Bill Kristol (3:10)

been said about me today through anonymous allegations. And I thought it was important that you see and hear from me directly. These allegations of sexual assault are flat false. They are absolutely false. They did not happen. They have never happened. And I will fight them with everything that I have. They also come on the eve of an election where I have been the frontrunner candidate for governor in California. I do not suggest to you in any way that I am perfect or that I am a saint. I have certainly made mistakes in judgment in my past, but those mistakes are between me and my wife. And to her, I apologize deeply for putting her in this position.

Andrew Egger (3:51)

Yeah. So it's sort of a weird statement, even. Even on Friday, it's like, you know, there are a certain number of allegations. Whichever ones you are maddest about are not true. But I'm not gonna say I'm a perfect person. So probably there is some truth sprinkled through there. I mean, even then, it was kind of. I mean, I don't know, Bill, what did. I don't know if you were following this, you know, like, moment by moment over the weekend. Was there, like, a point at which it seemed to you like Swalwell's goose was cooked and this sustainable?

Bill Kristol (4:17)

Yeah, sort of. I mean, I wasn't following it super closely, but if you have someone on the record accusing him of very bad sexual misconduct and then a ton of other people, some on the record and many off the record, kind of confirming that in general, he's a sexual creep, let's just put it that way. Even if he's, you know, even if it's more like sexual harassment rather than assault. So some of it does verge on assault, or maybe more than verges on assault. Yeah, I kind of thought. Well, I certainly thought he would have. It would do damage and that he wasn't convincing and denying it all. And I think you made this point. Did you make it in morning shots? I can't remember that. That he sort of vehemently denies one charge and sort of leaves a lot of the others kind of, you know, it's like, well, maybe there's other things I did do, some things I shouldn't have done. And generally in these cases also where there's some smoke, when there's some fire, there's more fire. You know what I mean? So it's like these rarely one off situations.

Andrew Egger (5:11)

Yeah.

Bill Kristol (5:12)

So I didn't quite, I get look. But you know, actually, and then what happened over the weekend, just to pick up the story briefly is as you know, Democrats really across the board abandoned him right away, which means they must have thought, I mean, they're not, they know him. Right. And they know some of the other rumors and so forth, and they just ditched him. Every member of the House, I believe, who had been supporting him for governor, you know, retracted his first support. Leaders called on him to pull out of the California governor's race, at least not necessarily to resign from the House. The speed with which that happened told me that people who know a little more than you or I know about Eric Swalwell, who I don't think I've ever, whom I barely have ever met, you know, we're not thinking this is, oh, this is going to be easy to defend. So that's kind of where I was mid weekend. But not so certain about the resignation from the House side of it as opposed to pulling out of the governor's race.

Andrew Egger (6:04)

Yeah, yeah. I mean, I think just reading between the lines here, my best read is that he really was kind of dragged kicking and screaming through all of these motions. Right. I mean, that statement on Friday really reads like a person who thinks they are going to try to knuckle down and survive politically and initially survive even in the governor's race. I mean, that he immediately pivots to, you know, this, this being one of the reasons why not only is he not going to drop out, but why you should disbelieve these allegations because perhaps, you know, they're, they're politically motivated in some way, perhaps it's some sort of witch hunt. And then, you know, as different shoes fall among other Democrats abandoning him, first he loses all these endorsements and he pulls out of the race. And then that's just on Sunday. And then yesterday, one day later on Monday, suddenly, and we can throw this statement up as well, suddenly he is resigning. He says, I'm deeply sorry to my family, staff and constituents for mistakes in judgment I've made in my past. I will fight the serious false allegation made against me. However, I Must take responsibility and ownership for the mistakes I did make. This, by the way, also slightly different in framing from what he had said in his Friday statement, where it was sort of nebulous. It was, the allegations are fals here. It's the serious false allegation. So reading between the lines again, it sort of seems like he is continuing to deny the rape charge, you know, the charge of sexual assault on a former staffer, and then sort of, you know, kind of quietly acknowledging the broader creep behavior. But then let me go on to this second point here. I'm aware of efforts to bring in a media expulsion vote against me and other members. Expelling anyone in Congress without due process within days of an allegation being made is wrong. But. But it's also wrong for my constituents to have me distracted from my duties. Therefore, I plan to resign my seat in Congress. And this is where I wanna bring up the other resignation that happened yesterday, which is not a new story at all. This is a story that has been percolating and people have been kind of talking about, and it's cropped up in a number of news cycles. But it is the story of Texas Republican Representative. Wait, Tony Gonzalez. I couldn't remember his first name for a second there, Tony Gonzalez. I was like, that's the tight end, right? But no, also the representative. And this is him again yesterday. There's a season for everything, and God has a plan for us all. When Congress returns tomorrow, I will file my retirement from office. It has been my privilege to serve the great people of Texas. I mean, this is. There's a lot to unpack here. I mean, Bill, do you want to fill the people in on sort of the backstory of what has been going on for months now with the good representative from Texas, Republican Tony Gonzalez?

