Due Process Is Fundamental, and Why We Need Podcast Standards Along With a Trump Bond Tracker
What we can learn from John Adams, Douglas Murray, and the bond market
In today’s newsletter, you’ll find the following:
Why due process in America is fundamental and dates back to the Boston Massacre in 1770
New standards for podcasts, according to Douglas Murray
Why the bond market may be the only check on Donald Trump (and what will likely happen - premium content below)
If you listen to conservative media about the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, you would think it’s all about Garcia — the alleged MS-13 gang member who allegedly beats up his wife and mooches off the U.S. taxpayers. Or that Garcia, who was sent to an El Salvadoran prison because of an administrative error (by the Trump administration’s admission), already received due process despite being shipped off without a hearing. But perhaps my favorite is that Democrats are fighting for Garcia because they have too much “empathy” for a “hardened criminal.”
All of these arguments fall flat for one simple reason: the collective outrage is not about Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Had he simply received a hearing before being deported to El Salvador, you probably wouldn’t know his name. He would be one of many cases before an immigration judge that went through the U.S. justice system.
Except that Garcia did not receive this fundamental right to due process. The outrage directed at this case is about far more than Garcia. It’s about him not receiving what he was due — a standard process where he could defend allegations against him in court and then have his case fairly adjudicated. And most importantly, it’s about the implications this case could have on everyone else.
The shocking reality is that had Garcia simply received due process and still been shipped off to El Salvador, the outcry would have been minimal to nonexistent. But the Trump administration decided to double down.
Instead of remedying their initial mistake (that they initially admitted to), Trump opened the Roy Cohn playbook and hit back harder, refusing to admit wrongdoing. Trump did this even in the face of a Supreme Court opinion that was decided unanimously, including by three justices that he personally appointed, ruling that the Trump administration must “facilitate and effectuate” the return of Garcia.
Basically, the Supreme Court told Trump he wrongfully deported this man, he must find a way to bring him home, and see to it that it happens. Although the court used wishy-washy legalise to say as much, allowing the Trump administration to dance around and play dumb.
But instead of just playing dumb, Trump and many of his supporters have verbally attacked the Supreme Court. They’ve argued that the justices are interfering with Trump’s foreign policy and his ability to secure the borders. What these arguments miss, however, is that Trump can easily do his job while simultaneously giving people on American soil due process.
How do I know this?
Presidents have been able to balance these interests since the dawn of the American republic. In fact, the nation’s second President, John Adams, was a young lawyer when he helped solidify the country’s defense of due process, even when it was wildly unpopular.
Due process and the Boston Massacre
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
Anyone who thinks that Kilmar Abrego Garcia does not deserve due process needs to review how a young John Adams approached the issue in 1770. Tensions were rising in the colonies between the British Crown and the colonists after a series of taxes, including the Stamp Act, were enforced on the colonists who still had no representation in self-government. The colonists started to rebel, particularly in Boston, where one confrontation boiled over between British soldiers, leaving 5 colonists dead.
The British soldiers were put on trial and were seeking legal representation. John Adams stepped forward and agreed to defend them, despite the public pressure and the risks to his career as a young lawyer.
Adams believed that everyone deserved due process and a fair trial, even for those unpopular in the community. Without due process, a fair outcome was unlikely, as the process could easily succumb to the biases and prejudices of whoever ran the particular process.
John Adams set the example and helped solidify the principle that was later enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Adams also proved to be a skilled jurist as he successfully defended the British soldiers, helping 6 get acquitted, and of the 2 convicted of manslaughter, he got them reduced sentences. His self-defense and reasonable doubt arguments had resonated with the jury.
Can you imagine the acquittals of British soldiers happening in 1770s America without due process? Had the British soldiers not been permitted to defend themselves in a fair hearing, the popular pressures of the times would have sent them to prison or worse.
John Adams illustrated that due process is fundamental to American life
It would have been easy for Adams to refuse to represent the British soldiers following the Boston Massacre. The public outrage was intense. Revolution was in the air. Few colonists thought that British soldiers should be given any rights, let alone due process.
But the shift in American society to rule by the people and not some divine monarch was starting to take hold. Future founding fathers like John Adams were trying to lead not only by rhetoric but also by example that certain principles of fairness were fundamental to a government by the people and for the people. Due process was one of the chief rights of fairness.
It reasonably ensured that no matter who a person was, where they came from, what they did for a living, or how they lived, they would receive the same standard process as anyone else. They would have an opportunity to defend themselves against the government and be afforded adequate representation when doing so.
These are rights of free people empowered by self-government. They are also some of the first rights that authoritarian governments remove for a simple reason — they don’t want any adjudication process to be fair. They want to dictate the terms.
So for anyone in support of the Trump administration’s handling of the Garcia case, please answer this question — if the tables were turned and a Democrat was in power who was sending MAGA Republicans to Latin American prisons without due process, would you be happy? Would you be comfortable in America knowing that someone who disagrees with you politically had the power to make you disappear?
Thankfully, we have the example from one of America’s founding fathers, John Adams. He put any personal animosity aside to show a future country what’s possible when elevating fairness and freedom for all.
We need standards for podcasts
The quote above comes from the following New York Post article written by Douglas Murray, who recently made waves on Joe Rogan’s podcast. Murray debated a comedian named Dave Smith, but he made a point of calling out Rogan from the outset. He challenged Joe to explain whether he thinks about the consequences of platforming certain people or certain ideas more than others.
What Murray did more than anything was reveal how podcasts and much of the “new media” today are woefully lacking in standards. Not only that, but many podcasts are happy to invite people with controversial views because those views drive engagement more than standard opinions.
Do you think listeners/viewers question how balanced or authentic the perspectives are? Do you think they treat Joe Rogan’s podcast any differently than standard mainstream outlets like the New York Times?
While I doubt that Rogan and others will be hiring powerful executive producers anytime soon to check their behavior, Murray’s criticisms are valid points that all of us need to keep in mind.
I fear that we’ll fail miserably at this, however, because many of us have forgotten how to think critically. Or in this age of endless content, where liberal arts have taken a backseat to more lucrative areas like STEM, perhaps many of us were never taught how to think critically properly in the first place.
I fear that Murray is right that the consequences of this new media will be far greater than what the old media could have dreamed of. We are already witnessing it play out in real time.
The bond market may be the only check on Trump — how to anticipate it
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to PolisPandit to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.