Chapters
Shownotes Transcript
This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Forget the frustration of picking commerce platforms when you switch your business to Shopify, the global commerce platform that supercharges your selling wherever you sell. With Shopify, you'll harness the same intuitive features, trusted apps, and powerful analytics used by the world's leading brands. Sign up today for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash tech, all lowercase. That's shopify.com slash tech.
Well, welcome to the Jason and the House podcast. I really appreciate you taking time to join us. I know you're going to enjoy this one because the conversation we're about to have with Margo is just really, really neat. Margo Cleveland is an incredibly talented person. I mean, she has done a lot in her life. She is an investigative journalist.
a legal analyst and serves as the Federalist Senior Legal Correspondent. Her background, if you're not familiar with the Federalist, it really is a great source of some incredibly in-depth, smart, conservative analysis. And there's a reason why
They get suppressed a lot on social media because they're over the target more often than not talking about things that really matter. And I'm really excited to talk to Margo Cleveland about her, her background, what she sees, what she does and how she does it. And so when I have that conversation. But first, we're going to talk a little bit about the news, things that maybe got overshadowed with the whole.
Trump trial and everything else. And then highlight the stupid, because as we like to say here, there's always somebody doing something stupid somewhere. All right. So one of the things I'm really frustrated about, and, you know, I don't care where you're at with foreign aid and whatnot, but
I really do worry about our ability to do basic things within our military, the Corps of Engineers, whoever's involved and engaged. I really get worried about our readiness, right? We have to be able to fight on two fronts at any given time.
As well as defend the homeland. And under Joe Biden, it's really tough to point to anything that was successful along the way. There's a article out on Fox News dot com. And here's the headline. Former MSNBC anchor trashes Biden after three hundred and twenty million dollar Gaza pier falls apart. What a bloody S show. Not a nice phrase. Yeah.
So think about it, your taxpayer dollars, our taxpayer dollars, my taxpayer dollars, they wanted to get aid into Gaza. So they put together a $320 million peer that lasted exactly one week.
And it wasn't because it was blown up. It wasn't because there was some bomb. It wasn't something that went off. It was the idea that the water got a little choppy. Now, this is a pier going into the ocean. The idea being that ships and other supply vessels could pull up and they could unload it. But now, if you look at it a week later, basically a third of it is left.
Two thirds of it is just gone, just obliterated because we couldn't somehow figure out how to quickly build a peer. Now, look, I'm not claiming to be a military expert on how to build peers, but it seems like a core competency that our military should have to to to be able to do. And as this former MSNBC anchor says, if this was Donald Trump and he was the president, they'd be all over talking about his incompetency.
And the question is, OK, so what is our president doing about it or not doing about it? Again, we can have all discussions about aid and Gaza and all that. But if the decisions made to build the pier and spend $320 million, you would think that would withstand a little bit of a test of time. This wasn't like we were trying to build miles into the ocean. This literally was just an absolute, total, complete embarrassment to
And something that...
You get concerned about. I also get really concerned about our ability to protect the homeland. You know, Homeland Security is in charge of the border. They're in charge of a lot of things, including the Secret Service and others. And you you look at the incompetency there. Remember, for three years, they told us that the border was safe. It was secure. And then they said, oh, well, you know, but it can't be fixed unless there's legislation that passes. Wait a second.
President Biden did nearly 100 executive orders to undo what Donald Trump had done. Donald Trump was actually making it successful and work. Then they so they undo all that. They've had this open border policy and people are flowing in by the millions, millions and thousands of people that are on these various lists that we're concerned about are flowing over our borders.
It just begs the question, are we really prepared? If we can't build a pier in the Middle East, can we really be prepared to properly protect ourselves in the homeland? Now, I'm not saying that this was a quote unquote terrorist attack by a known entity outside of our by a known terrorist group.
