The World and Everything in It: December 19, 2022

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

The U.S. Supreme Court may throw out the fraud conviction of a man with close association with the former governor of New York.

NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s ahead on Legal Docket.

Also today the Monday Moneybeat: the Fed raises interest rates again, just not as much. We’ll talk about that and go deep on a listener question.

Plus The WORLD History Book: the king and the president and a first for children’s television.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, December 19th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

REICHARD: Up next, Kent Covington with today’s news.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Weather » Forecasters are warning of treacherous holiday travel and even life-threatening cold for much of the central and eastern U.S. this week…

TAYLOR: Potentially record-low temperatures leading up to the Christmas holiday.

That as an arctic front blasts through the country. Zack Taylor with the National Weather Service:

TAYLOR: Below-zero readings are likely and expected across the Northern Plains and portions of the upper Midwest. But even for locations down into the southeast, temperatures dipping down into the single digits or teens.

By Thursday night, temperatures could plunge as low as 13 degrees from the Gulf Coast region of Louisiana to Atlanta. Temperatures could drop to 5 degrees in Nashville..

Parts of New England have already been buried under two feet of snow. More than 80,000 customers in the area were still without power on Sunday.

Immigration » The city of El Paso, Texas has declared a state of emergency with the border crisis expected to multiply as the pandemic-era Title 42 rule expires this week.

El Paso Mayor Oscar Leeser:

LEESER: We know that the influx on Wednesday will be incredible. It will be huge. Talking to some of our federal partners, and when I asked them, do you guys believe that you can handle it today, the answer was ‘no’.

The Title 42 rule makes it easier for the government to expel migrants who cross the souther border. When that rule expires, the Department of Homeland Security estimates that as many as 14,000 migrants may try to cross the border every day.

Democratic Senator Joe Manchin:

MANCHIN: We have a crisis at the border, everyone can see that. 42 needs to be extended, really truly until we can get immigration reform.

Republican Congresswoman Lisa McClain accused President Biden of largely ignoring the crisis. She said Republicans have repeatedly called and written to the White House…

MCCLAIN: Requesting, asking, demanding ad nauseam to meet with the president about this crisis. But again, it falls on deaf ears.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said the situation at the border this week will be “total chaos.”

Ukraine restores power to millions » In Ukraine, crews have been able to restore electricity to nearly 6 million people after more Russian attacks over the weekend dealt another blow to the power grid.

But many remain in the dark and the cold as Russia continues to strike civilian targets. Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States Oksana Markarova:

MARKAROVA: We have been asking for all air defense. And we see what happens when we don’t have enough air defense.

Kyiv is asking the West for more air defenses.

NoKo missiles » North Korea on Sunday test-fired a pair of ballistic missiles with the potential to strike Japan.

The launches came two days after the North claimed it had performed a key test needed to build a more powerful intercontinental ballistic missile designed to strike the U.S. mainland.

The two missiles traveled from the country’s northwest before landing in the waters between the Korean Peninsula and Japan. Last week, Tokyo announced it will ease its defense-only military restrictions.

COVID rates and hospitalizations » COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations are on the rise amid the holiday season. White House virus response coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha. He told ABC’s This Week, the increase is not surprising.

JHA: Because we have seen increases each of the last two winters. And then what else is happening in colder, drier air, the virus spreads more efficiently.

Holiday gatherings, of course, play a significant role.

Confirmed cases and new COVID-related hospital admissions are both up about 50% from this time last month. But those numbers are still just a fraction of the January omicron peak.

Cases of flu and RSV have also been on the rise, keeping health workers much busier in recent weeks.

World Cup » Fireworks lit up the sky above Buenos Aires on Sunday as Argentines celebrated in the streets after the country won its third ever World Cup final.

The Argentinian team beat France in dramatic fashion on penalties.

Millions of Argentine cried, yelled and hugged as they followed the game, which was a rollercoaster of emotions.

It was the country’s first World Cup title since 1986.

Box Office » At the weekend box office, the long-awaited Avatar sequel fell short of studio expectations, but still scored a big holiday opening.

TRAILER: We cannot let you bring your war here. Outcast, that’s all they see...

Avatar: The Way of Water earned $134 million dollars domestically.

The R-rated action comedy Violent Night finished a distant second with $6 million, followed by Wakanda Forever.

I’m Kent Covington. Straight ahead: challenges to fraud conspiracy charges at the Supreme Court.

