Tim Miller: This Judge Wiped The Floor With Trump

Summary

Bulwark Takes: Detailed Summary of "Tim Miller: This Judge Wiped The Floor With Trump"

Release Date: April 17, 2025

In this episode of Bulwark Takes, host Tim Miller delves into a significant legal ruling that marked a noteworthy setback for former President Donald Trump and the Trump administration. The discussion covers Judge Wilkinson's impactful decision, its broader implications on due process, the administration's response, media perspectives on related issues, and the stance of Senator Lisa Murkowski. This summary encapsulates the key points, discussions, insights, and conclusions presented in the episode.

---

Judge Wilkinson's Landmark Ruling

Timestamp: [00:59] – [05:48]

Angelo initiates the conversation by highlighting Judge Wilkinson's compelling ruling from the 4th Circuit Court, emphasizing its firm stance against the Trump administration's attempts to circumvent the Supreme Court regarding the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Angelo notes:

"The judge is saying that this is a very simple case and we cannot stash someone in a foreign country after a mistake has been made. There's a line in the ruling that is essentially like if the administration admits they've done something wrong, which they have, then shouldn't that wrong be righted?"
— Angelo [01:45]

Angelo appreciates the clarity and decisiveness of the ruling, likening the judge's tone to addressing an "elementary school student," thereby underscoring the judge's authoritative position. He further explains that the ruling mandates due process, ensuring individuals like Garcia are not unlawfully detained without recourse.

Tim expands on the implications of the ruling by connecting it to broader narratives around economic disenfranchisement and disinformation. He argues that the lived experiences of Americans, including men influenced by the manosphere, do not align with the administration's disinformation campaigns. Tim states:

"In terms of blowing up the narrative dominance, the lived reality that everyone in this country is going to experience... is not going to match with the disinformation on the economic front."
— Tim [03:20]

He also cites the frustration expressed by voters at Chuck Grassley's town hall, where constituents demanded adherence to due process principles, reinforcing the public's support for the court's decision.

Due Process and Administration's Response

Timestamp: [04:16] – [05:48]

Angelo delves deeper into the specifics of Judge Wilkinson's ruling, emphasizing the importance of language used in legal decisions. He highlights the use of the word "facilitate" as an active verb, reflecting the court's directive for the administration to take concrete actions:

"Facilitate means facilitate, like do something, bring this person back. And that is simple."
— Angelo [04:20]

Angelo underscores the simplicity and directness of the ruling, contrasting it with the administration's ambiguous responses. He stresses the necessity of upholding the rule of law and criticizes the administration's tactics, which he describes as "illiberal" and reminiscent of authoritarian practices.

Media Perspectives and Anti-Semitism

Timestamp: [05:48] – [08:12]

Tim shifts the focus to media narratives, referencing Bret Stephens and his evolving stance on issues related to the Trump administration. He discusses how Stephens, traditionally a conservative voice against anti-Semitism, has begun to critique Trump's actions as an affront to the rule of law:

"Brett was a little more. Came around a little more slowly, but he's now come around and is basically saying that what Trump is doing is a basic affront to the rule of law and has nothing to do with anti Semitism."
— Tim [06:00]

Angelo concurs, dismissing the administration's claims that their actions are motivated by combating anti-Semitism. He questions the logic behind policies like Harvard's visa restrictions, suggesting they have ulterior motives beyond addressing anti-Semitism:

"If this is about antisemitism, do Jewish students from Israel or from Europe, are they allowed? Are they also banned from coming to Harvard in the name of fighting anti Semitism? The whole thing is just preposterous."
— Angelo [08:00]

The discussion criticizes the administration's tactics as baseless and compares them to authoritarian measures, highlighting the discrepancy between stated motives and actual intentions.

Harvard and Visa Policies

Timestamp: [07:48] – [08:57]

Angelo elaborates on the administration's policies affecting universities, particularly Harvard. He questions the legitimacy and fairness of restricting visas for foreign students under the guise of combating anti-Semitism. The comparison to China's restrictive policies underscores the perceived authoritarian nature of these actions:

"It sounds like Chinese. Right. That the government could say to a university, you can't have students from a certain country or from anywhere else in the world... It is so far outside the American tradition."
— Angelo [08:12]

This segment highlights concerns over academic freedom and the potential suppression of diverse perspectives within educational institutions.

Senator Murkowski's Position

Timestamp: [08:57] – [10:18]

The conversation shifts to Senator Lisa Murkowski, who has publicly opposed certain Trump administration policies, signaling a shift within the Republican Party. Angelo praises her for her courage in speaking out but also expresses frustration over her constrained position within the party:

"She speaks out against Trump from time to time, which is better than basically all 52 of her other colleagues... Why are you just... a hostage in this party?"
— Angelo [09:30]

Tim remarks on Murkowski's recent statements as a reflection of the GOP's internal struggles and the challenges faced by moderate Republicans in addressing the administration's overreach.