There was a machete attack in New York's premier tourist attraction, which left somebody injured. And that would be Times Square. Now, I go to Times Square pretty often. But this is West 45th Street and Broadway in the middle of the day with a machete. Now, I feel for the police. There are thousands upon thousands of people going there at any given moment.
But an unidentified man was stabbed in both legs and taken to Bellevue Hospital, said to be in stable condition. I hope he continues to be OK. But it does beg the question, are we able on a consistent and regular basis to protect our homeland? It's just a matter of time till you've tied together all the problems and challenges, the loose border policies, the opening up of our border policies.
to all kinds of things and they're not just necessarily going to be trying to you know blow up some building they're going to be rapes and duis and and all kinds of nefarious activity that happens as a consequence i heard democrats say oh well statistically people that are here legally are safer to live by the people that are here legally are you kidding me what an affront
to U.S. American citizens. And the very first thing they did was break the law. So don't tell me that they're just crystal clean record, the epitome of the perfect neighbor. That is absolutely not true. All right, time to talk about something else. Time to talk about the stupid, because you know what? There's always somebody doing something stupid somewhere. ♪
All right, from the crack staff that we have here, one of the great producers sent me these and she's spot on. She's absolutely right. These definitely qualify as bringing on the stupid. So the first one here, this is the great headline. It's coming out of Canada. A Canadian driver gets cell phone ticket while using McDonald's app in drive-thru.
So it's illegal to use your cell phone while you're in the car. It's unclear, may have been actually on the phone on his way to the McDonald's, but actually gets a ticket while in the drive-thru. Of course, he's behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, but in the drive-thru of a McDonald's,
Gets a ticket, cell phone ticket. Gonna have to pay that one. Ouch, ouch, ouch. All right, the second one, this is classic. You know, when I was growing up, and I'm older than probably most of you listening here, okay? When I was growing up, I learned how to drive a stick shift, manual transmission. Now, my kids, they didn't learn it. My wife knows how to drive one.
But this is classic. A woman, evidently, this is according to the East Idaho News, attempted to steal a car, but it didn't go so well because she couldn't drive a stick shift. Maybe one of the details, you know, most people, they jump in a car these days, it's an automatic. Maybe you jump into a Tesla and you're trying to figure out how does that work? You don't have your, you know, phone next to you. And so you're not going to be able to steal it.
But, you know, if you don't know how to drive a stick and suddenly you jump in a car to try to steal it, and guess what? It's a stick. You're not going to be able to figure that on the fly by watching some YouTube video in just a moment's notice. So my kids, they don't know how to drive sticks. They probably should teach them how to. They are a fun way to drive, and I hope we don't lose it. But
Ah, Colorado woman attempting to steal a car. Maybe you should look and see if it's a stick as opposed to an automatic. That's the stupid. It's time to bring on Margo Cleveland. She is a super talented, wicked smart person. So let's dial up and have a conversation with Margo Cleveland.
Jason, it's Margo Cleveland. How are you? Thank you so much for picking up and answering the phone. I always worry with caller ID whether or not my guests are going to say, yeah, I got better things to do. But I appreciate you picking up. Thanks so much for having me.
No, I really do appreciate it. I don't think there is another topic out there that's... You look at all the array of topics that we're going to get into in the world. This is a really important topic. And I want to give people an overview of the issue that is at hand because...
There's a real, real concerted effort by our government to do some pretty nefarious things that I think are so fundamentally, totally wrong. You're an expert in this. Explain to us what's happening, why it's wrong and what you're doing about it. So what is happening in the short is that our government is doing everything it can to decide who speaks, what they speak about, who can hear the speech and
And what topics and viewpoints are appropriate? So that's kind of the bottom line. But the bigger picture is how they're doing this.