Plus, the Monday Moneybeat.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s Monday morning, December 19th, 2022. Welcome to another week of The World and Everything in It! Good morning. I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. We have just this week and next for our December Grassroots Giving Drive—we’re closing in on two-thirds of the way there—and if you’re one who’s chipped in to bring us this far, I just want to say thank you for your faithful support.

Now, I’ve read the mail and I know you’re probably grateful that we dialed back some of our nudging, our encouraging, shall I say?

I actually love this time of year—December and June when we do these drives—because I like to talk about mission and vision with you, what we’re doing at WORLD and how you fit into it.

And I don’t mind asking for your support because I think the mission is worthy of your support.

REICHARD: Exactly! Just think about all the WORLD products we’ve been able to build or rebuild—whether it’s this program or any of our other seasonal podcasts, whether you read the Sift every day or listen on the radio or now the Sift podcast for daily news updated through the day, every day.

Or whether you receive any of our skillfully reported email newsletters—whether you benefit from the steady voice of reason that is WORLD Opinions or the all-new WORLD Magazine, Lynn Vincent and Daniel James Devine leading the editorial team, along with David Freeland and his gifted team of artists and designers, the magazine’s never been better.

EICHER: It’s extraordinary, that team is just humming. If you haven’t seen WORLD Magazine lately, you really need to.

And look at what we’re doing for students, a breathtaking refresh of the God’s World News magazines that are rolling out in just a few weeks. I got to see the finished product just last week—Rebecca Cochrane and Rob Patete—so proud of them and their team and their work serving young people and families.

Then there’s the Big Bash, Brian Basham and Rich Bishop and their team of editors, producers, and reporters who create WORLD Watch, top-notch video news for students from a Christian worldview, just a visionary product and so well done.

I’ve said before, it’s as good as anything you’ll see on network television, but it doesn’t insult your intelligence.

REICHARD: Or leave you in despair.

EICHER: Point is, none of that, none of it, could have happened without you.

REICHARD: That’s what’s so amazing to me, and we haven’t even touched on everything we’re doing. I just want to say one last thing about our products, I’ve come to appreciate the News Coach for families, Kelsey Reed. I wish I’d had a Kelsey when my kids were little. But the News Coach is so needed, and we’ll point you to her new podcast with Jonathan Boes around the launch date next month.

But for me personally, I got in on the ground floor of this program—and I won’t say it hasn’t been at times a bumpy ride—but it’s been steady progress for The World and Everything in It and progress overall in the whole of the organization here at WORLD. There’s really a spirit of teamwork here, a real unity, unity around a mission, and around you listening, reading, watching and pitching in with crucial financial support.

EICHER: There’s so much more we could say, but let’s just say: if you haven’t given yet to the December Grassroots Giving Drive, I hope you’ll do it today, at WNG.org/donate.

REICHARD: Yes, WNG.org/donate.

EICHER: Shall we dive into Legal Docket?

REICHARD: Yes, let’s.

EICHER: Today, we cover two oral arguments heard on the same day at the U.S. Supreme Court. Each case involves a man challenging his fraud convictions that arose out of his work with the man who was then governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo.

Here are the facts in the first one. In 2018, a jury convicted Joseph Percoco of conspiracy to commit fraud. He had been an aide to and close associate of Governor Cuomo.

For a short period, Percoco stepped out of government. It was then that he accepted money from companies that sought to influence the Cuomo administration for construction contracts around Syracuse, New York.

REICHARD: Prosecutors went after him under a federal law meant to fight corruption. This kind of fraud is defined in law as “a scheme to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” In other words, someone pays a bribe, and an innocent someone else is harmed. In this case, the harm is to the citizens to whom public servants owe a fiduciary duty.

But watch that term “public servants.” Percoco’s legal team makes the argument that the definition applies only to officials actually working for the government. Percoco was a private citizen when he took the money.

Here’s what his legal brief says: “When a public official accepts money to convince the government to do something, we call him a crook. But when a private citizen accepts money to convince the government to do something, we call him a lobbyist.”

EICHER: Clever, but lawyer Nicole Reaves for the federal government argued Percoco was a de facto government employee. Reaves will refer to that de facto government employee as “petitioner.” She’ll be talking about Percoco.

REAVES: Petitioner was able to attend internal government meetings that no one else from outside the government was able to attend. He was able to -- he continued to have key card access. He continued to order his secretary -- his former secretary around. He continued to use government phones and offices. And, because of this, because of these three things on the facts of this case, Petitioner was operating essentially in the exact same role that he had previously, formally held.

The record shows that Percoco told people he’d get his old job back as soon as Cuomo won re-election.

