B (5:16)

Thinking about dropping the exception for talk.

A (5:18)

Shows because he said some of them were motivated by partisan purposes. Well, sir, you're chairman of the fcc, so fccu, Because I think, Because I think you are motivated by partisan purposes yourself, sir. You smelt it. Cause you dealt it. You are Dutch ovening America's airwaves. Let's just call this what it is. Donald Trump's administration wants to sign. Silence anyone who says anything bad about Trump on tv because all Trump does is watch tv. Yes, you get, I mean, it's a big laugh line for Colbert. Big. You know, stick it to the networks. It makes for good tv. Basically what's going on here is there's this regulation for broadcast TV for equal time being given to different candidates. You're supposed to be, if you give time to one candidate, you're supposed to give time to another candidate sort of across the broadcast airwaves. There's been a carve out for that for news programs, for talk programs that has been pretty standard for a long time. What Carr is trying to do in the letter that he mentioned specifically targeting late night tv because this is a fixation of the administration is sort of remove that carve out. Basically say if you are a late night TV guy who's gonna have one candidate on, you need to have the other candidates on too. We can talk a little bit more about sort of Carr and the FCC and the Trump administration on all this. But Bill, I mean, what do you, what do you make of, of this dust up specifically with, with Talarico at this moment in the, in the Democratic Senate primaries? Kind of a weird, weird time for this to be becoming a big story.

B (7:05)

Yeah, it is. I mean, Carr is a political hack and he's like many others in the Trump administration up to the, up to Trump himself, happy to use the power of the federal government in ways that hasn't been used either as a matter of discretion or as a matter of law in recent years and decades. And so he's, you know, I don't approve of renting car. I've got to say I'm not really thrilled. I mean, Colbert, if Colbert has problems with the CBS lawyers, you know, maybe it'll be a little more courageous. I mean, he says it to his credit on the air that they stopped him from doing it. But if he's got a real problem, he's got a problem with the brass at CBS as much as with Carr. You know, they, they are the ones CBS lawyers who got terrified apparently by Carr's threat. Maybe they Think there is more merit to the equal time provision, which, as you say, there was an exception made to, but it is in law. I'm not saying it's a wise law. I'm not saying it should be applied much the way Carr wants to, but it wasn't, you know, it's not totally made up, as I guess, the way I would put it. And also, what's with having Talarico on the show? If we can just be honest? I mean, straightforward. The Democratic primary is, I think, a month from now, right in Texas. It's competitive primary between Jasmine Crockett and James Talariko. I, if I were a Texas resident, I'd be voting for Talarico. I'm quite confident. So I say this with no animus, but it is a little weird to have one of two primary candidates on a show that has presumably pretty good viewership down in Texas and without having the other. Maybe the other was invited on, too. Maybe Jasmine Crockett would be on the next day and maybe the Republican candidates would be on after they sort out their primary between Cornyn and Paxton or have those two on too. But I guess I'm a little less. I know everyone's supposed to be totally pro Colbert. We hate Trump, we hate Brendan Carr. Believe me, I'm all on board on the hating Trump, hating Brendan Carr stuff, but I'm a little unsympathetic, I've got to say to Colbert. In this particular case, I mean, did he explain I didn't watch any of it. Why, As I say, I respect James Talarika, but why was he suddenly an appropriate guest for. For late night tv?

A (8:59)

Yeah, I guess. I guess the counterargument is just he's an appropriate guest for late night TV if. If the, the show decides it wants to put him on. Right. I mean, it should be ultimately their decision rather than.

B (9:10)

Well, but no, that is not the law for broadcast. I mean, could he, could they have him on 10 nights in a row? I mean, could they have on. If they're a presidential race, could they have one candidate on and not the other time and time again?

A (9:20)

Well, that's, it's funny that you mentioned the presidential race because let's put this in a little bit more context. This is sort of why Trump himself kind of got a bee in his bonnet about this particular thing, which explains why Brendan Carr has been haring after it. It's kind of weird that this is all kind of curdling up, like we said, in the midst of a Democratic Senate primary. But the Original element of this was a lot nearer and dearer to Trump's heart. It was when SNL on NBC had had Kamala Harris on very shortly before the election that she was in sketches and she basically got to make her political case on there. And the Trump campaign basically said, well, look, this is not equal time. This is unacceptable. We're gonna make a point about this. And in fact, NBC at that time kind of gave in. Right. They gave Trump equivalent time across a series of other broadcasts. He got to. I'm pretty sure it was NASCAR and NFL broadcasts. He got to get some ad time on there that he hadn't paid for. Yeah, I think we are right on one hand to sort of be like, look, this is not necessarily just like a cut and dry. The brown shirts are coming in here and squishing TV that they don't like. Because there is this whole history, there's all these laws to deal with. I think that I personally, as just kind of a different sort of conservative, roll my eyes at a lot of this stuff. I think that you should be able to kind of say whatever you like, consistent with the First Amendment on your broadcast TV show and let the markets sort that out or whatever. But there is a whole history of this. The other side is, of course, that this is all taking place in an environment where Donald Trump is not thinking about the actual laws. Donald Trump is not thinking about enforcing a fair regulatory structure. Colbert is correct that Donald Trump just is unhappy with the fact that the late night comedians don't like him and don't say good things about him. And that is kind of the genesis of all of this here. But you're right, I mean, I'd be interested to know what Jasmine Crockett has to say about all of this. As far as we've seen, she has not yet weighed in on it. Maybe she will today. Maybe we'll get back to you in the actual morning Shots newsletter tomorrow. With a little bit of synergy there. Let's move on a little bit. I want to talk really quick.

