Epstein Survivors and the Blanche Hearing | Morning Shots

Summary

Bulwark Takes — Morning Shots (July 14, 2026)

Episode Theme:
A blisteringly candid look at the Todd Blanche Attorney General confirmation hearings, the re-emergence of the Epstein case as a political flashpoint, intensifying ICE violence under the Trump administration, and the strategic fiasco in Iran. Host Ben Parker is joined by Bill Kristol for an unfiltered breakdown of the week's key political battlegrounds.

---

Main Discussion Points & Insights

---

1. Todd Blanche Attorney General Confirmation Hearings

Overview:

• The Senate begins confirmation hearings for Todd Blanche, with format changes designed to minimize scrutiny ([00:19]–[07:51]).
• The Republican majority has restricted senator questioning to one 10-minute round each—an unusually tight constraint for such a high-profile, controversial post ([00:51], [07:18]).

Key Insights:

• Hearings Structure: Two days. Day 1: Blanche faces senators. Day 2: Witnesses testify (3 GOP, 2 Democrat witnesses).
• GOP Tactics: Reduced questioning time is seen as a deliberate bid to railroad the nomination with as little public exposure as possible.
• Notable Wildcards: Potential for high-profile confrontation over ICE abuses and Blanche’s mishandling of the Epstein investigation ([02:07]–[07:18]).
• Democratic Opportunity: Senators could use what little time they have to press hard on DOJ inaction on ICE killings and the Epstein cover-up.

Notable Quotes:

• Ben Parker: “You’re talking about... maybe the least amount of overall questioning for a major cabinet... or at least for an attorney general nominee that like anyone can remember... It’s really shameful and cowardly.” ([07:18])
• Bill Kristol: “Even if he doesn’t drone on, even if senators succeed in interrupting him and making him answer a little bit, it’s just not enough time. No one would do this for any normal position... It’s a little more of a disgrace than it seems at first almost.” ([09:03])

Timestamps:

• Confirmation Process Details: [00:51]–[02:07]
• Hearings Schedule and Procedures: [02:07]–[03:23]
• Senate Tactics and Accountability: [07:18]–[10:08]

---

2. The Epstein Files — Survivors at Center Stage

Overview:

• Blanche accused of orchestrating years of obstruction, shielding perpetrators, and mistreating victims in the Epstein investigation ([03:23]–[07:18], [10:08]–[14:26]).
• Day 2’s Democratic witnesses include Liz Oyer (ex-pardon attorney) and Dandy Bensky (Epstein survivor).

Key Insights:

• High Stakes: Blanche’s connection to the Epstein files is politically toxic—survivor testimony could rock the hearings.
• Republican Dilemma: GOP senators risk public backlash whether they attack, ignore, or awkwardly attempt to sympathize with survivors.
• Viral Victim Activism: PSA video featuring survivors adds pressure and nationwide visibility.
• Electoral Dynamics: GOP senators, especially those in vulnerable seats, can’t easily dismiss the issue without risking voter ire.

Notable Quotes:

• Bill Kristol: “I think there will be some Epstein survivors at the meeting... If Blanche recognizes their presence, if he acknowledges them, if he apologizes to them for the way they’ve been treated... That could be the most interesting moment.” ([03:23])
• Ben Parker: “It does take courage to come forward... Even though you’re likely to lose... We should be clear.” ([11:27])
• Epstein Survivor (from PSA): “Todd Blanch had a duty to protect us. Instead, he protected the people who committed crimes against us... Todd Blanche failed us. He failed victims everywhere. We deserve better.” ([12:42])

Timestamps:

• Epstein Cover-Up Details: [03:23]–[07:18]
• Testimony Stakes: [10:08]–[14:26]
• PSA Video: [12:03]–[13:16]

---

3. Escalating ICE Violence

Overview:

• Intensified ICE violence—two recent extrajudicial killings in Houston and Maine by ICE agents ([02:07], [15:46]–[22:28]).
• Justice Department under Blanche accused of stonewalling investigations; federal government increasingly shields ICE from accountability.

Key Insights:

• Pattern of Violence: ICE shootings are becoming distressingly routine, enabled by lax training and a culture of impunity.
• Administrative Responsibility: DOJ’s refusal to hold ICE agents accountable represents a major shift—historically DOJ has prosecuted federal agent abuses.
• Political Calculus: Democrats, afraid of “soft on crime” attacks, have struggled to find a moral and strategic response.
• Systemic Enablers: Rapid ICE expansion, lowered standards, and tacit support from White House and conservative media fuel more violence.

