, Donald Trump instigated a war on the federal judiciary, the Constitution, and the rule of law on his first day in office. And he's been prosecuting that war with a vengeance in front of the world ever since. And,
and part of that war is, is quite obvious to everyone, uh, threatening and, uh, intimidating the federal judges. Uh, I mean, Donald Trump himself, it's called called for the, uh, impeachment of judge Bosberg, I think. And, uh, and, His sidekick, Elon Musk, called for the impeachment of every federal judge that rules against Donald Trump and his administration.
I mean, you don't have to read between the lines to understand what's going on. And you add to that the fact that the president himself has directly defied Trump. Supreme Court, an order from the Supreme Court of the United States to facilitate the release of Abrego Garcia. And there's really just no question about what's going on.
The only story that ought to be written is the fact that it is going on and no one, no Republican seems to care one whit.
This is an astonishing article that you have coming, Judge. And I think when people read it, especially people in the media who are treating some of these cases, some of these decisions by Trump as just, you know, could be illegal, maybe not, who knows?
Just the way that you go through each of these with a great deal of care and precision and explain how there is no legal basis for the action, how they are unconstitutional. A few that we didn't get to, you talk about Elon Musk and Doge's ravaging of the federal government, the mass firings of federal employees,
his assault on the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship guarantee, his his attempt to alter the rules for federal elections. I think that executive order has been really undercovered. And his impoundment of billions of dollars of congressionally approved funds, his unlawful bludgeoning of the nation's colleges and universities.
You go through all of these in this article and explain how there's no constitutional basis for them at all. I obviously haven't read it at all, but this discussion and some of our offline discussion, it's just an astonishing um litany of constitutional abuses and judge i know the you know the courts are
sorting a lot of this out but what's having written this piece having read all of the the filings and opinions and the backs and the back and forths in these many many cases um and and come to these conclusions what What do you fear? What do you worry about, medium to long term, with what's going on?
And what gives you some confidence that we'll steer the ship back in a more legal, constitutional, sane direction?
Well, let me start at the end. I don't have any confidence at all today, Ryan, that we will come out the other side of this. What I do know today is that it would be impossible to say, after Donald Trump's first 100 days in office, that America has a government of laws, not of men.
And that's saying a lot.
That's an incredibly depressing statement, especially from someone like you, Judge, who I know you're not hyperbolic. I've had these conversations with you over the years. I hope readers, listeners, viewers
pay close attention to what you're saying because you're sounding the alarm here in a way that is really important for people to hear. Thanks for coming on here.
Thanks for previewing this article. When it comes out, I'll make sure my audience has full access and reads it. And thanks for doing this. And I hope to talk to you very soon, Judge. Really appreciate it.
Thank you, Ryan. And again, congratulations on your new job. That's exactly where you were meant to be.
I appreciate it. I'm going to be drawing on your wisdom and expertise quite a bit in the coming weeks. So I'll talk to you soon, Judge. Take care. Anytime. Thank you. All right. Bye-bye now.