Bill Kristol (8:38)

I don't really wanna. So sordid. I mean, he, he sexually harassed Safir. She ended up, had an affair with her. He ended up, she ended up committing suicide, tragically. Turns out there are other people he also behaved very badly towards, and this is towards Stafford. So this is not. This goes beyond the being a creep to random people. This is now, you know, legally sexual harassment at the least. And the suicide makes it so much worse. And then he was unrepentant. And at first he pretend it didn't happen, right, as I recall. And people were making up stories and photographs and alleged text exchanges. And then he's, well, it happened. But so he's behaved terribly and was hanging on. And his colleagues on the Republican side were letting him. Hang on. Because they felt they have such a narrow margin, they didn't want to have the seat vacant for 30 or 60 days or however long it would take for the governor to call a special election. And so but I suppose with a Democrat going, they were willing to push him out, too, to, you know, because otherwise the Democrats could say, and they could say still with some legitimacy, they get rid of their creeps faster than the Republicans do. You know, they got rid of Andrew Cuomo in New York for behavior that was not, you know, I was very bad, certainly, and I'm glad they got rid of him. But, you know, as governor of New York, but I, meanwhile, Donald Trump, you know, of course, sailing above the fray. And God knows how many other people on the Republican side are sailing above the fray and still other members of Congress who's like one from Florida who seems to behave really horribly, I can't remember, who's also under the kind of in, in the, in the sights as a possible someone who might be, I think he's under Ethics Committee investigation. Anyway, Gonzalez has decided, so this was his moment to go. Everything, I guess, goes according to God's, God's plan. So that's.

Andrew Egger (10:23)

Oh, you're thinking of Corey Mills. Yes, Corey Mills.

Bill Kristol (10:26)

Very creepy.

Andrew Egger (10:27)

I forgot he was from Florida. So I didn't.

Bill Kristol (10:28)

Yeah, very creepy. Florida. Something about nothing not to offend, not to, not to indict Florida. But, you know, anyway, there's something about

Andrew Egger (10:35)

water, you know, it's, or, I don't

Bill Kristol (10:38)

know, it's this Florida man.

Andrew Egger (10:40)

I guess Texas is a little bit landlocked.

Bill Kristol (10:41)

Yeah.

Andrew Egger (10:43)

So, so I wanted to, there's a couple of points I wanted to dwell on with this. The first is this strange new norm that maybe we are in the middle of watching develop right now where there's almost like a prisoner of war swap here. There's like, there has not been an appetite to do expulsion votes on Tony Gonzalez, despite the fact that we have known all, I mean, all of this stuff all along. His behavior has been so obviously abominable. Right. I mean, like, it's not just the sordid stuff with this staffer who, you know, very tragically killed herself after he sort of pressured her into an affair. And then when her husband found out that the congressman freaked out and kind of cut her off and sort of isolated her in the office and all of her, you know, her fellow staffers knew. And it was just, I mean, it was just this horrible situation for her. She committed suicide. And, and then, you know, for, for months he's denying everything about it. He's accusing her widower of, you know, of planning some big conspiracy against him. I mean, like, it was really, really shocking stuff. And then just by the way, to sort of continually be sort of wrapping himself in sort of like the, the Christian imagery of all of this. Like, first of all, really, really grotesque on its own terms to be trying to like trade on that so cheaply. And second of all, to be doing it while you are also behaving in this abominable way, completely unrepentantly is just astonishing to me. I mean, like, if you actually do think there's a God and you're gonna be accountable to him for some of this stuff, you should be on your knees about all of this and like, you know, just, just sort of broken in spirit. But anyway, I digress. The more interesting thing politically here is the sort of prisoner swap, right? It's like, well, okay, you would not have been willing Republicans to get rid of this guy for all this time because you need him in your tiny, tiny little House majority. But now, as luck would have it, we have a creep of our own to sort of offer in exchange. And I guess, I mean, I don't know how you feel about this. I guess it's better than the pre existing status quo of, I don't know, would you call it unilateral disarmament on the Democratic side? I mean, what do you think here?