B (11:36)

I wonder if this would help. Will this help Sellarico with Democratic voters in Texas, or will it help? I mean, I guess it might because he's now the one who's being censored by Trump. I wonder if they did this somehow with an eye towards helping Crockett by making it seem that the Colbert's Democratic establishments being unfair to this insurgent, more radical, more left wing candidate, Jasmine Crock. I sort of feel that way, incidentally. I mean, if I were Jasmine Cry and again, I come back to the. It's easy to ridicule the equal time stuff, but it isn't insane. If you have massive broadcast networks, three or four of them have licenses. Cable isn't covered by any of this. You know, they have licenses and they are supposed to. As you just said, NBC did give in on the equal time thing. You know, NBC is not presumably like cbs, somewhat pro Trump network. I come back also to Colbert. If he has real problems with cbs, you should take it up with CBS as well as criticizing Trump.

A (12:27)

Yeah, yeah. The point you made just there about, about how it will play in the primary is interesting. I almost think like it would have been easier for Crockett to make that sort of, oh, look at the sort of the elite Dem establishment lining up behind my opponent. And if not for this censorship, Talarico, he's been up on Twitter basically saying, look, Brendan Carr, the Trump administration, they're trying to squash me. They're afraid of me showing up. So it's very interesting to see how all these cross currents go. Obviously we'll keep following it. Let me turn to a separate thing, which is the other piece of breaking news. I guess we're kind of bearing the lead here, but Jesse Jackson, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, it was reported early this morning, is, is dead. He has died. Donald Trump tweeted out an interesting condolence, a lot more sort of sympathetic and humane than his treatments typically are of Democrats. I don't know if we have the visual element of that. We can put it up on the screen, but I'll just read. The Reverend Jesse Jackson is dead at 84. I knew him well long before becoming president. He was a good man with lots of personality, grit and street smarts. Very gregarious. Someone who truly loved people despite the fact that I am falsely and consistently called a racist by the scoundrels and lunatics on the radical left. Democrats all. It was always my pleasure to help Jesse along the way. I provided office space for him and his Rainbow Coalition for years in the Trump building at 40 Wall street, responded to his request for help in getting criminal justice reform passed and signed when no other president would even try. Single handedly pushed and passed long term funding for historically black colleges and universities, which Jesse loved, but also which other presidents would not do. He goes on and on and on. He loved his family greatly and to them I send my deepest sympathies and condolences. Jesse will be missed. Bill. I know so little about the Reverend Jesse Jackson. He is before my political time. I'm a child who just got here during the Trump years. Donald Trump also actually a little bit before my time, but he has lingered around in a sort of interesting way. But I just wanted to kick this to you a little bit to sort of weigh in on his political impact. I mean, the. Obviously a former presidential candidate. What do you have to say about the Reverend Jesse Jackson?

B (14:32)