Conclusion

This episode of Bulwark Takes presents a thorough examination of Judge Wilkinson's ruling against the Trump administration, emphasizing the importance of due process and the rule of law. Through insightful discussions, Tim Miller and Angelo explore the administration's tactics, media narratives, and the broader political landscape, including the role of dissenting voices like Senator Murkowski. The episode underscores a critical moment where legal principles and democratic values are tested against presidential overreach, offering listeners a comprehensive understanding of the current political and legal dynamics.

---

Note: Advertisements and sponsor messages, such as those for IQ Bar, were present at the beginning and end of the episode but have been excluded from this summary to focus on the core content.

Transcript

[Will]

This podcast is sponsored by IQ Bar. I've got good news and bad news. Here's the bad news. Most protein bars are packed with sugar and unpronounceable ingredients. The good news, There's a better option. I'm Will and I created IQ Bar Plant Protein bars to empower doers like you with clean, delicious, low sugar, brain and body fuel. IQ bars are packed with 12 grams of protein, brain nutrients like magnesium and Lion's Mane and Zero Weird Stuff. And right now, you can get 20% off all IQ Bar products plus free shipping. Try our delicious IQ Bar Sampler Pack with seven plant protein bars, four hydration mixes and four enhanced coffee sticks. Clean ingredients, amazing taste and you'll love how you feel. Refuel smarter, hydrate harder, caffeinate larger with IQ Bar. Go to eatiqbar.com and enter code BAR20. To get 20% off all IQ Bar products plus free shipping. Again, go to eatiqbar.com and Enter code BAR20.

[Angelo]

Hey everybody, I just got off with Nicole Wallace. We had a chance to talk about the 4th Circuit ruling from Judge Wilkinson, who is a Reagan appointee, a rock ribbed conservative judge who issued an absolutely barn burner of a ruling pushing back against the Trump administration for their skirting of the Supreme Court when it comes to the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. And you know, in, in this clip that I'm about to show you, I talk a little bit about my one of my favorite lines from this, from this ruling, but more broadly, you know, essentially the judge is saying that this is a very simple case and we cannot stash someone in a foreign country after a mistake has been made. There's a line in the ruling that is essentially like if the administration admits they've done something wrong, which they have, then shouldn't that wrong be righted? And maybe there are other issues with this person. They deserve the due process of the law. So it was a very clear, very simple ruling. And I could joke about how at times it feels like the judge is talking to the administration like they're an elementary school student. And so it is quite the smackdown. We will now see what the administration does with it. So up next in this clip, you're going to see me talk more about Judge Wilkinson's circuit court rebuke of Trump. And then after that, I also get into a little bit the situation with Harvard and Lisa Murkowski and how, you know, we're seeing certain elements of people pushing back against the Trump administration for their, you know, illiberal. It's the nicest way you could put it. Threatening, menacing, retribution attempts. So stick around for both of those clips. Please subscribe to the feed. I'll be back soon. Appreciate y'all. Peace.

[Tim]

I mean, I think a lot about Rogan and the manosphere, Tim and I. I've made this point that there's nothing, you know, we led to believe because of the narrative dominance that the right had, that something about left wing politics was emasculating. I mean, nothing is more emasculating than losing your sort of the power to purchase and losing your ability to afford things and losing the ability to buy toys or car seats or sporting equipment or clothes for your family. I mean, so at a substantive level, in terms of blowing up the narrative dominance, the lived reality that everyone in this country is going to experience, including the men and women under the spell of the manospher, is not going to match with the disinformation on the economic front. And then on this idea of due process. It's incredible to listen to the people that showed up at Chuck Grassley's town hall meeting in Iowa. He looked like he knew them all on a first name basis. And they're shouting at Chuck Grassley like, why can't you just bring, I mean, even before this unbelievable ruling and this eloquent sort of poetry from a Reagan appointed judge about the rule of law, Chuck Grassley's voter said the same thing two days ago.

[Angelo]

Absolutely. I think that's right. And look, you know, on this ruling, on the narrow side of it, unlike Andrew, I'm not usually fangirling circuit court rulings, but I liked four simple words which was facilitate is an active verb. Which was again, the judge talking like a fourth grader to the administration, which is. We said facilitate. That means facilitate, like do something, bring this person back. And that is simple. Right. And so that's what I think, to Angela's point, it's interesting, the Rogan case, Logan was talking about some of the other Venezuelans that have been sent to Cigal, particularly the makeup artist. Andre is the one he is focused on. And that's why I do think. And similarly, at the Grassley town hall, some of them were talking about Garcia, but some more broadly. That's why I think broadening this out is very important and critical and just making the simple argument that in this country we don't take people off the street because of their tattoos and send them to a foreign gulag where they have no recourse for recovery. There will be some people that disagree with that. But that remains a majority position even in the country that elected Donald Trump. And I think talking about that is a better place to be for, you know, politically for some of the folks than getting bogged down into the details on this legally, you know, it's a better place to be to get bogged down in the details on Abrego Garcia, you know, as this judge pointed out. So I think both of those elements are true. I think there are, you know, some cracks here, and I think that's like the opportunity, but in a really dark, dark story.