And probably for the last year since the Twitter files broke, people have heard the phrase the censorship industrial complex, which is an interaction between various actors in the government and actors in the private sector. And I'm using some air quotes around private here because really it's a revolving door. You are seeing the folks that are doing this.
work with Google and with Meta and other organizations coming straight from the government and straight from parts of the government that are looking at technology and what they call disinformation. And what they're doing together is deciding what type of speech is appropriate for Americans to hear. And they're doing this under the guise of protecting Americans. And
And when you hear that, it depends on what you mean by protecting Americans. I would think we could all agree that if it is terrorists discussing how to commit terrorist attacks, that's a great thing that our government should be fighting. And that's actually how it started.
But we quickly slid from fighting terrorism to combating violence to protecting kids from violence.
challenges about jumping out of windows you heard one of the supreme court justices posing that to protecting our democracy which frankly at that point meant anything that the democrats think is good and anything they think is bad and to silencing that okay so let's go back for those that aren't as ingrained as maybe you and i are in this topic because i'm very keenly involved
and aware of how manipulative and how fundamentally totally wrong it is that our government is using our taxpayer dollars to suppress free speech in this country. So let's go back to the quote-unquote Twitter files, and let's remind people what the so-called Twitter files were, because I can tell you personally, I have experienced the suppression process
of my comments on some of these platforms including the Twitter of old. And until Elon Musk came along and acquired the company and opened it up,
and exposed what was going on, there was a lot of suspicion but not as many facts. How did you see the quote-unquote Twitter files? Because those files really revealed, I mean, shocking information about the coordination between the government and this so-called private entity to manipulate people into what they saw and what they heard.
So the Twitter files was after, as you mentioned, Musk took over Twitter, bought it out, and he opened up some internal conversations, internal documents to some journalists. And what those documents showed was a hand-in-glove relationship between the government and the social media companies where people,
At the least offensive end, the government was asking nicely for things to be taken down. At the most offensive end, they were threatening regulation, threatening, swearing, cursing, demanding things be removed. And
It's really important to recognize that the social media companies were in some cases going along because of the threats, other times going along because it was easier, other times going along because they thought that the government was right and that this was a good thing. So the types of things that we saw censored, I think this is really important because it illustrates the problem when the government is deciding truth.
is they censored truthful information about COVID, vaccines, the risk of COVID, the origins of COVID. And they censored the Hunter Biden laptop story, which was 100% true and accurate and revealed Joe Biden's relationship with the Biden family pay to play story.
Business, which would have impacted the election. So the Twitter files showed that and they revealed how the government was involved in that. But that actually is only a component of it.
One of the things that I did after the Twitter files and was seeing all of this is I started to look at what the federal government grants were and was able to unwind more of this complex or kind of draw a map out. And you were seeing our government giving grants to organizations that that was its purpose. And
And one of the things that we discovered along the way is that the State Department and its Global Disinformation, excuse me, not its Global Disinformation Index, its Global Engagement Center were acting as kind of the hub and coordinating all of this.
And the lawsuit that the Federalist and the Daily Wire brought against the State Department, which we might have a chance to talk about today, that lawsuit revealed in great detail how the State Department was promoting all of these censorship technologies, acting almost as if they were sales reps, right?
for organizations like NewsGuard and GDI that were seeking to silence, censor, deplatform, demonetize conservative outlets at the bottom of the analysis here.
So we're talking with Margo Cleveland. I should have mentioned earlier, you're the senior legal correspondent for The Federalist, which is such a great outlet and constantly suppressed along the way.
I want to go back and really highlight before we get into the lawsuit and what it's revealing and why it's so important. But going back to the Twitter files, one of the things that people need to understand, and you mentioned this, is this revolving door. But you had very, very senior people at the Department of Justice going and working for these organizations. And
And then the coordination, they obviously know all the players. I'm not saying these people shouldn't go without a job, but to be able to use that skill set and that knowledge bank and do some manipulative things, I believe they were manipulative, is really quite nefarious in my estimation. Can you illuminate that a little bit more for us?
Just say that it's nefarious because they were taking kind of this government knowledge and going there. I think even more problematic is you had people going from the FBI and then working at these tech companies. What they took with them was their connections in the government. And that gave this very easy access to the government to get the private companies to do what they wanted them to do. So, yeah.
