 Oh, I got AM840 here. So a couple of Orthodox Jewish friends who are attorneys and when they graduated from law school, they went looking for a job. And one guy went to, and they both went to their interviews wearing their yarmulke. Okay, so these guys would normally wear a yarmulke, a kippah head covering. And they both started out going to their interviews always wearing a yarmulke. And they both just kept not getting hired. And so eventually both of them decided to stop wearing their yarmulkes. And so one friend, he stopped wearing his yarmulke and then he immediately got hired. Another friend, he finally abandoned wearing a yarmulke, went to an interview, and the interviewer said to him, where's your yarmulke? And the interviewer said, look, I made this appointment and I was considering hiring you because I thought you stood for something and you know, I heard about you wearing a yarmulke and that's why I was interested in hiring you. And now where the heck is your yarmulke? So I know I also went through a phase where I was looking for a job. And I was wearing my yarmulke to my job interviews and I just wasn't getting hired. So so eventually I thought, ah, it might have something to do with with my yarmulke. I'm going to start wearing a yarmulke. And then the next interview I went to after I stopped wearing a yarmulke, the employer said, where's your yarmulke? He heard where I lived and he thought that I'd be an orthodox Jew. And so he was surprised that I didn't wear one. So anyway, there's an impeachment trial for Donald Trump going on. And David Shown, one of the defense lawyers for former president Donald Trump, there's video and pictures of him covering his head while he's taking a sip of water and has kind of become a meme, has been much discussed on social media, like, you know, what the heck is is happening here. So this is about four minutes into an impassioned argument that Donald Trump, his impeachment trial is unconstitutional, his attorney David Shown paused to take a sip of water. And then with each gulp, he placed his right hand on his head as he tipped his chin back to take a drink. So he put it, come on, come on YouTube. So where are we losing connection here? Not cool. Okay, do we have a connection once again? Okay. So he was putting David Trump's attorney David Shown was putting his hand on his head each time he'd take a gulp. So this is very different than a hand on the back of his head. He wasn't going, okay, he was just putting his hand. Okay, so let's not let's not get these let's not get these gestures misunderstood here. So, you know, what the heck was he's doing? And what's going on is that for Orthodox Jews, there's, there's a widespread belief, which may or may not be based in text, that you should not eat or drink with a bare head. And so either the head either the hand on the head either substitutes for yarmulke or it's a habit for just trying to keep your yarmulke on there. So there's been a lot of intrigue, debate and mockery on social media. And David Shown hasn't given a public explanation. But David Shown is an Orthodox Jew. He's the one who requested the impeachment trial not be held on the Sabbath because he could not be present. Then he later rescinded that request because there are other attorneys who can take his place if the impeachment trial goes to the Sabbath. So representatives of his law firm did not respond to email questions. But David Shown told reporters Tuesday he wasn't sure if it was appropriate to wear a kippah in Congress, and he didn't want to offend anybody. So Congress permits religious head coverings, but people often stare if you wear a kippah and can create awkwardness. Joseph Lieberman was an Orthodox Jew. He, he generally did not wear a yarmulke on the Senate floor. So head coverings Jewish head coverings have sometimes been an issue in public or official settings. Many attorneys remove their kippahs before entering a courtroom. Some worry that a judge will think differently of them or a jury will think differently of them if they wear a kippah. And many just want to avoid anything that might distract from the hearing topic. So the possibilities is he was either subconsciously holding the spot where a kippah would normally slip, or he was saying a prayer before drinking, or he was substituting his hand for his yarmulke. So it's typical for traditional Jews to say a blessing before eating or drinking. So it's the share call of blessing that Orthodox Jews say before drinking water or fruit juice or soda pop. Now whether one's own hand can substitute for a kippah is a matter of debate among Jews, but some believe it's an appropriate symbolic gesture as a last resort. So the gesture looks weird, but it's an understandable habit because from a Jewish perspective eating and drinking is a holy act, and it should only occur with a covered head. And it usually takes the form of a covering your head usually takes a form of a yarmulke, but if you don't have one then Jews often reflexively use their hands as if they're not wearing a kippah. So sometimes what people actually do is as important as what the tradition might explicitly demand of them. Now as a Talmudic quality right to this impeachment hearing with Jewish lawyers on each side the impeachment trial feels Talmudic, this is the Jewish forward. So interpreting the constitution requires as much philosophical argument as law and there are different schools of thought on how to approach the text. So representative Jamie Raskin is arguing for impeachment. David Shown is defending Trump both both Jewish. So Michael Brod is a professor of law at Emory University and he is a Rabbi, Orthodox Rabbi, says that interpreting constitutional clauses about impeachment free speech requires a four-pronged approach. So what does the text say? What's the precedent? What's the logic? And what are the needs of the times? So Michael Brod is on the left. So Judaism is an action-focused religion. It's a law-focused religion. Christianity is much more focused on what you should believe. Judaism more focused on what you should do. Christianity is more focused on dogma. Judaism is more focused on deed. So it would make sense that Jews would excel at law, interpretation of law, and getting around legal boundaries. In addition to Jews tending to have a relatively high average verbal IQ, but also you'd expect them to be particularly skilled with legal reasoning. So the text is only one part of what comes into play here. You also want other precedents, logic, and the needs of the time. And this is similar to a rabbinic framework for interpreting text, which was known by the acronym Pardes. So Pardes means orchard in Hebrew. It uses a metaphor for the wealth of knowledge that can be found in the study of Torah. Don't you want to learn Torah with me and learn love in this school here, this online yeshiva of radical love and inclusion, guys? So Pashat means the simple straightforward literal meaning of a text. Ramesh refers to the allegorical meaning of words. Drush refers to comparing the text to other texts. And then soed means secret. This refers to the esoteric interpretation of text. So these are four traditional Jewish ways of interpreting text. So it's not a perfect fit for Michael Broglie's framework for approaching the Constitution, but it's similar. I mean, we don't typically look to the US Constitution for esoteric secrets, but the goals of the rabbinic interpretation or American legal interpretation are the same, to understand the meaning behind words of an often ambiguous text and to apply them today. So you can hold that every word of the Torah is divine came from God, but you still have to apply that eternal framework to ever changing circumstances today. So you can have great veneration for what the founders wrote in the US Constitution, but you still have to apply that, which was written 240 years ago or 250 years ago to what's happening today. So there are two constitutional questions at hand in this impeachment trial. First, where the definition of impeachment includes a president who's already left office and the Senate affirmed that it did on Tuesday. And second, where the Trump's remarks, telling his supporters to fight like hell hours before the cap, the attack on the Capitol were the of impeachment. So the arguments are like nitpicking the constitutional language in a particularly Talmudic way. So David Shown brought up the constitutional principles that do process and he quibbled over the article used to describe president in the Constitution description. So the passage reads the president instead of a president. And David Shown then argued from that that it only refers to the sitting president. Then it represented Raskin's arguments emphasize precedent that allowing Trump to avoid impeachment will create a January exemption, allowing future presidents near the end of their term to do virtually anything without repercussions. Then Wednesday's arguments took on free speech protections under the First Amendment. So Raskin argues that the former president Trump is is not a private citizen. Thus, his speech is not protected in the same way. And he argued that Trump's speech incited violence that it was the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded building. And to do that is not protected speech.