Bill Kristol (12:44)

Well, I think it's good if the Democrats frankly shamed the Republicans into acting and whatever people's motives about vote margins, it's good to get them both to resign for really abominable behavior as you described it. I think both seats will be held by the party that, you know, that has held them. So it won't end up changing the balance of the House or anything. But that really should be secondary to just the terrible behavior. For me, I think the one takeaway I have, and I'm curious to hear what you have to say also about this more broadly is I just think people look at this, we now have one from each party, maybe more though coming from each party, more stories of this kind of really terrible behavior. You got the whole Epstein thing. It's a ongoing saga obviously kept alive by Melania late last week. And so I just think the mood is going to be so anti incumbent, so anti Washington in 26, which helps the Democrats since they're in the minority and have neither the White House nor either House of Congress. And by 28, I mean, I really wonder if I Just think almost anyone should just go. Any young person I know who doesn't have scandals and who has some kind of claim to being an outsider and having served a country somehow in the military or in civic life or been a successful business person or whatever, should just go run against any incumbent at this point, actually, and just say they're part of the problem. You know, they served with their Republicans, they served with Gonzalez. And I didn't hear these, I didn't hear my opponent calling on him to step aside. And if the Democrats say the same thing about Swalwell and I don't know. And then others as well, of course. And then with Trump in the White House and all the corrupt. I just think the corruption stuff and not just the sex stuff, but the money stuff. I mean, I, I just think we've had an anti incumbent mood for a long time in this country and an anti Washington mood, and people have capitalized on it going way, way, way back, obviously my whole adult life really, but I just feel it's a, it'll be at another level by, by 28. And the generational change thing, throw that in. These two are not old. But I mean, the sense of we need new faces, new people, outsiders, people who are not contaminated by all this. Don't you think that'll just be. I think that'll be very, very strong by 2020?

Andrew Egger (14:51)

No, no, I think it's, I think it's enormous. I do think, like, I mean, there's a sense in which there's been sort of this building sort of populist anger in America for a long time. And over the last decade or so, a lot of that really was channeled into the MAGA movement specifically. Right. I mean, it was kind of Trump was the figure who sort of harnessed a lot of that. And in sort of like the, the way the battle lines got drawn, Democrats ended up kind of becoming the party of the old sort of consensus and the old establishment and sort of like trying to protect various pre existing structures and institutions from Trump's sort of like arson. And obviously there was a lot of good stuff about that. Right. I mean, I think we would agree, I mean, that's kind of the whole project here is that like liberal democracy is built on a lot of these institutions and things like that. But I think that we're, what we're starting to see right now, especially as Trump just, you know, his second term really does continue to sort of metastasize into a failed project, even on its own terms, is this stuff's Breaking containment, right? I mean, there's even people who, who were like enthusiastically MAGA about some of this stuff are starting to be like, well, wait a minute, like, is this actually the vehicle for all of this rage? Or, or is there, you know, are, should we be looking other places? And meanwhile, you know, they're on the left. There is plenty of, you know, their own sort of populism boiling up in a lot of these things. Obviously there are a lot of about that too, right? I mean, this could go bad directions in terms of the ways that this sort of bursts out in terms of outcomes. But I do think it's fine in this one respect. I do think it's good, for instance, for members of Congress in these situations to feel the heat under themselves a little bit and not just when it's them personally, but not feel the immediate instinct to sort of circle the wagons around somebody just for like a narrow political gain. I mean, I do think like there should be a stronger sort of like we really need to make a point that we're not with him in these sorts of circumstances. And at least that is all to the good. I wanted to ask you one more question on this sort of stuff because going back just a few years, I said right at the top that this was like maybe Swalwell's sort of self immolation here of his career was maybe the fastest I have seen. But actually that is not true for one specific counterexample reason that I can think of, which is Al Franken, the former Democratic senator from Minnesota, who. He resigned, I wanna say 2018. I should have looked it up beforehand, but it was sort of right in the midst of MeToo and all of the sort of upheavals and changes to institutional sexual ethics and things that were happening right around then. He had that photo come out of him on a comedy tour basically before his political career. There it is where it was. Another comedian, Leanne Tweeden was her name. And he was pictured like kind of pretending to grope her as a joke. And this picture came out and was it the same day that Swalwell said, or sorry, Swalwell, that Franken said he would resign from his seat. And you know, he also had Democrats sort of fleeing from him. Christian Gillibrand very notably kind of like denounced him within minutes. And the reason I bring him up, not because the conduct is comparable at all. Obviously there's. I mean it's boorish and bad and a horrible look for him, but obviously it's not the same as the stuff that Swalwell's accused of. But the reason I bring him up is because there was, in the wake of the Franken resignation, a pretty significant faction of the Democratic Party that wound up viewing it as a mistake that basically said we cannot be this quite this. I don't know what the word would even be pious about enforcing these norms on our own side when Republicans are getting away with murder all the time, is basically the argument. I am curious again, I'm not saying this argument ought to be deployed in the case of Eric Swalwell or anything like that, but I'm curious what you think of that general argument as it has kind of developed sort of since the resignation of Al Franken in particular.