It really was a way for the government to get around the First Amendment by having a buddy at these so-called private companies on the on speak dial, really. So I absolutely agree about the knowledge base and how they're using this technology.
technology and algorithms and all of it that the government trained them, funded, etc. But to me, what is really the gist of it is they have these relationships in which a phone call will do more than anything, that they're helping their former colleagues silence speech that former colleagues want silenced. Yeah, that's...
So the Hunter Biden laptop is, for me at least, as illustrative as it can possibly be because they were literally tabletopping. And what I mean is, you know, playing out different scenarios about when it was going to be released, what they would say, how they could take these sort of prophylactic measures to protect themselves.
And it was all done to protect Democrats, Joe Biden, and their position in power. And I think in their own minds, I'm guessing...
The ends justified the means, no matter how bad they were. Now, Jack Dorsey at Twitter was sort of denying this, and then the more he's looked at it, he became increasingly like, wow, wait, what? I'm not saying he's necessarily a good guy or bad guy in this, but he was at the top of the food chain, and they were very –
insistent on suppressing things as an organization. And the idea that they would take these senior government officials and play along with other members of the media and the private companies on how to suppress what is a true story, a really nasty story, but a true story that the voters should have known about, it just bugs me beyond belief.
It does. And this is the part where it's interesting to think through how this whole idea of censorship came and
It really went back to fighting terrorism and also kind of trying to influence foreign countries. But once they brought that to America, they started thinking that that was their job, that it was to influence the American election, just like it was to influence a Russian election or another country. So they brought the same mindset with them. And you're absolutely right that the Hunter Biden scenario was,
is so horrible on so many angles because the government knew that the laptop was true. They had it in their possession. They had already established that it really was Hunter Biden's. And yet, when they were asked about it, they said no comment.
which is absolutely ridiculous because there were other times they were asked, is this false? Is this not? They would give answers. So it was so problematic on so many angles. You're listening to Jason in the House. We'll be back with more of my conversation with Margo Cleveland right after this.
So I run into some people along the way, and I want to make the transition to this lawsuit because I think it's going to expose a lot of things that need to be exposed.
And the Federalist is involved and engaged in this because they've been on the receiving end of a crushing amount of suppression, in my personal opinion. But I run into people who say, you know, I give information to Google, but I don't really, you know, what does that matter? I mean, I'm not doing anything wrong. I like it. They offer good products. Why should people care?
what their government is doing in terms of spying on them and the suppression of what they're able to actually see.
Well, let's start with the suppression part, because in this case, we know exactly why you should care. What the government did with COVID and promoting the idea that the vaccines were absolutely safe, which is any vaccine is going to have risks. We actually have already seen play out what happens when the government decides the truth and the falsity. It creates...
Risks for Americans that they are unable to obtain the knowledge that they need. So if you just take what the government did with COVID and the censorship that went in there,
You can see that it would play out with everything, whether it would be a Ukraine war, whether it would be providing arms to Israel, whether it would be risks for China or global warming. Any of those, all you have to do is look to see what harm was there to Americans when the government intervened.
basically lie to us about COVID and silenced what people could say about it. So I think that Americans just seeing what happened with COVID school closings,
The lab leak theory, all of that shows to Americans you cannot let the government be in charge. Yeah, I worry that they're going to also take it to a whole other level because what's amazing to me is how the government is accessing this information, taking this information, manipulating the information and the data. And I think they're going to take it to a whole new level. And...
on things that they really shouldn't be doing. And again, some of the most egregious examples we've talked about. So, you know, if you, it's been my experience, I collaborate, do a number of books, wrote one called The Puppeteers, got another one in the works. And Jennifer Scott, who's kind of my partner and collaborator on this,
If you go and type in a particular topic, you're not going to see at the top of Google searches any relationship to the Federalist. You have to literally type in the Federalist and then try to do a search, and then you'll find the relevant topic that really should have shown up. But...