But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed skeptical of the government’s argument. She questions Reaves:

JACKSON: How much does it matter that he is going to return to office? Because your three-part test seems to me to sweep in people who, as you've suggested, just overstay their welcome. They're -- they're out of office, but they keep the same key card and they're in the same office and they have the same secretary. So does it matter that the person is planning to return?

REICHARD: Reaves answered that functionally, that’s enough to convict. That he did return to office is yet another proof of his de facto influence.

But Jackson pressed further:

JACKSON: But how do you distinguish that person from a lobbyist? Lots of people leave their former employment, maybe their key card hasn’t been turned off yet, they continue to engage in relations with people that they formerly worked with.

Percoco’s lawyer Yaakov Roth rattled off several factors to try to demonstrate how his client truly was a lobbyist:

ROTH: At all relevant times, Petitioner here was a private citizen. He took no oath of public office. He received no salary from the public fisc. He possessed no legal authority to bind the state or make decisions for it. What he did have, like many lobbyists and donors and interest groups and others, was influence. In his case, influence drawn from years of public service, from a close relationship to the Cuomo family, and from his senior campaign role. But none of that creates a fiduciary duty to the public.

Justice Clarence Thomas imagined the “ick” factor in this hypothetical addressed to Roth, Percoco’s lawyer:

THOMAS: Counsel, let's assume that Petitioner did not resign much more than, say, one afternoon and then engaged in this conduct. Do you think you would still be able to make the exact same argument?

ROTH: I don't think it would be the exact same argument, Your Honor, because I think, if it were that short a period of time, it's very likely that the government would be able to show that the agreement contemplated the use of official power upon his return to office…

Roth conceding that Percoco had influence drawn from years in public service. But that by itself doesn’t create a fiduciary duty to the public while Percoco was a private citizen. He argues, the prosecution went too far.

ROTH: And by pressing this influence theory in particular, the government strolls recklessly into a constitutional mind field. Judge Winter was right to call the government’s theory a catch-all political crime which has no use but misuse.

Percoco’s argument seemed to persuade the justices.

Listen to Justice Elena Kagan take on the government argument. Here, addressing Reaves:

KAGAN: It strikes me that the strongest part of your case is the fact that this is a guy who was a former government official and who will be a former government official, and this is just this little hiatus that he's taken and not even to go into private service but to go into sort of the governor's private service, right? So that – I mean, that's the strongest part of your case. But you're proposing a test which, doesn't need to have any of that. You don't have to be a former official. You don't need to be a future official. Can you give me a hypothetical of a person who is not a former official and who is not a future official, so doesn't have those periods of real status-based control, who is going to meet your test? I don't think you can give me that test without making it look like the guy is just a really, really good lobbyist.

Overly zealous prosecutions often arise from ambiguous laws. And the justices have frowned on those.

For example, four years ago, the court threw out the convictions of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. He’d accepted money and extravagant gifts while in office.

Here’s Chief Justice John Roberts announcing that opinion in part:

ROBERTS: There is no doubt that this case is distasteful. It may be worse than that, but our concern is not with tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and designer clothing. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.

Different situation, but the vagueness problem and boundless interpretation got McDonnell’s convictions thrown out.

Which brings us to the second argument: another Cuomo administration-related case. This second one involves a real estate developer in New York convicted for his role in a bid rigging scheme, also during Cuomo’s administration.

Prosecutors went after developer Louis Ciminelli on a legal theory that says you’re guilty of fraud if you withhold important financial information from the government in business dealings.

But Ciminelli argues that theory doesn’t apply to him.

His lawyer, Michael Dreeben:

DREEBEN: It would radically expand federal law, violate federalism principles, and end-run limits on honest services fraud. And the theory's breadth requires ad hoc patches that contradict black letter law and that even the government does not fully endorse.

Not only did the government not endorse that legal theory at the Supreme Court: It abandoned the theory altogether. So the government focused instead on how much the contract in question was worth. Eric Feigin made that tricky argument and Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed appreciation:

GORSUCH: I do admire the government’s concession of error here, and I appreciate the candor with which you’ve made it.

Still, a law that ensnares people not intended to be ensnared tends to rub justices the wrong way. Broadly, they tend to think: People need to know what’s legal; we don’t need the government having lots of wiggle room to lock us up.
One last comment from the oral argument. I think this one gives us a clue as to how this is likely to go for the government and the beleaguered lawyer Eric Feigin.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh:

KAVANAUGH: The government has been pushing this theory for several decades, and lots of people have been convicted under it. And I think the reason is, you just said, it's easier to convict people under this incorrect articulation of the theory than under the correct articulation of the law. And then to, you know, come here in the bright light of this Court, for the government to then say, actually, you know, that theory doesn't hold up, it's—again, appreciate the candor, but looking back on the government pushing this theory all those years is not—not an ideal scenario.