Notable Quotes:

• Ben Parker: “I mean the federal government is just shooting innocent people in the streets. Like, I don’t, I don’t know how else to say it. Like it is, it’s remarkable.” ([15:46])
• Bill Kristol: “ICE trying to meet its numerical quotas by rounding up as many dark skinned people basically as possible, it seems like, because that’s how they made the mistake both times.” ([16:53])
• Bill Kristol: “It’s really such an outrage that I think, and it will be interesting to see how much it comes up at the hearing and more broadly, just what the ripple effects of these two shootings are politically.” ([19:02])
• Ben Parker: “You have created a violence machine. You have sent all the signals that, like, if you start shooting people in the streets, we will be behind you.” ([21:03])

Timestamps:

• ICE Violence Overview: [15:46]–[22:28]
• Political and Administrative Analysis: [19:41]–[22:59]

---

4. U.S. Escalation in Iran

Overview:

• Recent U.S. airstrikes in Iran and the administration’s seeming lack of strategy ([27:00]–[31:28]).
• The Trump administration is criticized for reactive, short-term military measures and undermining the “freedom of navigation” argument by threatening to impose tolls in the Strait of Hormuz.

Key Insights:

• No Theory of Victory: Military actions framed as “making Iran pay a price” lack long-term geopolitical objectives.
• Self-Inflicted Bind: Trump’s pride prevents withdrawal; strategic errors risk worsening outcomes and further instability.
• Allied Dismay: Allies are confused and frustrated by contradictory U.S. objectives, particularly around Strait of Hormuz policies.

Notable Quotes:

• Ben Parker: “We conducted a reprisal attack to make the Iranians pay a price for their violation of the MoU or whatever. And it’s like. To make them pay a price. Like, that’s. I mean, that’s...that’s not a goal.” ([28:01])
• Bill Kristol: “When you’re in a hole, stop digging. And Trump should understand that. But his pride, I think it’s his vanity that doesn’t let him do that...he’s digging us in deeper.” ([28:37], [30:59])

Timestamps:

• Iran Airstrikes and Administration Critique: [27:00]–[31:28]

---

Memorable Moments

• PSA Video by Epstein Survivors: Stark and emotional, directly urging senators to vote “no” on Blanche ([12:03]–[13:16]).
• Procedural Frustration: Ben Parker likens the entire confirmation process to a sham job interview in which “you get one question and the nominee drones on” ([10:08]).
• ICE Violence Machine: The show’s description of ICE not as mere bureaucracy, but as a “violence machine” enabled by federal complicity ([21:03]).

---

Closing Thoughts

• Impact on Upcoming Elections: Both hosts underscore that the Epstein and ICE issues could haunt Republicans in competitive races, especially as survivor voices and visible injustices resonate beyond traditional partisan divides ([07:18], [13:50]).
• Democratic Strategy: A call for Democrats to directly confront the administration’s extremism by embracing a message of “tough on immigration, but anti-shooting people in the streets” ([19:41]).

Useful for Listeners Who Missed the Episode:

This episode offers an urgent, unsparing analysis of serious failures of government accountability, both in the hasty bid to install an Attorney General mired in scandal and in the unchecked, systemic violence of U.S. immigration enforcement. The Bulwark’s team, in characteristic style, presses for real moral clarity and political courage—while forecasting that these controversies will remain front-and-center in both Washington and the 2026 electoral battlegrounds.

Transcript

[A]

Hi, I'm Ben Parker from the Bulwark. Welcome back to Morning Shots live on the Bulwark takes feed, joined as always by the inestimable Bill Kristol. Bill, we got a lot to talk about this morning.

[B]

We do, Ben. Fair amount of news. Congress is back and Trump is being Trump and none of it is. None of that is terribly encouraging, honestly.

[A]

Yeah, Trump is being Trump. So lots of things are going to happen. Congress is back, so nothing is going to happen. But that's actually not true. We have to start, of course, with the Todd Blanche confirmation hearings which are scheduled to begin tomorrow. And you wrote earlier this week that the Democrats actually have an opportunity to do something here. They're constantly complaining that, you know, in the minority you don't really get that much opportunity. If the majority says you don't get to make a fuss, you don't get to make a fuss. But here that's not actually true. And you have some more details about what that hearing is going to look like, right?