I mean, a major figure in American politics for much of my adult lifetime, before you were born, obviously close to Martin Luther King and one of his deputies and very much central figure, therefore, in the civil rights movement. Very young when King was shot. But then for the next decades, and then I think most memorably were his presidential campaigns which were controversial. I was not a fan. I mean, I was on the Republican side anyway, and among the Democrats, he was more radical in various ways. And so I knew him slightly over the years, you know, certainly in the 90s when I was doing. Began doing TV and Jackson, Reverend Jackson was around crossfire, all kinds. And then the normal DC encounters, it was always cordial, I've got to say, in this respect. I can see that he and Trump would have, you know, been able to banter quite a bit back in the days when Trump was getting along with Democratic politicians like Bill and Hillary Clinton and, and Jesse Jackson was good at doing that too. And when I was at the Education Department with Bill Bennett, my first job in Washington, we worked with Jackson on a couple of things. I can't really remember what they were on the same. They were minor things, to be honest, but he was interested in helping minority kids do better in school, and we were interested in that too. And he was open, I think, to some of the sort of mildly conservative ish education reform proposals. He wasn't a big fan of the establishment keeping him down. So I can't remember what. I think Bill Bennett met with him a couple of times when I was Bill's chief of staff and the like. I last saw Jackson, I'll just say two things quickly. I saw him, but two, three years ago, I guess, when we were still in the old offices. But I remember this was. I went over to the hotel around the corner to have breakfast and then Jesse Jackson came in with some sort of entourage. He saw me, recognized me. We had a. And he. His speech was not great at that point. The Parkinson's had gotten pretty bad. But he wanted to talk. And so we sat down and had coffee and he. It was a little hard to understand sometimes, but he wanted to talk. And I was happy to do that, of course. And we had a very nice sort of reminiscing. Reminiscing, reminiscing, or however that word is, type talk. And I don't believe he was a big fan of President Trump. I would just say, based on what I remember of that conversation. I do think, in retrospect, I thought about this after I met with him there and saw how much his being there meant to some of the waitstaff at the hotel and some of the other people working there, many of whom were Stacey or black Americans. I was against Jackson just politically and kind of hoped he didn't do well and so forth in the primaries. But I've got to say that I think I underestimated how much he meant to black Americans, but to a lot of disadvantaged Americans and Americans who thought they hadn't gotten a fair deal in this country. And in a way, his eloquence and his fervor, really, and toughness in standing up for the people he thought needed to be stood up for at a time when not everyone was standing up for them. I think I underestimated how much that meant to people, and I respect him for that.

A (17:33)

Yeah. Yeah. I was talking to Sam Stein a little bit about this this morning. Obviously, he comes out of the world of covering Democrats a lot more so than I do and is much, much older, much, much older than I am. So, you know, he had a lot more to say and to think about about Jesse Jackson. One of the things he was kind of pointing out was just he was kind of making this case that in some ways, you could almost see the Jackson candidacy as sort of like a forerunner to the whole Trump movement. Obviously extremely different in a whole bunch of ways. But you have this guy who's kind of sui generis, who comes out of the 80s, this, like, larger than life, you know, figure in all of these ways, who just sort of bursts onto the scene with this totally, like, orthogonal, unusual candidacy, just starts uprooting party orthodoxies left and right. And you have, you know, this. This real kind of frenzy among the sort of party establishment to spit that whole thing out of its mouth and wall it off. And, like, we're not going over there. Obviously, the Democrats kind of succeeded in that respect for the Jackson candidacies, where the Republicans pretty notably failed a couple of decades later. Trump. I'm curious what you. What you make of all that. I don't. I don't know anything about any of that. That's. Sam.

B (18:50)

I don't really think it's Trump. I mean, I think Jackson at the time he was the candidate of the left. He was the candidate who particularly spoke obviously for black Americans or claimed to. Not that he got all those votes. Other Democrats got plenty of black votes and he fought with the moderate Democrats in the Democratic establishment. I don't think he was particularly orthogonal. I just think he was on the left, honestly. And more anti war and more fervent on civil rights and more unwilling to accept compromises. And in that respect, not that unlike Bernie Sanders or something. I guess you'd say more civil rights than Sanders. I think like Trump in a way in that he hadn't been elected to anything. But that's also like Pat Robertson or Pat Buchanan. I would say in the 80s Jackson ran in 84 and then again in I guess 88, I think, I think not 92. And Pat Robertson ran in 88. And I remember at the time vaguely thinking, well, that's sort of how our politics works. There were mainstream candidates who put elected to office, then there are challengers from the extremes. I don't mean that pejoratively, just from the more ideological sides of the two parties who challenge these elected officials. And they're the uncompromising types and maybe they're useful, maybe they're not and they, they do raise some issues and then they tend not to win the primaries. This is different from Trump, obviously. Get Trump. I do think Trump in that respect is just a whole different. Jackson didn't take on the Democratic establishment the way Trump took on McCain and Bush and had contempt for them and said they were liars and basically almost war criminals and stuff. Jackson was just. I'm a much more militant, pro civil rights, pro equality type than the Democratic establishment. But as I say, I think I underestimate. He was the first major, I guess Shirley Chisholm anomaly ran in 72, the first major black candidate for president. I mean that's really his historic importance. He had other issues. He was an intelligent man. He didn't confide himself to simply speaking about race or about the issues of particular concern African Americans. But, and look, I think I, you know, I didn't agree with him so. And I thought it was fine he could run. But I mean I, I didn't care as much in a way about that symbolic side of Jackson at the time, I suppose thinking more about the Republicans. But I think I underestimated how much that meant to a lot of people. I don't know that these people who were so thrilled to shake his hand in the hotel lobby necessarily agreed with him on every issue. Maybe they would have voted for, you know, someone else in the primary. For that matter, there were plenty of good liberal Democrats who were good on civil rights, running in 84 and 88, but and 92 and, you know, and since then. But I think I underestimated just how much the symbolic importance of Jackson for that community.