Bill Kristol (18:51)

I mean, I'm not sure that was really. I mean, I thought the Franken thing was totally unjust. And I still think that, incidentally, he's literally on a USO tour, a USO tour for our troops as an actor, and he stages this thing with a friend of his and he's looking at the camera, smiling. I mean, it's okay. It's a little tasteless or boorish, if you want. I mean, God forbid the people in Hollywood would be in tasteless or boorish movies or, say, tell jokes of that nature. But he was not accused, to my knowledge, of actual sexual harassment of anyone or by anyone.

Andrew Egger (19:23)

The woman's argument was that she was not participating in the photo. Right. That she was like actually asleep and he was sort of playing this as like a gross.

Bill Kristol (19:29)

She wasn't upset about it. I don't recall. Well, maybe I'm wrong, so I can't remember how upset she was. I think everyone thought Jill LeBron was just grandstanding. She was running for president in 2020 and so forth. And I think that was the Democratic consensus. I think it was a little less. And of course, the Democrats weren't going to lose that seat and didn't. So I think it was a little less of a kind of prisoner of war type, you know, Costage exchange situation and a little more some genuine indignation that they had sort of forced Franken out, who was a well respected, actually senator and pretty effective one, I'd say, from a Democratic point of view, from the point of view of Democrats and a little bit of also. Are you kidding me? Trump literally is talking about grabbing women, you know, and, and relishing it. Women who. And. And not coercing them, I suppose, but, you know, persuading them, including married women, to just, you know, yield to him, so to speak. And then we have of course, stormy Daniels in 2016. And Trump Franken does this somewhat tasteless

Andrew Egger (20:19)

and plenty of women, plenty of women, by the way, who accused him, Accused

Bill Kristol (20:21)

him of actual assault.

Andrew Egger (20:22)

Not just. Yeah, not just.

Bill Kristol (20:23)

Yeah, they're fair enough. Absolutely. Which he then ended up having this civil trial over. So. No, absolutely. And Franken. So I think it was more that. I think it was a little. I think some of the formulations of it were a little silly about, you know, it should have been judged on its own merits. But I'm. Yeah, I think it does. I think the Franken thing was a mistake. These things will all become political. On the other hand, I mean, God knows I remember Clinton. So you can't. What can't? And then they did in Henry Hyde because he had had an affair and I guess, and he was the impeachment manager for the House. Didn't do them in. They just exposed some discretion from 22 decades before or something. So these things were always somewhat political. But I come back to the notion that, I mean, it's funny, you know, he had the Franken thing, but then of course, Biden's. I mean, the degree to which this populist move has been building, but the actual and generational turnover and so forth has been building. But of course we ended up with Clinton, Trump, both in their late 60s, I guess, and they were running in 2016, then, then Biden Trump in their 70s, and then sort of Biden Trump for a while and then Harris as the vp, but you know, kind of still really Biden, you might say, in 2024. It is kind of amazing. I mean, I do. I just feel that everyone is going to be ready for fresh new people and non scandalous behavior, I think. And interesting to see how much that. I don't know how much that leads to people looking to people's private lives. You don't go too far in that direction. But I think people who have one effective counterpart to that is people who've served the country in admirable ways, you know, and anyway, I guess I do

Andrew Egger (21:50)

think, I would say you gotta look out for some of these new people too, because Eric Swalwell, he's one of the new people.