[B]

Yeah, the hearing itself, just so people know. So it's a two day hearing that's sort of traditional for a major Cabinet appointment. Usually the Cabinet nominee takes the first day and answers questions from all the senators and then the second day is witnesses, as they're called, people who can testify for or against him. Often it's a previous, you know, big shots who've held the office on his side or big shots on the other side. So what we have tomorrow is a little different. Blanche will go at begin at 9am tomorrow. Interestingly, the Republican majority which runs these hearings, the majority of committees much more powerful than the minority, has limited questioning to 10 minutes per cent or one round, I gather, 10 minutes per senator, which is less than the usual for a major confirmation. People who watch them would know that sometimes it's more like a 15 minute 1 round or 2, 8 or 10 minute rounds. It doesn't matter that much, honestly, the question. Senators will say what they say and Blanche will filibuster as he chooses. Still, it's interesting that the Republicans want to confine it as much as possible as a way to put it there when they want the least wild cards the better. So that's, that'll go. I don't know if you do the math. 10 minutes times 21 senators and a little extra time for Blanche's opening statement. Some, you know, some stoppage time, you know.

[A]

Yeah, exactly. Chair and ringing memorial of long opening.

[B]

Yeah, and also breaks for. Breaks for, you know, bathrooms and bathroom breaks and maybe a little Lunch break. I'm thinking five, six hours tomorrow. So that goes, let's just say 9am to 3, 3pm Probably Thursday. That could be. So that could be interesting. The Republican senators will give Blanche questions. He's well prepared for layups really and won't challenge him. Maybe one or two exceptions. Cordon Tillis. The Democratic senators will try to challenge him. He'll try to evade and filibuster. I think the one most interesting wildcard for me, the two, the lesser of the two, but still interesting, is ice. I mean with the recent developments and with what's developments, recent killings in Houston and Maine. Cordon from Houston is on the committee. From Texas is on the committee. You know, I should. DOJ has refused to really have any, take any oversight, any responsibility for the behavior of ICE agents, even if they're breaking the law. That's not traditionally the case. The Justice Department has often investigated possible crimes by federal officials. In fact, if they don't do it, who's going to do it? Well, you say their own agency. Well, DHS says the inspector general is

[A]

going to investigate dhs, certainly not local law enforcement. They've been stonewalling and they've been stonewall.

[B]

Then DOJ has mostly cooperated with that so well. So I think it's a chance to make some news on ice. And I think even though Collins is on the committee, Collins for Maine, obviously one of the most more gettable Republican votes. Presley would be I think influenced if Blanche isn't forthcoming and doesn't promise at least to change his ways, the ways of the Justice Department under his leadership on holding ICE accountable for killing innocent people. So I think ICE is an interesting issue. Maybe the more consequential one though would be Epstein, where Blanche has been obviously, as we all know, at the center, the very center really of the COVID up from the beginning, the center of the original stonewall. The center of the COVID up which that famous situation room meeting on July 17, almost exactly a year ago actually, which he participated in a political spin meeting that the deputy Attorney General came to the White House to be part of. He then went to see Maxwell a week later. A week after that, he put her in a cushy prison camp. So there's a lot to ask about. I think there will be some Epstein survivors at the meeting. I, I'm told be interesting to see if they, if Blanche recognizes their presence, if he acknowledges them, if he apologizes to them for the way they've been treated over the years. Maybe Democratic senators will, will introduce them. I Don't know. But I think that'll adds a bit of a wild card Thursday that is the quote witnesses also beginning I think nine in the morning probably there. I think the Republicans, the majority get three witnesses, the Democrats two. The Republicans are going to have former Attorney General Ashcroft, they're going to have a law enforcement union type spokesman who will say Blanche is tough on crime and they'll have a mom of someone who's killed by an undocumented immigrant. So that plays to that's their issue and Blanche is tough on that. Presumably. The Democrats, I think planned to have two witnesses, Liz Oyer, who was the pardon attorney at justice, whom Blanche fired pretty early on and who's a very trenchant critic of Blanche's custody of the Justice Department. I did a bull work on Sunday with her about two or three weeks ago. And then an Epstein survivor, Dandy Bensky, whom I've seen actually on other you know, she's spoken out before a little bit very eloquent, very moving, totally mistreated by Blanche's handling of the Epstein files, the redactions and the non redactions. So she has a powerful story to tell And I do think that could be the most interesting moment actually of the two days. Not anything Blanche says but what Danny Bensky says and how senators react to that. I assume Republicans will just try to kind of close their eyes and wish that this, that part ends as quickly as possible. I don't think they'll have the stupidity to actually attack an Epstein survivor though. So who knows, you know, so that's, that's the two days of hearings and I will be covering it on the bulwark throughout and I think it'll be pretty more interesting than a typical confirmation hearing. Little less predictable, a little more of a wild card because of the Epstein issue. And I do think there's a chance they could lose a Republican or two on the committee. There's a chance he could answer in a way that lets him get through the committee but then loses enough Republicans on the floor. And I think the even if he gets confirmed, I think the hearing does could help really convey remind voters that the Trump administration and the Justice Department under Blanche's leadership and close coordination with Donald Trump has covered up the Epstein files. The Epstein and mishandled, refused to prosecute anyone sort of wraps Epstein a little bit around their neck I think honestly, as it were and there are a bunch of people running for reelection in somewhat tough Senate races, bunch of Republicans who will presumably be voting to confirm Blanche in Florida and Ohio, maybe Susan Collins in Maine. And so I think brings Epstein back as an issue in 2026.