“Incorrect articulation of the theory” versus “correct articulation of the law.” As Justice Kavanaugh says, counsel, your argument, it’s not an ideal scenario.

Oh, boy. Justices both liberal and conservative came down hard on the government here. It looks like these cases will be decided not on whether the government wins or loses, but I think the only issue here is more a matter of just how badly the government will lose.

I’m not sure I’ve been quite so confident how a case will turn out. I am on this one.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Next up on The World and Everything in It: the Monday Moneybeat.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Time now for our weekly conversation on business, markets, and the economy with financial analyst and adviser David Bahnsen.

He’s head of the wealth management firm The Bahnsen Group and he’s here now.

David, good morning!

DAVID BAHNSEN, GUEST: Good morning, Nick. Good to be with you.

EICHER: Yeah, I think that his comments were in line with what I was expecting. I don't believe that as the Fed begins this pivot to slightly less restrictive monetary policy, slowing the rate of interest rate increases, eventually pausing and within a year, I believe that they'll be cutting rates. And so when you look at this kind of trajectory of easier monetary policy, I still believe and expect the Fed will have to talk a more hawkish game and whatnot. Because I don't think that you can undo the message very easily that has already been really the focus of monetary policy, which is inflation is high, and the Feds here to cure it. And I have long tried to make the argument—it was what I devoted last week's Dividend Cafe to—that the Fed was not the primary cause of the inflation, and therefore it can't be the primary solution. And so as we start getting more recessionary consequences from tighter monetary policy, I think the Fed is going to have to put on a full court press of explaining the other side of policy. And so in the meantime, they're talking the way I would expect. I think, Nick, it's also important to recognize that last week, you not only saw the Fed increase 50 basis points, but then you saw Europe's Central Bank do the same. You saw the Bank of England do the same. The Bank of Mexico do the same. There was a real global coordination around raising rates more, doing it less than these banks had been doing it, and I also noticed that Christina Lagarde, the head of the European Central Bank, kind of the Jerome Powell equivalent in Europe, that she was talking about how we're going to have to have rates higher for longer. And she's one of the most dovish central bankers in history. And so there's definitely a unified message right now coming from global central banks.

EICHER: I have to ask, at the risk of asking you to be repetitive, but you said the Fed was not the cause of the price inflation and so can’t be the solution to price inflation. Can you flesh that out, if the Fed didn’t do it, what did?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, so the fundamental thesis as to why the Fed needs to tighten rates to bring down inflation is that aggregate demand got so hot because of such easy monetary policy, so if the Fed broke it, the Fed has to fix it. But of course, the problem is that out of the COVID moment, the absolutely overwhelming evidence is that the inflation was caused by the total cessation of production, that we stopped producing goods and services. And we slowed the supply side of the economy so dramatically, that when reopening did take place, and people were mostly resuming a normal level of consumption, they were getting back up to the place that they wanted to be before the lockdowns and shutdowns and so forth. However, the supply side of the economy was not ready for that. And so you ended up with normal—not excess—demand and yet sub-normal, inadequate supply. And from semiconductors coming into the country, energy production, access to laborers, ports, trucking, transportation, containers, all elements of supply, you had costs go higher. America was producing way less and so we were importing way more, but every aspect of our imports had gone up in price. And those things were the primary but not exclusive cause of inflation. And the one caveat I would give is I do believe the Fed was a key player in driving up housing prices to totally unsustainable inflationary levels, but the broad level of price increases and goods and so forth, I don't think the Fed was remotely the primary cause and therefore turning to the Fed to try to create a recession or try to get a whole lot of people out of work and bring wages down, the idea that that will be the remedy to this inflation, I think, is really, really misbegotten.

EICHER: OK, David, listener question time.

MARK BATLUCK: Hi, David and Nick, thanks so much, David, for the Monday money beat and all of your insight into financial matters. This is Mark Batluck. And I'm sending this message from Minneapolis, Minnesota. My question has to do with the investment of the Chinese government, in American enterprises and real estate and things like this. Some people and at times, I'll read news reports about the the sheer amount of Chinese investment in the US and, and these reports or people will talk about this as sort of a scary thing. Even the amount of U.S. debt that they own, is something that they could recall at any moment or, you know, and therefore exert tremendous pressure or control over us in our financial policies. I don't really understand the whole the whole dynamic and, and yet, from what little I do know, it does seem that these these reports are this sort of message is not altogether is not the full picture. So could you speak to that for us? Thanks.