I mean, it's been my experience that, yeah, the Federalist is on the receiving end of an awful lot of suppression. And I personally have been on that end of suppression. And I've used examples on this podcast in the past, but suffice it to say, the suppression is real in how they put together an algorithm to exclude those opinions that they just don't like.
Absolutely. And you said you just have to you have to actually put in the Federalist. That actually doesn't work either. I can tell you I have numerous times tried to find an older article that I had written because I knew I had the underlying message.
links to the original sources, I would put in the Federalist, I would put in my name, I would put in keywords that I knew were in this article I wrote. It would still take me 15 minutes to find the article. So the type of censorship that is going on is absolutely nuts. I would also say, Jason, when you say that this is just, you know, it's going to get so much worse,
It is. And I actually wrote an article for The Federalist about how scary it is. And what I did is, again, I looked at what the grants are. And this goes to why we should care that the government is kind of spying on what we're doing. They have grants out there in order to do what they call social listening, which is to search every single thing that's out there on the Internet that people are talking about.
They are trying, they being the government through their grants and those collaborating with them, are trying to find topics that are going to start trending or going viral. Then they're looking to see, is this going to hurt the government? And I mean the government, not people. It's the government and the government policy. And if so, they have more research that is looking at how you can counter that speech before it even reaches people.
The viral level and they have more grants that are going to social scientists that are basically looking at how can you use social science to.
You to convince, to brainwash Americans to not believe these types of things or to convince them that they should believe something else. And again, I wrote this all in an article and I linked it to the underlying government documents where there's grants showing us this is what the government has in mind.
It really is scary. So this lawsuit, tell us who's involved and engaged in this lawsuit because a few weeks ago there was really a federal judge is allowing it to go forward in an expedited way. But explain to everybody listening what's happening there.
Sure. So the lawsuit is brought by the Federalist, the Daily Wire and the state of Texas. And the New Civil Liberties Alliance is representing the Daily Wire and the Federalist. And I actually am of counsel at the NCLA, the New Civil Liberties Alliance. So I'm I'm working on this case actually as an attorney.
and was very involved in the process that we're at at this point, which is we filed a complaint against the State Department for engaging in this censorship scheme where they were funding, promoting all of these technologies. And the State Department filed a motion to dismiss and said, look, there's no there there. There's no standing. There was no injury. We are basically staying in our lane. Okay.
They also asked to have the case transferred to the D.C. federal court. Why would they want to do that? Yeah, right. Exactly. You know, the state of Texas is involved. They are involved because this censorship scheme is injuring their sovereign, their ability as a sovereign to enforce their own HB 20, which is what prohibits
social media companies from discriminating on the basis of speech. So that's why we're in Texas here. And the court denied the State Department's attempt to quickly dismiss this case as well as to transfer venues. So the case is moving forward. And the same day, the judge granted the Federalist, the Daily Wire, and Texas expedited discovery. So we can find out the
the breadth of what the State Department is doing. So we already have evidence that was through open source documents. We found some recordings of State Department folks where it was clear this is not limited to foreign affairs and documents showing that they were definitely promoting these technologies that censored American media companies. But with this expedited discovery, we should be able to get much more than that.
Yeah, I mean, on the one sense, you know, we want our intelligence organizations to be able to understand what's happening overseas. But in America, I think we have a fundamental right to privacy. We have a fundamental right to our own safety and security. And we have a fundamental right to not have our federal government spending our taxpayer dollars on
which are just printed in mass. I mean, we're, what, $34 trillion in debt? And they're going out there and trying to spend that money to figure out better how to manipulate what we see and what we don't see. Explain to me the nexus with the state of Texas. I think I understand the media outlets. Sure. But why was Texas thinking this was a good thing?
Well, Texas has a shared concern with the government, right?
the censorship of speech based on viewpoint. And Texas has a law that it's House Bill 20, it is called, that requires these large social media companies not to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint. And that is something that Texas as a sovereign has an interest in protecting. Right.