[A]

Yeah. You know, I'd want to comment on a couple of these things. One is, I think it's worth pausing for a moment on the fact that they are limiting. You're talking about this offline, maybe like the least amount of overall questioning for a major cabinet or at least for an attorney general nominee that like anyone can remember, I don't want to say of all time, because I'm sure there was a time where they didn't question them at all or whatever, but really they're cracking down. You know, each senator gets 10 minutes, which means that they ask one question and Blanche drones on and generalities and platitudes for 10 minutes and then he gets off scot free.

[B]

Right.

[A]

So that is really depressing. And it shows you that the Republicans know they're doing something unpopular and their solution isn't to do something more popular. The solution is let's just try to hide it. It's really shameful and cowardly. I mean, it's just the only word that comes to mind is it's just, it's embarrassing. It's, it's awful. And they deserve to be really, I mean, criticized for that. And it's just, it's, it's, there's no redeeming argument for why there shouldn't be more questioning of Todd Blanche. It's not like, you know, if you, if this were a, even if this were Bill Barr, right, from Trump's first term, I could sort of understand them saying, you know, I could sort of imagine, you know, the, the senators in the back rooms, the Republicans saying, the Democrats in private, look, you know, this is kind of an adult. You know, you might not like him, you might not agree with his policies, but like, let's just kind of wave him through because that's kind of the best compromise for everyone. This is not that this is trying to get a guy through who is like the worst. You know, it's still not Matt Gaetz, but like, in some ways comparable in terms of the things he's responsible for. Just, you know, an awful, I'm droning on that, but an awful nominee they're trying to wave through with as little accountability as possible. It's shameful.

[B]

You know, just on that, I'll let you get to the next point. But just to add one footnote. I mean, he's been deputy Attorney General, then acting Attorney General for pretty much 18 months. He's got a big record. And so just in terms of responsibly letting him defend, if he, you know, what he's done, asking him question, raising things he said, raising things from court cases where he's been rebuked by judges and so forth, let him respond. That takes more than the amount of time they're allocating. So even if he doesn't drone on, even if senators succeed in interrupting him and making him answer a little bit, it's just not enough time. No one would do this for any normal position, right. In the private sector or in life if you had a major appointment to make one of the most important parts of the federal government, charge of tens of thousands of employees, very, very sensitive matters. A controversial figure who's been sort of running the place for 18 months. So a real record to examine. No one would hire such a person to run your organization or any other organization, you know, with, with a bunch of rapid fire, 10 minute questioning periods. So it's really, I agree with you, it's, it's a little more of a disgrace than it seems at first almost. You know.

[A]

Yeah, it seems procedural and minor, but it's really, I mean, we've just now been talking for about 10 minutes. It's like that's it. Imagine if that's the whole job interview for like attorney general, obviously, you know, it's multiple senators, whatever, but it's really not a lot of time to dig into something that's this important. Important. I am intrigued by what the Republicans are going to ask the Epstein survivor witness. I'm sorry, I forgot her name. But it, that is a good move by the Democrats because that really does put the Republicans in an awkward position. Do they just ignore, do they say, you know, no questions, pass, or express sympathy?

[B]

I don't know.

[A]

I'm so sorry this happened to you. But also, I don't care because I'm going to vote to confirm this guy. I mean, there's, there's sort of no good thing for them to, and you know, they can't deny Epstein's crimes. That's not going to fly. What do they say?

[B]

You don't think they probably shouldn't take Donald Trump's line that it's all a hoax, the whole thing's a hoax, Democratic hoax. Kind of hard to say that to one of these women. It's, it's, yeah, Danny Bensky and who I think has been very effective and a few times I've seen, I mean, she's not someone who came forward early and she's someone who wanted to Keep her privacy and live her life as many of them do. The courage it takes. I've gotten to know a little bit more about them, you know, in the last year and a half, as many of us have, and the courage it takes to come forward is really impressive.