BAHNSEN: Oh, I really love this question. It's one of the areas where I think there's the most amount of misinformation and it's important to kind of clarify. In the broader sense, we're talking about U.S. government debt. And China right now owns a tiny bit less than $1 trillion of U.S. debt. It has been a little bit over a trillion. It's right now down to $910 billion. Japan is the largest to just under $1.1 trillion. And so total foreign ownership of U.S. debt is about $7.2 trillion. And as most people know, we have roughly $31 trillion of debt. So it's less than 30% and China's stake in that represents less than 3%. But when someone says, Well, they could just call that debt anytime. That's where someone has gone from sharing a number that sounds interesting. China owns a trillion dollars of our debt to a totally untrue and illogical statement. How can they just call the debt? The debt has a maturity date. If you and I go out and buy a bond, then the government owes us our money back at the maturity date of the bond. When the United States government issues debt, there are insurance companies, U.S. banks, investors like you and me, and yes, sovereign countries like Japan and China. There are dozens of foreign countries that own our debt, that are all given terms to the debt. And it's a coupon meaning an interest rate, and it's a maturity date. So you tell me who has more leverage here—the person who has borrowed the money or the person who owes the money. They can't call the debt, they're owed the debt at a certain maturity date. And yet, in theory, this country that for 250 years has never defaulted on its debt, but if there were ever one of these severe situations of geopolitical strife, our country has the ability to not repay the debt. And by the way, the debt is generated in U.S. dollars. The debt is denominated in our currency, so we have the ability to strengthen or weaken our currency from fiscal and monetary activity that represents the currency we're paying back the debt in. This has been the great complaint that China publicly states about us, that while they fund our deficits and that they export to us more than than we are exporting to them, that all of this is being done on our terms because it's done in our currency. Now, I vehemently disagree that that is a justifiable complaint. Because all actors are acting, of course, in their own interest. The United States has wanted China to fund its deficits. And if the United States doesn't want China to fund its deficits, the United States doesn't have to run deficits. Now, it's our choice to be a nation of low savings and to spend at a governmental level above its means. But China, of course, wants to do such because it means they're getting more customers of their exported goods and then with that excess dollar, the excess currency that's generated, they have to have a place to park it and U.S. Treasuries had been a pretty safe place to park it. So I know I'm getting in the weeds a little on some of this, but my answer has always been and these are activities that have benefited both parties, here to now. And I fundamentally believe that we have it in our power if we do not want foreign countries to be buying our debt, and that is that we don't have to issue so much debt.

EICHER: Thanks to Mark Batluck for the question and for raising the subject of China and its holdings.

You may have a question, too. If so, I hope you’ll share it with us and you may hear yourself on a future episode.

Email is feedback@worldandeverything.com. You can type it out and I’ll read it or you can read it into your voice memo app as Mark did today and send along the file. Again, feedback@worldandeverything.com.

David Bahnsen is founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group—his personal website is Bahnsen.com. David, thank you. As I look at the calendar, it’s telling me we do not speak again until the Monday morning after Christmas. It’s moving so fast! So Merry Christmas to you and the Bahnsen family. Enjoy!

BAHNSEN: Merry Christmas to you and yours, Nick, and Merry Christmas to all the listeners.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, December 19th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Next up: the WORLD History Book. Today, the anniversary of an impromptu meeting between the King of Rock and Roll and the President of the United States.

EICHER: Thank you, thank you very much. Elvis Presley and Richard Nixon, that’s a meeting!

Plus, 75 years ago, a first for children’s television.

Here’s WORLD’s Paul Butler.

PAUL BUTLER, REPORTER: We begin today on December 27th, 1947.

CLIP: FIRST HOWDY DOODY BROADCAST THEME MUSIC

The first episode of Howdy Doody airs on the NBC television network.

CLIP: BUFFALO SMITH SINGING

Howdy Doody is a marionette boy dressed in a western costume. He’s got 48 freckles—one for each state of the union at the time. He plays off the show's host: human actor Bob Smith who calls himself “Buffalo Bob”

SMITH: You know very often when I meet people instead of just saying “hello” I say “Howdy Doody!” …

Howdy Doody’s name is derived from the American West expression: "howdy doody"/"howdy do." Bob Smith got the idea for the puppet character while working in radio years earlier. Here he is talking with David Letterman in 1987.