A (21:25)

The number one resolution for people last year was to save more money, but nearly half gave up by February. Don't let that be you. Download Rocket Money to reach your financial goals this year, track your spending, cut waste and automate savings in one simple app. Rocket Money shows you all your expenses and categorizes them so you know exactly where your money's going and where you're overspending. From there, the app cuts waste by canceling your unused subscriptions and lowering your bills. No customer service needed. With that money freed up, the app will automatically set some cash aside for your goals. Whether it's an emergency fund, paying off debt or saving for vacation, Rocket Money's got you covered. Users love the app with over 186,000 five star ratings and on average users can save up to $740 a year when using all the app's premium features. Make saving money a priority this year. Go to RocketMoney.com Cancel to get started. That's RocketMoney.com Cancel RocketMoney.com Cancel Let me turn to something we've actually been writing about for a change. In theory, that's what we're doing here. I will reiterate for people who are tuning into the live stream, we're doing something a little bit new this morning. Bill and I, we write the Morning Shots newsletter. We are here about half an hour after it went out, as we are in theory going to do every Tuesday from now on and doing basically a video version of the morning newsletter, chatting about the news, chatting about what's coming up in the week ahead. Morning Shots is a morning newsletter in sort of a loose Sense. It's an AM newsletter that goes out at 9am and this is a video to tee up the week in a loose sense, since it is happening mid morning on Tuesday. But here's something we've both written about a little bit the last couple days in the actual newsletter, which is that Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, was in Munich this weekend for the Munich Security Conference. Obviously a lot of allies getting together annually there to discuss matters of national security, matters of geostrategy, all these sorts of things. It was interesting. We knew it was going to be interesting going in because one year ago JD Vance took to the Munich Security Conference to sort of throw the first punch in the second Trump administration's sort of war on our historic allies in NATO and in the eu. You know, sort of read them the riot act, read them a long list of grievances about a lot of things. Rubio took a different tone. He was a lot more kind of just sort of respectful or flattering. I don't know how you'd want to say it exactly, but leaned in a lot more to America's historic ties with Europe. Had a lot of good things to say about sort of the US European shared future. Let's queue up just a little bit of Marco Rubio from this speech talking about how good Europe is.

B (24:16)

Times we disagree. Our disagreements come from our profound sense of concern about a Europe with which we are connected not just economically, not just militarily. We are connected spiritually, and we are connected culturally. We want Europe to be strong. We believe that Europe must survive because the two great wars of the last century serve for us as history's constant reminder that ultimately our destiny is and will always be intertwined with yours, because we know. Because we know that the fate of Europe will never be irrelevant to our own.

A (25:14)

Yeah, so he. He obviously gets the ovation there. Europe wants to hear this sort of stuff coming from the Trump administration because it so often is not hearing this sort of stuff coming from the Trump administration. We are. We are fresh off of the heels of everybody kind of spending several weeks wondering whether Donald Trump was truly going to, like, rupture NATO irreparably by going and trying to grab Greenland by force away from Denmark. He seems to have sort of cooled on that whole line, as he did a year ago. But so a little bit more of an olive branch from Rubio at this moment, when so many other countries are sort of openly weighing what a future might have to look like in a world where sort of the west is not led by America in sort of close, close economic and military and strategic alliances. But you wrote this morning about sort of a different element of the whole. The whole Rubio thing, which is that, you know, he was sort of, in his speech, he was sort of recasting sort of parts of what. What it means to be, like, part of Western civilization or part of America or what we're fighting for, things like that. Let's queue up that clip a little bit here as well.

B (26:19)

Security, which this conference is largely about, is not merely a series of technical questions. How much we spend on defense or where, how we deploy it. These are important questions. They are, but they are not the fundamental one. The fundamental question we must answer at the outset is what exactly are we defending? Because armies do not fight for abstractions. Armies fight for a people, armies fight for a nation. Armies fight for a way of life. And that is what we are defending. A great civilization that has every reason to be proud of its history, confident of its future, and aims to always be the master of its own economic and political destiny.

A (27:08)

So, Bill, you focused on this in the newsletter today. What's Marco Rubio getting at here with this sort of critique of the idea that anybody would fight for abstractions?