[A]

Yeah. And on, you know, not just to come forward. We were talking earlier about the. The PSA video that they released, which, you know, takes an amount of courage, too. Right. You're putting yourself out there in public, but specifically to come forward in front of a Senate committee and expose yourself to. I don't know what'll happen. Some ridicule, some grilling, some pats on the head that are very, you know, could be very sort of dismissive. It does take courage to come forward and say, like, I'm, you know, I'm going to put myself out there for this. Even though it's likely. You're likely to lose. I mean, you're not likely to actually do real dissemination. We should be clear.

[B]

I think Chris and Connor may have got. Our colleagues may have gotten the little complicated technologically get. Gotten the PSA video that we get to show it here. Let's see if they. Let's see if I'm looking at. At the. At their. At the slack release.

[C]

My phone number was released. Where I went to school, where I live. My students can now search me and read about my abuse. I am an Epstein survivor. I am an Epstein survivor. I am an Epstein survivor. We were exposed. Nude pictures of victims were released. Our family safety was put at risk.

[B]

Now Todd Blanch wants to be the Attorney General of the United States.

[C]

Todd Blanch had a duty to protect us. Instead, he protected the people who committed crimes against us. 30 years, 1200 victims and 6 million files. A mountain of evidence. But Todd Blanche says there are no investigative leads. Todd Blanche failed us. He failed victims everywhere. We deserve better. Our country deserves better. Better. Vote no on Todd Blanche for Attorney General. Vote no. No. No. No. Vote no on Todd Blanche for Attorney General.

[A]

It's a striking video.

[B]

Yeah. Yeah. And honest. And we'll see if it has some effect.

[A]

I mean, as you said, you know, these. These senators can't go and say like the whole Epsy thing was a hoax. The Democrats invented it. They can't tell their constituents that. Right. And as. As you hinted, the. The only ones who are likely to not care what their constituents think. John Cornyn, Thom Tillis, Bill Cassidy. I don't know how. I think. I think two of them are on the Judiciary Committee. That's right.

[B]

So Cornyn until us, certainly.

[A]

Okay. Yeah. And I'm not sure, but they're, I mean, they can't lose that many Republicans voting no in the Senate, in the full Senate. I imagine John Fetterman is going to vote yes. Who knows? I don't know. So, you know, the math gets a little tricky. But yeah, they can't go home and say, you know, it didn't happen, especially when there are videos like this out there. That's just, that's just electoral suicide because this is a thing that Republican voters also care about, as we know from our colleague Sarah Longwell's focus groups. So I'm very depressed. In summary, about, about day one of the hearing and I think it's going to be a real, a real shame on the country. But day two, they too could be spicy.

[D]

This ad is brought to you by Quint. So one thing I love about the summer is how easy everything feels. The days, they're a little bit more relaxed and I find myself reaching for the same comfortable go anywhere pieces again and again and again. That's why I keep coming back to Quint's. So Quint focuses on well made essentials that naturally become those everyday staples, staples that you actually live in all season long. Everything that quince is priced 50 to 80% less than the similar brands. They work directly with ethical factories and they cut up the middlemen. So you're paying for exceptional quality, not brand markup. I just bought another one of Quint's 100% European Linen Relax short sleeve shirts and a pair of polarized sunglasses to keep me cool this summer. Everyone loves my sunglasses, say I look very cool. The shirt, it is a breeze, easy, lightweight. It's fantastic. And it's not just clothing, honestly. Quint has become a trusted favorite for everything from home to travel to everyday essentials. We have luggage from Quint. So make your summer wardrobe easier. Go to quint.com bulwark takes for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. It's now available in Canada too. That's Q-U I N C.com bulwark takes for free Shipping and 365 day returns. Quints.com bulwark takes and I do think you're right.

[A]

I think, I think they have to talk about ice as well because that is another thing that we really saw change. The whole arc of the second Trump administration is when I started just shooting people in the streets, just committing sort of extrajudicial executions for essentially no reason. And now we've seen more of that two more this week, one in Houston and one in Maine. Yeah, I think absolutely. Todd Blanche face questions not only about, like why is. He can't really face questions directly about why is ICE doing this? Because ICE isn't part of the Justice Department, but he should certainly face questions about is it a violation of federal law, are there going to be investigations? Has the Justice Department cooperated with that investigations or is it stonewalled? What else have you stonewalled? You know, that kind of thing. Because I mean the federal government is just shooting innocent people in the streets. Like, I don't, I don't know how else to say it. Like it is, it's remarkable.