So to get more detail, you'd obviously have to talk to someone from Texas. But I can tell you just from the global, the big picture is they have a law that's preventing, designed to prevent this sort of viewpoint discrimination that the entire State Department censorship scheme is aimed at. So that's why they are interested in this. And we were thrilled that they were willing to join with the Daily Wire and the Federalist in the litigation.
So when I say to somebody who's, you know, walking down the street, just minding their own business, using their phone or whatever it is that they're doing, and they're just leading their lives and they bumped into you and they sat down and maybe you're having a donut or something and you're in your, you know, just chatting away and saying, you know, what do you work on? How do you explain to people, tell people what it is that the government is doing that they should be so worried about?
Sure. So I would tell them that what the government is doing is using our tax dollars in order to help develop technology and test it and promote it and market it and get social media companies to use it. That limits Americans' right to speech and the freedom of the press.
And what this technology does and how it affects them is they will not be able to hear the truth. They will only be able to hear what the government deems the truth or deems the truth.
And that they should care. So what is it that you care about, Jason? What is it that Janet cares about? And it could be that they care about what is being taught in schools. It could be they care about the safety of vaccines. It could be that they care about whether or not we should be funding Ukraine.
This scheme is putting the government in charge of what information Americans are allowed to hear to make decisions. I've always been curious why there hasn't been, and maybe they are out there, I just haven't heard of them or they haven't percolated through the system to the point that they have legs.
But it seems that there's an FTC, a Federal Trade Commission issue with many of these social media companies. You know, they go out and tout how many likes you have, how many followers you have, how many people you're following. You know, and the psychological game is to get more followers so you have more of an influence. You have people who can make their whole career. They think they can make their career and their name by being an influencer. But it's a shell game.
And it's not true. And, you know, when I go out and walk down the grocery aisle and I show up at the box, look at a box of cereal, like, you know, I'm a pretty big fan of Captain Crunch. But inevitably, there's a legal disclaimer out there saying this cereal is bigger than the actual cereal because it's on a picture on a box, you know, and they have to disclose that. But to go out and tout to children, to adults, you
that you have this many followers, but they're not really followers because if you put out information that they don't want the public to see,
They may not just even put it out there. The algorithm will only show it to a few people. And conversely, if I'm following you, if I'm following Margo Cleveland and your ex-account or whatever social media on Facebook, and you put out something that's like, heaven forbid, critical of the Biden-Harris administration, then guess what?
People aren't going to be able to see it unless they go directly to it and click on it again. And I just think that they are manipulating and deceiving people. And I don't know why there aren't more, isn't a civil lawsuit to say,
That's deception. And why isn't the FTC taking some action saying, I'm sorry, you're misleading consumers because that's not the way this actually works? First, you have to remember the FTC is under the Biden administration now. But that actually is part of what Texas's HB20 is designed to do is to provide transparency. So you have to actually understand.
Tell the truth to consumers about what you are doing, how you're doing it. And that's part of the reason they have an interest in this. Yeah, I do hope that part of the conclusion here in order to ultimately get to, I think Congress has an imperative at this point that
to simplify the terms and conditions and that these companies would have to disclose or perhaps provide an actual report back to people and statistics on which posts were able to go to which people because that suppression, their property, their intellectual property that cannot be shared with anybody else
But it's really a suppression weapon. How do you answer the question, well, these are private companies. If you don't like it, you don't have to use them. Well, that actually ties with the thought I was about to say about your idea of going to Congress. I think that the answer is they have monopolistic power.
And that that creates a little bit different scenario, as well as that they are really acting as common carriers, which is the Texas approach. But at the bottom line, and I probably like to use this as a good capstone to end our conversation is.