[Tim]

Bret Stephens has been doing these conversations with the New York Times editorial page where he. It's like watching someone. I understand why people watch the reality shows, right. Where people are in therapy. It's like watching him sort of unpack his own openness from about eight weeks ago to what Trump was going to do in a second term. And this morning with patients, I think the opinion editor there, he takes us on. And Brett's been really former conservative and very vocal about anti Semitism. And he says basically what Angelo just outlined, that it's not about antisemitism, and college campuses should combat antisemitism in response to their own student body and their parents. But as Brett sort of awakens to this new reality on the pages of the New York Times, I think Angelo reveals a bottom line TR about Trump, that that is a cover story. That is not the aim because the tactics certainly do not mirror up with that as an objective.

[Angelo]

Yeah, I'm gonna have to take your word about that, because that's not my reality show of choice, the Bret Stephens New York Times show. I'm telling you.

[Tim]

Let me just. Okay. Because now I'm on. Now I'm on a detour. I read them as my own sort of effort to understand anyone justified. And Brett and David French and Ross, somebody did this thing and it went on for pages and pages. It took me and I read, and it was about. It was about eight weeks ago, and I haven't actually. I mean, David French has been a very vocal critic of all of the attacks on the rule of law, but Bret was a little more. Came around a little more slowly, but he's now come around and is basically saying that what Trump is doing is a basic affront to the rule of law and has nothing to do with anti Semitism. My only point is that whether you're in the media, whether you're on the left or whether you're on the right, nobody thinks that the attacks on universities are about combating anti Semitism.

[Angelo]

Yeah. I welcome everybody on board. And it's very obviously not about combat anti Semitism. And the one thing just kind of listening to all the other panelists here that really jumped out at me was at the end of what Luke was talking about how they're like, one of the other threats now from the administration is that Harvard won't get visas for foreign students that are. That are coming to. That want to come to the university. Like, does that include Jewish students?

[Tim]

Right.

[Angelo]

Like, if this is about antisemitism, do Jewish students from Israel or from Europe, are they allowed? Are they also banned from coming to Harvard in the name of fighting anti Semitism? The whole thing is just preposterous. And it's worse than preposterous, really. The whole thing is kind of reminiscent of China, and it sounds like Chinese. Right. That the government could say to a university, you can't have students from a certain country or from anywhere else in the world. You can't make this choice for yourself. It is so far outside the American tradition, you know, that it's really, you know, kind of impossible to come up with an apt, you know, comparison, at least from our lifetimes, of something that has happened domestically.

[Tim]

Tim, we also have Senator Murkowski sort of finally giving a soundtrack to the reality that Republicans have been living under for nine years. It's too little, too late, but it is a marvel to hear that.

[Angelo]

Yeah. I mean, like you, I'm sure I have a mixed view on it. Right. On the one hand, I'm happy she's saying it. On the other hand, I'm happy that there have been a couple times she's spoken out. She voted against Patel and against Hagseth, I think. So 2. I would have voted against many more of the Cabinet secretaries, but there were two. And she speaks out against Trump from time to time, which is better than basically all 52 of her other colleagues, except maybe McConnell just of late. And so that all is good. The other side of it, though, is frustrating because it's kind of like, why are you just. Why are you a hostage in this party? There are other independents. Couldn't you join Angus King, who's an independent from Maine? You could create an independent caucus where you could feel more free to criticize the administration, to speak out if you're that scared, if you are scared to speak out, and the reason that you're scared to speak out is the leader of your party. Like, maybe you're not in the right party. I guess that just might be something for Senator Murkowski to consider, but I do think that she's speaking something that is that is true about a lot of a lot of maybe not a lot anymore. At one time a lot of Republicans in the Hill and now a handful of them.

[Will]

This podcast is sponsored by IQ Bar. I've got good news and bad news. Here's the bad news. Most protein bars are packed with sugar and unpronounceable ingredients. The good news? There's a better option. I'm Will and I created IQ Bar Plant Protein Bars to empower doers like you with clean, delicious, low sugar, brain and body fuel. IQ Bars are packed with 12 grams of protein, brain nutrients like magnesium and Lion's Mane, and Zero Weird Stuff. And right now you can get 20% off all IQ Bar products plus free shipping. Try our delicious IQ Bar Sampler Pack with seven plant protein bars, four hydration mixes and four enhanced coffee sticks. Clean ingredients, amazing taste and you'll love how you feel. Refuel smarter, hydrate harder, caffeinate larger with iqbar. Go to eatiqbar.com and enter code BAR20. To get 20% off all IQ Bar products plus free shipping. Again, go to eatiqbar.com and Enter code BAR20.