[B]

It is remarkable and it really is. It's utterly unnecessary. There's no, no one. These people have no, you know. Well, in both cases they actually misidentified the person who was in the car, it sounds like, and they going after someone else. But the people they're going after are not violent criminals in any case. I mean, leaving aside, these people aren't criminals at all. So Mars won't tell the two who were killed. And it's monotonously unnecessary. There are police shootings that are controversial and sometimes unjust and wrong. Sometimes you look at them more closely and it's complicated. And people with someone else had a weapon or they thought they had a weapon or it was, you know, real, a real violent confrontation. Maybe they could have not used a gun. They could have, but you know, those are important things to look at. And police departments and law enforcement spend a fair amount of time trying to figure out how to de, escalate and how to subdue people without killing them. That's kind of an important thing. ICE doesn't seem to spend a lot of time on that, I would say, but here we're not even in that world. And we're not in the world of someone by accident getting hurt in a shootout, you know, because he or she's nearby where there really is someone violent or some criminal with a gun. Right. Which again is something that happens and one understands a little bit this is totally unprovoked, unnecessary ICE trying to meet its numerical quotas by rounding up as many dark skinned people basically as possible, it seems like, because that's how they made the mistake both times. And thinking that this, these are the people they were targeting. Leaving even aside whether the people they were targeting deserve to be quote, targeted because there's not, they were, I don't believe, violent criminals, but, and I guess two totally innocent people in Maine, it seems that maybe he. He got spooked by this car without identification and without plates and tried to drive away, but he wasn't driving fast, and he wasn't even if he was driving away. There are plenty of ways to handle a car driving away, including just let it drive away and come back the next day, you know, where he lives, find it later.

[A]

You know, like police work.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. Not shoot the fight, you know, find a way to stop him or pull up next to him and shoot him in the face. I mean, it's really beyond belief, honestly. The. I think I'm sort of upset that people aren't more upset. Maybe they are. Yeah, maybe they are upset. We just don't see it yet.

[C]

But.

[B]

And justice. But the Minneapolis shootings did change the dynamic for a while. And incidentally, ISIS funding got held up a little bit. At least their future funding, they did pull back some as soon as the funding went through, which is what, a couple months ago, they revved everything right back up to meet Stephen Miller's quotas. ICE in general just needs to be more of a focus. I mean, it is a focus in the activist world, but the politicians are a little nervous about it. The Democrats don't want to look anti law enforcement. They don't want to look soft on immigration, immigration enforcement. But it's really such an outrage that I think, and it will be interesting to see how much it comes up at the hearing and more broadly, just what the ripple effects of these two shootings are politically.

[A]

Yeah, I think there's a couple of points to make there. One is it doesn't actually, thanks in part to the Trump administration, there's a lot of room for Democrats now to be tough on immigration. But to the left of the Trump administration. Right. And if you're James Tulare running in Texas, you know, I've seen some clips where he's been pretty good about this. Very strong, you know, got to have our laws respected. We've got to have an immigration system that works for the country, you know. Yeah. We've got to have control of our border. We don't have to be shooting people in the streets. Right. Like, there's a lot of room there to work with. And so I don't know why Democrats are having trouble. Just, you know, be tough on immigration, but be anti shooting people in the streets. It's not that hard. And, you know, tough on immigration can mean different things in different places, and it's fine and, you know, whatever. Let a thousand flowers bloom. The other thing is the Trump administration has been really schizophrenic about the mass deportations. At first it was, oh, shock and awe, mass deportations. They printed signs at the Republican convention last year, or, sorry, not two years ago that said mass deportations now. And then they said after, I think it was after Minneapolis, after Renee Good and Alex Preddy were shot, they said, actually to Republicans in Congress, don't, don't say mass deportations anymore. Just don't, don't talk about it. But then Tom Holman said, oh, but we're still going to do it. And, you know, they still have the quotas. And the whole theory has been we're going to do it, but quietly. And I don't think that's going to work because, you know, our colleague Adrian Carrasquillo has written about this really well, they are essentially, I don't want to say drafting. They are, they are injecting huge numbers of, frankly, raw recruits into ICE with inevitably lower training standards, lower even than the people who had already been in ice. So you've got a bunch of new people with lower training standards. These are the kind of people who right now want to join ice. So are already selecting for a certain type of person who looks at what's been going on and says, yeah, I want to be on that team. They can be as quiet about it as they want. They're still going to be more violence because you've created the machine that causes violence. You've created a violence machine. You have sent all the signals that, like, if you start shooting people in the streets, we will be behind you. The FBI will block any investigation, and that is something they should ask Todd Blanche about. The DHS inspector general will sort of help paper it over. There will be no local investigation because they'll block all the federal records. It's going to keep happening. Put money on it now. It's, I mean, don't bet on American citizens losing their lives, the hands of their own government. But, like, it's going to keep happening and there's nothing, I don't think the Trump administration can keep it quiet because it's just going to keep happening again and again and again. It's going to end up being like, every week, we don't have a school shooting, we're going to have an ICE shooting.