B (27:19)

And there are a couple of things I think, first of all, I mean, Trump at Davos you shouldn't ignore in your little history there advance. It's not just that, gee, you know, Trump said a few things about Greenland. I mean, the Trump administration has been pretty determined to make clear they do not believe in the post 1945 liberal order, of which we were the. We've been the anchor and the alliance structure has been the anchor and data has been an anchor. So I think that rupture has happened, as Chancellor Wirtz, as you pointed out on Monday in the newsletter, has said, and this is a pro American German chancellor who was a businessman before he got into politics, acknowledging that we can't go back. So I think Rubio is being nicer about it. He's trying to put the sort of nationalism of Trump and Vance. I call it the ethno nationalism or cultural nationalism, if you want to be nicer in a slightly nicer way to the Europeans. But fundamentally he's embracing the Trumpist version of America, which is kind of, as I said, cultural nationalism. And really beneath that, a kind of ethno nationalism. It's ludicrous. I mean, what was the American Revolution fought about? Weren't we one people with the British? We were. In fact, the founders make that clear. The Declaration almost uses that term. I think we differed with them because our rights were being violated. We hold these truths to be self evident. That's kind of an abstract statement. Those truths are kind of abstract. All men are created. That's what the revolution was fought for. We spoke the same language as the British. We had the same culture and history with them. What was the Civil War about, incidentally? That we were one nation. We, as Lincoln says in Second Inaugural, I think we read the same Bible and pray to the same God. We speak the same language. We had the same common traditions in history. We differed on a rather important principle that was Also part of a way of life in the south and all that a little bit. But it was fundamentally the principle of equality and slavery. But this is part of their project. They need to redefine America as kind of a cultural thing so that there's no universal implication to American principles. So we don't have to fight for democracy, we don't have to stand for democracy. We just deal with countries, I guess, based on some common culture. And Hungary is part of Europe, but I guess our common culture with Hungary is as strong as our common culture with anyone else. A lot of Hungarians came to America. That is true, incidentally, and therefore Trump, I mean, Rubio. The fundamental lie, the thing that puts the lie to any notion that Rubio is fundamentally changing anything about Trump, Vance, Stephen Miller type foreign policy is when he goes directly from Munich to Budapest, meets with Orban and basically endorses Orban, tries to help Orban in a contested reelection campaign. Rubio turns his back on the liberals in the broad sense of liberals, the liberal Democrats in Hungary who are fighting against Orban's authoritarianism and supports Orban. For me, that says everything you need to know. So I'm very unsympathetic to Rubio. I would say, as you can tell from my newsletter, you were fairly tough on him too, yesterday. But in a way, Rubio annoys me. The more Rubio knows better. Rubio doesn't believe it or didn't used to believe it, I suppose. God now, he's now been triangulating so much with Vance and Miller and Trump that God knows what Marco now believes. But I guess he thinks he'll run against Vance in 2028. Don't you think? It's the more reasonable version of Trumpism, the kinder and gentler Trumpism, but in a way that's even more pernicious because he' to sucker a few people into believing that the rupture isn't real, that Trump isn't serious. Advance and Miller aren't serious about everything, but they are serious. And the Europeans, to their credit, really have realized now that it's a serious matter and they need to think about their future. And that's to say nothing of everything that's happened, happening here at home. That shows how serious they are about their sort of ethno nationalist, authoritarian agenda.

A (30:55)

So, yeah, it's weird. Like when you, when you, when you follow just sort of the way that different parts of the right talk about this sort of thing, there's sort of, you can almost do like this taxonomy of different groups that are willing to say more or less explicit things about what the supposed cultural heritage of America is. You have people who are basically just trying to couch all of this as like, just sort of a broad critique of sort of globalism and sort of neoliberalism. Like, I can't believe that these, these people thought that just sort of like, you know, words on a page are really what make a nation or something. Like, that's kind of the substance. And you have people who go somewhat farther than that and they talk about, you know, American heritage and, you know, being more or less American based on, you know, how long your ancestors were here. You have people who go a little farther than that. Elon Musk had a great tweet this week, basically talking about how American heritage, American culture is really Scots Irish culture. Like, that's a, that, that there's a direct through line. There's a lot of Scots Irish DNA in American history. Obviously that's, that's not nothing, but it's one strand of this thing. And then obviously you have people who are willing to just say that a little bit more explicitly and say American culture is white culture and white culture is what needs to be preserved, Western civilization. And in reality, sort of like Europeans and the Europeans living here are the realest Americans, the truest Americans. I think the point you make about Orban is particularly notable given that there's this broad project not just to sort of globalize the project, not just to say that like every sort of right wing government around the world, and particularly the right wing governments in white countries are like our dearest bosom friends. But at the same time to say, if you're here and you're on the left and you got here more recently, you're less of an American. You basically don't count. You can look at the campaigns against Representative Ilhan Omar, who Donald Trump, Trump never really acknowledges is really American at all. She's a US citizen, she's a lawmaker, she's been elected. But, but, but, yeah. And it's all kind of one thing. And that's kind of one of the, one of the interesting things about, you know, today's right is you can kind of slot yourself in there anywhere based on how, how comfortable you are with, with, you know, various temperatures of out and out bigotry or guarded bigotry, or even no bigotry at all, but just sort of a willingness to make common cause with these bigots. But it is all pushing in the same direction of like, let's get rid of the idea that there are these sort of universal principles that are, and that's not only do they bind us together, but they actually have a hold on us that we have to sort of aspire to fulfill them and that they matter and that we should consider that they matter when we make our decisions and when we, you know, build our public policy. Sweeping all of that aside in favor of, like you say, this sort of cultural ethno nationalist sort of situation. So that's all really good stuff.