Bill Kristol (21:56)

No, fair enough.

Andrew Egger (21:58)

He was the youngest person.

Bill Kristol (21:59)

Well, you're absolutely, you know, you make a good point. You make a good point. I hope that. Yeah. So they'll have to get vetted quickly when they. As they run for office, I suppose, and we'll see what happens in this cycle. Even where there are plenty of candidates, obviously there are plenty of open seats in the House. Right. And some of the Senate and their candidates. Well, we've seen a little bit of this in Maine. I mean, not to get too off topic, but someone who is the fresh new guy, and he's defeating apparently the head of the incumbent Governor Janet Mills, who's running for the Democratic nomination. And this guy has all kinds of somewhat questionable stuff in his past, the tattoos and all. But he seems to be surviving it. So I don't quite know how that mix plays out. But I would just make one point. Having a person accuse you of really bad behavior, real assault, I mean, sexual assault is different from a lot of other foolish things that you did when you were young. So I guess that is maybe the, the line with these two clearly are on one side of that red line. Right. And then there's a lot of murky behavior on the other side. Perhaps. But I come back to in the era of Epstein, the degree of throw the bums out will be very of throw the bums out sentiment will be very high. Yeah.

Andrew Egger (23:05)

Yeah. There's really just one other point that I would make on this, and then we can turn to other matters. But I am hopeful at least that, like, we can argue about, you know, what, what's the prudent thing for other people to do in this situation versus that situation in terms of when to yank an endorsement or whatever. But at least in terms of the people themselves, I am hopeful that we are perhaps seeing the beginning of the end of the most outrageous strategy for getting through this sort of thing, which is just the witch hunt, witch hunt, witch hunt thing. I mean, more and more often you are seeing politicians who try to go that route just failing to accomplish it. And that's true of Democrats and that's true of Republicans. And I mean, it is just the most ludicrous sort of like, intelligence, insulting, rally, the base sort of play that you can possibly see. Tony Gonzalez tried to run it forever. Eric Swalwell gestured at it briefly before realizing it was not going to hunt in his case. And the sooner that's gone, the better. So we can leave that there before we turn to other topics. I should say off the, off the top real quick. I said this at the top, but I am Andrew Egger with the Bulwark. That's Bill Kristol with the Bulwark. We write the Morning Shots newsletter every weekday morning, and we come live on Tuesdays to talk about it and other stuff. So we're going to go on to another story more directly concerning the president and Vice president here in a second. But before we do that, I should throw to an ad which I don't have to read. So we're going to let Sam do it in absentia.

Sam Stein (24:32)

So here he is, sponsored by Deleteme. Delete Me makes it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online. At a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. This is something people with public profiles should think about, including me. But everyone should be safeguarding their personal information because it's kind of weird for people to just be able to google your address. Very weird. It's easier than ever to find personal information about people online. And having your address, phone number and family members names just hanging out there on the Internet can have actual consequences in the real world. And it can make everyone vulnerable. More and more online partisans and nefarious actors will find this data and use it to target their political rivals, civil servants and even outspoken citizens just posting their opinions online. We are in weird, scary times with Delete Me. You can protect your personal privacy or the privacy of your business from doxing attacks before sensitive information can be exploited. New York Times wirecutter has named Delete Me their top pick for data removal services. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount to our listeners. Get 20% off your delete Me plan when you go to join delete me.com takes use the promo code takes at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is go to join deleteme.com takes and enter code takes at the checkout. That's joinedeleteme.com takes code takes.