[B]

And even if they're not shootings, I mean, there's certainly many instances that we've seen on video and read about of people being unjustly detained, cruelly detained, having injuries, but totally unnecessary, it looks like. Yeah, I agree. It's a little out of control. We know law enforcement has, in this country has become pretty sophisticated in many ways over 20, 30, 40 years. It's got flaws, but still. And again, how to subdue people without violence, how to find people without, you know, doing massive sweeps and so forth. I, I don't know.

[A]

They.

[B]

Partly maybe because some of the new recruits, partly because it's part of dhs, not part of doj, partly because no one cares to discipline it. Quite the contrary, they've been unleashed like finally go. But it's not much. But Miller is now running it through Mullen and it's not unfortunately much better. So the whole mood is go get him. And I gotta say the mood of course of Trump from Trump on down and within the administration is go get him. And the mood among a certain amount of the concern, a lot too much of the conservative media ecosystem is to cheer them on or at least to attack anyone who criticizes them. I mean any normal conservative you would think would say this is really unfortunate what's happened. Probably we could do this better. I'm a tough guy. I'm even for a lot of deportation, I'm with Trump on the goals. If they want to be of whatever getting rid of a lot of people who've come here and really being super tough. And even if they want to be, which they shouldn't be, a certain kind of almost white nationalist kind of point of view, you could still not go killing people, right? I mean the degree to which. And they could still have sufficient, you know, more, you know, less. More decent methods. But they don't want the decent methods. Honestly. It was part of it is the intimidation. They want a lot of self deportation. They can only get to their numbers of mass deportation through self deportation, which means people leaving, which means people being scared not just that they're going to get arrested, but that they're going to get hurt. And you know what, you look at what's happening there and I don't know if you're a responsible person with a family like this 26 year old who was killed in Maine, you think, I don't know, maybe, you know, we love it here and we're living here and our, his three year old daughter's going to preschool and so forth, but he has a job. But maybe it's too risky. So I think it's all part of a one package and it's a really terrible package. And I hope, and I hope the Trump administration, I hope we can stop people can stop it or slow it down. Or limit it in Congress maybe over the next few months, certainly if control of one or both houses changes hands in November, and then I hope the public really rises up against it as well.

[A]

Yeah, no, I totally agree. There is one point at which I think I disagree, which is I don't know how you can look at a plan to physically move millions of people and not that quickly and not come to the conclusion that some of them will die.

[B]

Yeah, no, no, I think that's. Especially when they're. You're driving around the streets. But again, I would just. Yeah, I agree with that. I've argued that myself, so I probably overstated that a little. But I would say, look, for example, they like finding people in cars. They claim that it's safer for them because at home people can have weapons,

[A]

people can run away, People can't have weapons in cars.

[B]

You can't search a house. But so ask yourself, why are we suddenly. Why is. Why are all these instances happening in cars? It allows them to say that the car has been turned into a weaponized.

[C]

Right.

[B]

So that's one reason, I suppose. But they, they like going after people and they kind of think the guys, you're at a disadvantage. I think if you think of it in your own. Just you're driving a car, it's a little hard to react. People show up. Four people, six people, eight people show up on both sides of your car. It's not like someone knocking on your door where you say, well, wait, do you have a warrant? Or you maybe if you want to run out the back door. There are many. Right. I mean, you can see why from their point of view of, as you sort of say, purely seizing people, they go with a car route, but it's extremely dangerous. Of course, people get killed. People are driving cars, as happened yesterday in May. You get shot and you're driving a car and the car itself can get out of control. I mean, it's incredibly irresponsible. No police department in America does this. Think about all the arrests we've seen, read about and all this. Police departments don't try to get people when they're driving cars. Quite the contrary. They try to get people when they, like when they're walking down the street or when they're at home or when they can sort of manage.

[A]

Yeah. Or they get a warrant and they arrest them at their house or whatever. Yeah.

[B]

No, it's really a disgrace, and I think you're right to emphasize that side of it.

[A]

All right, well, let's move on to some more Bad news.