BUFFALO BOB SMITH: I had had Howdy Doody on a radio show—WNBC Radio—but just a voice. I’d say: “Here’s Howdy. Hi Howdy!” And he’d say: “Well howdy doody…” and then I’d just talk to myself…Well, the kids would come in to see the radio show and they’d say: “Well, where is Howdy?”

Besides Howdy Doody, the show features other marionette characters and a couple human actors—including Clarabell the clown who only pantomimes or honks horns attached to his belt to communicate…

SMITH: Well Clarabell, kid…tell me, are you ready for the big surprise?

A move that began as a budgetary consideration so they didn’t have to pay a higher rate for speaking parts.

The show runs for nearly 13 years…

CLIP: HOWDY DOODY THEME

The pioneering television program created children’s television. Many later programs are clearly inspired by the show, including Captain Kangaroo and Mr. Rogers Neighborhood—though perhaps the most famous inspiration is a fictional one…Woody’s character in Pixar’s Toy Story movie franchise.

CLIP: HOWDY DOODY THEME

And we end today on December 20th, 1970. Elvis Presley boards a late-night American Airlines flight from LAX to Washington D.C. He settles into first-class with his childhood friend and sometimes body-guard Jerry Schilling. Audio here from a C-SPAN oral history interview:

SCHILLING: Elvis…sat down next to me and said: “Do you think there's any stationery on the flight?” And I got the stewardess's attention. And she said, “let me go check.” And she came back with American Airlines stationery…And he sat and wrote the letter.

Over six pages Elvis introduces himself as someone upset with the direction of the country. He cites Rock and Roll’s drug culture, hippies, and communist brainwashing as particular areas of concern. Elvis believes if the President would make him a Federal Agent at Large he could do a great deal of good as an entertainment insider.

SCHILLING: And then he said, “Jerry, I just wrote a letter to President Nixon, would you proofread it for me?” … And I said sure. And I read the letter and … I said Elvis, it's beautiful. Send it like it is. He kind of smiled. He sealed it up. And as we're flying he would put: “for the President only.”

Elvis decides the only way to make sure this letter gets to the President is to hand deliver it. The red-eye flight lands in D.C. before dawn. Elvis and Schilling hop into a limo and head to the President's residence. Schilling tries to talk Elvis into waiting till later in the day. But is unsuccessful.

SCHILLING: …And he jumped off the back of a black limousine. The White House security guards were pretty stiff…

Elvis is dressed in a cape with a high collar—his hair is longer than usual. He steps out with a cane in one hand—the President’s letter in the other.

SCHILLING: I see it's not going well. So I jumped out of the limousine. And I go: “Excuse me, gentlemen. But you know, this is Mr. Elvis Presley. He just wanted to drop off this letter to the President.” They immediately their whole demeanor changed and Oh, Mr. Presley, you know…we'll make sure the President will have the letter…

True to their word, the President gets the letter. Later that morning his staff calls the hotel and sets up an appointment with Elvis and President Nixon that very day.

Elvis arrives with Jerry Schilling and business associate Sonny West. Secret Service won't allow either into the Oval Office…only Elvis. So they wait. Then, the President sends word that he wants to meet Elvis’s friends…

SCHILLING: I never will forget. Who opens the door? Not Secret Service, not the President, but Elvis. And I kind of, you know, it's kind of like being at Graceland…And so, and he opens the door real wide, and he's beaming…

After a friendly conversation, Nixon approves Elvis as a special agent with the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs—and Elvis gets a badge to prove it.

Many later accounts of the meeting explain the encounter as just another example of Elvis’s eccentricities—nothing more than trying to collect a badge. But Schilling thinks it was something more for Elvis:

SCHILLING: So Elvis…knew he had influence, especially in the music business. And he knew he could talk to anybody. You know, he could go to the worst section of town and wear all the diamonds that he wanted to and he was cool…People accepted Elvis Presley. And he really wanted to get I mean, he this is a worn out phrase, but he wanted to give something back. And if you're Elvis, this is how you do it.

The photo of President Nixon and Elvis’s meeting still remains one of the most requested images from the entire National Archives library of historic photos.

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. I’m Paul Butler.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: discrimination on campus. And not the kind you might expect.

And, we'll check in with a pro life resource center that has been under attack in Washington.

That and more tomorrow.

I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio.

WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. (2nd Corinthians 5:17 and 20 ESV)

Go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.