B (33:50)

That's well said. I would just the only thing I'd add, and Will Summer and I discussed this on Sunday on the podcast on the Sunday Billboard podcast is how much more radical that point of view has gotten over the last several years and how much stronger the radical sides or elements of that point of view have gotten. So what was sort of in the center three years ago is now not, I mean, the center is now much further right. And Rubio now seems like the voice of reason saying things that really five, 10 years ago, certainly 10 years ago, Republicans and conservatives would have said, no, no, no, that's not correct, and then go and see War Bond. I mean, that's really striking. So, yeah, I think the radicalization of it all shouldn't be underestimated. Which is why I do not think Marco Rubio will be the nominee in 2028. Because the party does not want the kind and gentle version of this. They increasingly seem to want the more extreme and mean spirited version of this. But we'll see.

A (34:44)

Yeah, yeah, no, I'm totally sympathetic with you there. I am genuinely very interested to see what happens in 2028. Setting aside the question of will Trump try to run again? Because who knows? Maybe. But if he doesn't, just say he rides off into the sunset. The whole question of the Rubio Vance potential primary is fascinating because I think I agree with you that the MAGA base is much more just sort of in step with Vance on a lot of all these sorts of things. On the other hand, Rubio is a far more talented politician. I mean, Vance gives people the ick in a way that Rubio never has. And I wonder how that would shake out in a head to head between the two of those guys. Who knows, maybe some other insane thing will happen and we won't get that. We won't get that primary. But that, yes, I'm in agreement with you about all this stuff with Rubio. Let's move on to one other thing here. And we thought maybe we wouldn't push this over 30 minutes, maybe next week we'll yap a little less and we'll get it a little tighter. It's a work in progress, everybody. But I wanted to talk a little bit about Minneapolis as well. Obviously you are heading there with a bunch of our bulwark colleagues. This week we're doing a couple of shows in Minneapolis. It seems as though, or at least the Trump administration is suggesting the sort of Minneapolis chapter of this, of mass deportation, of ICE enforcement, of immigration enforcement in America, whatever you want to call it, is wrapping up or is scaling down at least. Tom Homan, the border czar who has assumed control over there, basically said last week, you know, we're closing up shop. We've done what we came here to do. There's a few things that obviously remain to be seen, like whether that's actually happening or whether that's going to happen as, as, as he has said. But the, a lot of what is still to talk about is just aftermath. And obviously the most significant piece of aftermath is what's happening with the investigations into the two American citizens, Renee Goode and Alex Preddy, who were killed by border agents and or ICE during the sort of weeks long maximalist enforcement operation in Minneapolis. We had one piece of news on that yesterday, which is that the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension announced that the FBI has officially told them they will not hand over any evidence that the FBI has about the death spread specifically of Alex Preddy. So here's the statement up on the screen, and this is just from the BCA. The FBI formally notified the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension on February 13th that it will not provide the BCA with access to any information or evidence that is collected in the January 24th shooting death of Alex Preddy. The BCA reiterated the request to receive information, access to evidence and cooperation in the Jan. 7 shooting death of Renee Goode and the Jan. 14 shooting of Julio Sosa Selles. It remains unclear if there will be any cooperation or sharing of information related to those two shootings. This is just kind of in keeping with what we have seen from federal enforcement all throughout this operation and particularly after these incidents, rather than, you know, immediately rushing to ensure that there would be sort of an independent, transparent investigation into these deaths. We saw the federal government close ranks. We saw them, especially after the death of Alex Preddy, fail to help local police secure the scene of the killing sort of unmolested. And in fact, immediately after the shooting of Alex Pareti, we saw them trying to sort of order local and state police off the scene. So, I mean, it's really an astonishing thing. Here we have the federal government, they have moderated some of their rhetoric about these deaths. They're not calling Alex Perdi a domestic terrorist anymore. They're actually acknowledging that what happened to him was bad in some way. But. But pretty much as baldly as you can. You can put it. They are. They are frustrating state attempts to investigate the circumstances around his death.