[B]

Okay, just a few minutes here, because I've got to get into something. So. Yeah, five, ten minutes. You want to talk about Iran? We had an excellent piece by Mark Hertling today and Morning Shots say a few words about that.

[A]

We did. No, it's. It is. It is a really good point. It's a point that we make now all the time on command post, which is you can't just destroy your way to victory. I mean, military forces, including the United States military, exist primarily to destroy things and kill people. That is a fact. But the Trump administration thinks that, you know, maybe the next bomb will be the one that delivers all of our hopes and dreams. And there is. It's just, you know, if you look at the. Now that we're bombing around again for several days in a row, if you look at what Central Command tweets out about these. About these operations, it's clear they have no idea what the purpose is. They say, you know, we. We conducted a reprisal. I'm paraphrasing. We conducted a reprisal attack to make the Iranians pay a price for their violation of the MoU or whatever. And it's like. To make them pay a price. Like, that's. I mean, that's.

[B]

It.

[A]

That's not a. That's not a goal. Like, you know what?

[B]

We're.

[A]

We're slapping them on the wrist. We're using our military to say, like, hey, behave better. There's no goal here. There's no. There's no theory of victory. This is just as bad as lbj, you know, picking targets in North Vietnam to try to, you know, titrate just the right amount of violence to get them to negotiate or whatever. It's. It is infuriatingly stupid. Oh, and now also, apparently, we're going to be tolling the Strait of Hormuz, and the Iranians aren't or whatever. I just. It is. It is hard to keep up with how stupid this is.

[B]

Yeah, it's stupid. I mean, Trump is in a box, but the way to get out of the box is probably just to. And. And all this and take the. Take the loss, cover it over, paper it over. He's pretty good at that. And I think people would actually move on after a while. Gas prices would come back down, and it was an endeavor that didn't work. But, you know, some of his supporters will say the regime change idea wasn't crazy. It just didn't happen to happen. But the continuation of it is both inhumane in the sense that people are getting killed and, and foolish because we're using a lot of resources and our troops remain at risk, obviously. And then Trump says things like, well, yeah, we're going to actually just take over the strait and tolls and suddenly the whole argument of freedom of navigation, it's unacceptable to have tolls for this kind of strait. It goes away. And our allies look at this and think, well, geez, I don't know. I mean, we'll just pay Iran under the table. What do we do if Trump, even if Trump is sort of worked magically, he's going to take our money, he's going to take more of our money than the Iranian regime. What's the point of that? And certainly we've been asking them, they've been trying a little bit to help the Europeans if the strait gets reopened, would they help sends a few ships? They don't actually have much capability to do that much. But symbolically, it wouldn't hurt to have some European ships going through to escort tankers or something. If we ever, if the deal, if the MoU had held, that was one of the main, not main, a part of it right now, they're going to look at it and think, well, what, we're not going to go escort someone to pay tolls to Trump. I mean, that's not, they don't even believe in that offer that. So the whole thing is, I agree, he's, he's digging himself in deeper. We didn't, I guess, put this on the morning shots this morning. We thought of it as we were chatting about what on slack, about what headlines to give the pieces. But yeah, when you're in a hole, stop digging. And Trump should understand that. But his pride, I think it's his vanity that doesn't let him do that. And the Iranians want to rub it in. They want to tell the world, no, no, no, at the end of this, we control the strait one way or the other. Maybe not 100%, not absolutely. We understand there's constraints on us, including from neighbors and stuff, but we are, it's, it's not. We, we, we end up controlling the strait to at least in good measure, as a result of this, where they want to be, they want to win and they want to be seen to be winners. Trump can't stomach that. And as a result, he's getting us in deeper. He's spending a ton of money. He's, he's depleting our munitions. I don't think the military is being entirely candid about some of that incidentally. Both in terms.

[A]

I'm not sure they're allowed to be entirely.

[B]

Well, that's fair enough. But I mean, in terms of the damage done to US Bases, but also the munitions and all that, so think it's. Yeah, he's getting us. He's taking a bad situation and making it worse.

[A]

Yeah, I think it's entirely right. And it is the kind of bad situation that even if you were to walk away now, some future president and Congress, some future America is going to have to deal with later because, you know, there's a reason we don't want Iran in charge of the Strait of Hormuz. It would. It is bad. It is a bad outcome.

[B]

Very much bad outcome. All right.

[A]

I know you have to go do other things and prepare for this very momentous week. So, Bill, thank you so much for joining me on Morning Shots live. Our colleague Andrew Agar will be back next week for the normal lineup of the show. And in the meantime, make sure to watch plenty more Bulwark takes right here.

[B]

Thanks, Ben.