We need Americans to start to care about free speech and freedom of the press anymore. This would never happen if the New York Times and the Washington Post cared about freedom of the press. This would never happen if Americans cared about freedom of speech. It happens because we've lost our first principles in this country. No, it's a great point. And people really do need to care about freedom.
what it is and how they use it and how they're being manipulated along the way. And then I think ultimately Spideon. And that's the next step. That's the next level. That's what really scares me. Margo Cleveland, we're going to ask you a few rapid questions just to get to know you a little bit better. We kind of just jumped into the heart of the conversation today.
But if you have a few more minutes, I'm just going to ask you a few rapid questions. You ready? Sure. Go ahead, Jason. I don't care how many legal cases you've been involved with. You're not ready for these questions. So I say that with a big smile on my face, okay? Okay. Sure. All right. First concert you attended. Ah...
Huey Lewis in the news Huey Lewis in the news you know it's funny I ask this question all the time every time I get a different answer it's awesome that would be fun he seems like such a nice guy like I just think he's probably a really cool guy to hang out with I I'm a big fan and he just seems like a good person uh what was your high school mascot an elk and where were you where was this
Elkhorn, Wisconsin. Small little farm town in southeast Wisconsin. All right. Well, that makes sense. That's a better mascot than most. Pineapple on pizza. Yes? Absolutely. Oh, my goodness. You were on such a roll. We were having such a good conversation. You're going to have to reevaluate your life if you're so adamant about it.
About pineapple on pizza? That's my favorite. Did you favorite? Oh, if I had known that, I don't know that we would have chatted. But I still like you despite this glaring flaw in your taste buds. But okay, that's okay. I understand. Best advice you ever got? Be prudent. Be prudent. Where did you learn that lesson? Why is that so important?
My mother taught me that lesson. Every time as a teenager, I would leave the house. She just would say, be prudent. And I think that that's just a good all-around guidance.
What was your first job? You're growing up. You're in Wisconsin. At 12, I had a paper route. And at 14, I actually worked on my 14th birthday at a camp serving food and cleaning bathrooms. That's good for you. Good for you. When was the moment or the time or what led you to the law? Like why a legal...
path forward well you mean you you're very accomplished in so many things and articulate on key issues but how did you where did you think where did that passion for the law come from
My junior year in college, I was an accounting major and I was taking three extremely strenuous accounting classes as well as a business law class. And I used to read the business law before I would go to bed to relax and I fell in love with the law. That was relaxing. That was a way to just calm the day. Wow. Yep.
All right. Well, that's a different path than I've ever been on because, yeah, that's interesting. Margo Cleveland, really appreciate your perspective. Where can people follow you and learn more about what you're working on?
Sure. So I'm on X at ProfMJCleveland, P-R-O-F-M-J-Cleveland. And I write over at The Federalist. Yeah. For those of you that haven't engaged with The Federalist, pretty darn good publication. A lot of smart people there sharing some really important perspectives. And really, I'm a big fan. So thank you so much for joining us on this Jason in the House podcast. I really appreciate
Really do appreciate your time and expertise and good luck with that lawsuit. Great. Thanks so much, Jason. Take care. Thank you.
all right i told you i told you vargo is super smart she knows what's going on in the world look for her stuff look of her stuff on the internet you're gonna find that uh she gets involved in battles battles that matter and when she does she can think an issue through knows how to do the right research and uh i'm really honored that she would come and join us on this podcast um
Hope you can like this podcast. That would help us out. Rate it. That would be appreciated. Subscribe to it so you get it. It just comes out once a week. Love to have you do that as well. I want to remind listeners that you can listen ad-free with a Fox News Podcast Plus subscription on Apple Podcasts. And Amazon Prime members can listen to this show ad-free on the Amazon Music app. Again, rate it, review it.
Like it, subscribe to it and join us next week because we'll have another exciting guest. Hope you enjoyed today. I'm Jason Chaffetz. This has been Jason in the House. I'm Guy Benson. Join me weekdays at 3 p.m. Eastern as we break down the biggest stories of the day with some of the biggest newsmakers and guests. Listen live on the Fox News app or get the free podcast at Guy Benson show dot com.