B (38:38)

I mean, Homan's made clear the mass deportation effort continues. They happen to have. It didn't go well for them in Minneapolis and they pulled back, which is a good thing and a huge tribute to the people of Minneapolis, I want to say. Just really remarkable, I think, exercise of civic virtue, really, and community, you know, watching out for each other. These things are supposed to be dead here in modern America. And it turns out that maybe civic spirit and community spirit and willingness to sacrifice for others and take risks for others is more alive and well than we thought. Weirdly, the Trump administration reaction to seeing real cruelty and real authoritarianism, maybe this spark of flame, of liberty has been sort of rekindled. And I give. Give a ton of credit to the people of Minneapolis. Their political leaders did pretty well. But honestly, the people were the ones who drove this and also behaved with great discipline, 99% peaceful and so forth. I mean, the degree to which, of course, the Trump administration has no interest in any accountability for any of these. They might do one or two fake investigations. I imagine they'll be fake, but there's been abuses all over the country. And we're not talking a dozen, we're talking hundreds, maybe a thousands. Didn't some federal judge say they're ignoring like hundreds of court orders? I mean, in Minneapolis? So, yeah, and the FBI is all on board with covering things up, as well as Border Patrol and ICE and all of dhs, of course. I mean, I think one shouldn't kid oneself that this is any major change in the mass deportation agenda, which is itself key to the overall. Which is part of a mass intimidation agenda, which is part of the overall authoritarian agenda. So I'm very pleased that the people of Minneapolis have shown us that these. How to resist and these things can be resisted. Very important, I think, to show that we people don't have to just roll over for this. They were way ahead, I believe, of, you know, they were busy resisting and taking real risks. And I talked to two different people in the last 48 hours, somewhat randomly, who have friends and relatives in Minneapolis who talked about people my age, people who are not kids like you or even like Sam Stein. Driving food to, you know, volunteering to help provide, visit people in their homes, immigrants who were terrified of coming out, bringing them food, bringing the medicines, helping to guard daycare centers and alert people if ISIS showing up. I mean, these are just regular people who are not themselves at risk, who could have just stayed home and sort of ignored all this. Their neighborhoods probably aren't even being patrolled that much, but they've really volunteered to help their neighbors and to help people whose liberties are being infringed and who were being treated really terribly. We've seen that over and over. Obviously, all the windows being broken by ICE thugs and border patrol thugs and stuff. So on the one hand, very heartening, I think the example of civic sort of activism, and I would even call it civic virtue. But the degree to which the whole enterprise is so bad, this is Minneapolis, was maybe the worst, the worst instance of it. It certainly was because of the killings, of course, But I was looking forward to talking to people out there and sort of getting their sense of what's happening on the ground. But again, you just have to go online and look at what's happening in Maine or in many states actually, and see that Florida, I mean, there's cases near here recently that the, the abuses continue. And this is what a mass deportation regime looks like. I mean, you can do it with massive, you know, with 12 people surrounding someone in a public venue. You can have six people busting into someone's house. But again, and I come back also the brutality is the point. I was really personally affected by the bashing of the windows. They love breaking glass and people hesitate for getting out of the car, bashing the window. No one does that. No policeman does that. And you might do it if someone's pulling a gun on him, but you know what I mean, no policeman wears masks. Every policeman has, identifies himself and has a bad. I mean, the thing is so contrary, I think, to American traditions, to the bad, to the. So reminiscent of some bad traditions we used to have that we've mostly gotten beyond. So I guess I come back to that. But I think Minneapolis is very important in the sense that I think for me it's the single most effective, most important setback to the Trump administration authoritarian agenda, the single most effective response. And interesting that it was done by a whole bunch of citizens with some leadership, obviously from activists and community leaders, but a whole bunch of citizens kind of getting together and doing it more than top down political leadership.

A (43:07)

Yeah, yeah. And we're, I mean, obviously we're going to see you Know where what, what the next thing is, you know, where the next sort of enforcement pop up, shop takes place. But, but I think there's a pretty strong reason to believe that the response of citizens in Minneapolis was not just efficacious for getting ICE out of Minneapolis. I mean, I think we will, we will see whether the Trump administration holds to this. But at least there are strong indications that even though the mass deport, I mean, they're certainly not turning away from that broad goal. There has been an internal fight within DHS for months over whether the best way to push that goal forward is to mostly move in more frictionless environments, move in red states, move in red cities, jurisdictions where local and state police cooperate more with ice, and therefore there's less sort of mayhem in the streets about these sorts of things, or whether they should prioritize punching Democratic governors and mayors in the mouth and moving in, in force into blue cities and blue states and maximizing the mayhem and maximizing the chaos to sort of like feed the right wing online appetite for this sort of content that's, you know, militarized immigration enforcement in the streets, brutalizing protesters, which makes them happy. They want that in there. They want that in their feeds. And I think what we have seen because of how just decent and, and just sort of strikingly noble the response has been in Minnesota, the, the internal conversation there has swung, at least for the moment, pretty decisively in favor of the group at DHS that wants to see primarily the less, the more frictionless.

B (44:48)

I think you're being too nice. You're being too nice to that group at dhs. Are they improving conditions in detention? Are they not? I mean, I don't know. I'm a little bit suspicious.

A (44:59)

Let me be clear. It's horrible. The things that are happening are horrifying. I mean, Adrian Carrasquillo, our immigration reporter, had a horrible, horrible dispatch about the conditions on the ground at Dilley, that Texas holding facility. You know, there are many, many awful, awful outrages that are happening. But if the question if what Minnesota, if what the people in Minneapolis were fighting for was quit snatching our neighbors off the streets, this is not gonna work here. Quit brutalizing protesters, all these sorts of things. All I am saying is that there seems to have been some redirection of policy such that it's not just that they are improving conditions in Minneapolis, they are improving conditions in Los Angeles, they're improving conditions in New York. They're making it seem more politically painful for Donald Trump to, for instance, reach for the insurrection act to go into these blue cities and blue states, as he obviously has wanted to do at times in the past. And they have kind of moved away from that. I'm not saying that is the end of mass deportations. It's not the victory to end all victories. But I do think it is more significant of a victory than just ICE is no longer operating at force in the Twin Cities in Minnesota. It reverberates beyond just that is my point.

B (46:10)

Yeah. No, I think it's very significant, too, and I think. I hope it reverberates beyond that. And I hope Democrats at Capitol Hill understand what they should now do in terms of funding ICE and Border Patrol. But I would just be hesitant. And I don't quarrel that maybe they'll do fewer of the mass rates and a little more selective stuff. They're still not just going to go after violent criminals. They make that very clear. They're going after innocent people who've been here 15 years. They're going to do it maybe with a slightly less hoopla than before, but I guess I don't. I'm a little dubious about the fundamental change in dhs. I don't know what evidence there is really for that. I mean, let's see if Kristi Noem and Corey Lewandowski leave and if. And again, if the whole federal government isn't, and if Steve Miller somehow doesn't keep saying what he's been saying. We'll see. We'll see. Look, I hope it is a bigger change, but this is so central to their whole project, and you can't do mass deportation in a humane way. That's the truth.

A (47:03)

That's true. All I'm saying is I'm happier with those three people you mentioned back on their heels, on the defensive, feeling like they need to triage and triangulate rather than surging forward confidently. I call that a win. Obviously, it's not the last win, but. And you mentioned the DHS funding fight in the Senate right now. Obviously that is an ongoing matter. I'm sure probably by this time next week, we'll have more to say about what's going on with all of that. But that's going to be a major flashpoint, too. We shouldn't belabor it now because we've already been talking for 45 minutes. We should let these people go about their lives, the ones who have not tuned out already. Bill, do you have any closing thoughts on any of this before we split?

B (47:39)

No, no. I think the DHS funding Congress comes back next week, so that Will be probably if we do this again on Tuesday, if they don't boot up the suits, the big shots there at the Bulwark down to the side, this was all a disaster. And God knows the world does not need even more of us on Tuesday. And if we do this again Tuesday, I bet we'll be discussing this, don't you think? In a week we'll have real sense of what's happening on the Hill. It'll be interesting.

A (47:59)

So come on back, any of you who are still around out there. We're not actually on YouTube or substack. We're just here in Streamyard, so we can't see how many of you there are. Hopefully there are still some. Thanks for watching. Thanks for sticking well.

B (48:09)

And it also, isn't it up on you. They can watch it on YouTube afterwards. They don't have to watch. You know, some people have lives, Andrew, I know this will be a shock to you. They're actually working or doing other things between 10am and 10:45am they can watch it at 1pm, 3pm, 7pm midnight when they can't sleep. You know, that's the great thing about YouTube, right?

A (48:27)

Wherever you are, whenever you are, thanks for watching. Thanks for sticking around. Let us know. Tell us, you know, this, this is sort of experimental because, because we haven't done these video morning shots before, these morning chasers, as I guess we're calling them before. Let us know what you think. Let us know we should do differently. We're gonna, we're gonna keep workshopping it, making it better and better for you guys. But thanks for watching. We hope you will subscribe to the Bulwark on whatever platform you are currently experiencing us on. You know, follow us on YouTube. Go follow us over on Substack. Read our actual newsletter@the bulwark.com. get that in your inboxes. That's what Bill and I do. That's, you know, that's our real value to the enterprise, even if this is turns out to be a bust. So thanks to you all. Thanks, Bill, for coming on to talk about this and we will see you all next week.