Andrew Egger (26:08)

Man, what a pro. Did we switch sides? Is this. I wonder if. Oh, look, okay, there you go, There you go. I understand, I understand why all the advertisers, they want to get Sam Stein to do it. They're like, you know, Andrew Egger is going to be on here. But no, give me Sam Stein. Very good, Sam. Thanks for doing that from afar. Let me turn to a different story here now because one of the ongoing things that we have been covering is the military blockade that America has put into place in the Strait of Hormuz. I've written a lot about the economics of everything that's going on in the Strait these days. I just don't understand what's going on with oil prices in particular right this minute, which had been ticking up to astronomical levels for weeks as the Strait was closed, which cratered back down to still very high but not nearly as high levels when Trump announced that the strait would be reopening and the conflict was ending, and which have remained at basically those same levels, even though we yesterday announced a military blockade of the strait such that it is actually at zero levels now, there is zero transit happening through the strait. It is less energy getting out of there than ever, than even at any point during the war. So this is all very interesting, but I'm not gonna talk about that right now. We're talking about something else, which is the way that the president and the vice president have been justifying some of their rhetoric and actions with regard to this. So first, before we turn to the blockade, let's just play this clip from Sunday on Fox. When the president was asked about his threats of genocide against the Iranian people, which we talked about on the show last week, essentially saying, tonight an entire civilization will cease to exist. And here's him being asked about that. President, you were criticized for this tweet because you said a whole civilization will die tonight. What do you want to say about that and what can you tell us about next steps here? Are you planning further destruction?

Bill Kristol (28:06)

Yeah, I'm fine. Whether that statement brought them to the table, with the exception of the one thing which I believe that they're going to give up on. I believe they're going to give up on that pretty soon, to be honest, because it's not going to work. We actually thought we had them and then all of a sudden they said, no, we want so, you know. But I believe. No, no. And when I say that. But remember, what do they say to us? For years I've had to listen to them say death to America. Right? They say death to America. Death to Israel. America, the Satan. We will destroy America. Death to America. Now, does anybody ever complain to you when they say that? I think that's a state a big step worse. Death to America. So they're allowed to say death to America.

Andrew Egger (28:50)

I don't know about you, Bill. I have heard people before note that Iran likes to say death to America and denounce them for this. They're allowed to say death to America. That's kind of the money line here. Should we go right on to Vance or should we. Should we talk about this one a

Bill Kristol (29:07)

little bit first, just for a second on this? I mean, one reason. Why do we think the Iranian regime cannot be permitted to have nuclear weapons? Because they officially and literally say death to America. And more relevantly, given that they probably can't deliver nuclear weapons here, death to Israel, which is you know, now if that, if they didn't say that, if they were just another, you know, not particularly pleasant surly regime, we might still not want them to have nuclear weapons, but we wouldn't have the kind of urgency about it. And that certainly, that we have and Israel certainly has. Right. And so because they seem to be inclined to at least a genocidal view about Israel and us, maybe more, more derivatively, and certainly they've taken pleasure, I'd say, in killing American soldiers when they had the chance in Iraq and so forth. So yeah, so this is. Right, so now we're justifying our actions by saying, well, we can also become an outlaw regime. I mean, that's not, that's the point you make very well in warning shots this morning. It's really kind of terrible. It's moral equivalence. In the old days we used to attack, before you were born, people who would posit moral equivalence between the US and the Soviet Union. It was a big kind of conservative attack or anti communist attack on the left wing sort of fellow traveler types who would. Both the US and the Soviet Union have done many bad things in their past, but that was bad and they were right. I think people like me were right to attack fellow travelers for that. But this is a much worse form of, form of moral equivalence. This is not excusing some third party for doing something. This is boasting that, you know, what if they're going to say this kind of terrible uncivilized stuff, we're going to say it too. And I suppose maybe threaten to act in that way too. I don't suppose he did threaten to act in that way too. Yeah, yeah.

Andrew Egger (30:48)

I mean, to me this is, it's almost like it's worse even than just like a moral equivalence here.

Bill Kristol (30:54)

Right?

Andrew Egger (30:54)

I mean, there's, there's sort of this like habit of mind and this is sort of what I wrote about in morning shots today. But there's this, there's this particular kind of right wing habit of mind of this moment and it's, it's this your rules thing and it's, you know, it's deployed a lot in just sort of like domestic political fights against, you know, liberals and the left. Basically, like, you know, we left to our own devices would have all of these morals and scruples that we would approach politics with. But we're not going to do that because you guys won't let us, you guys will not let us enforce, I don't know, like a moral norm against like mob cancellations on social Media and things like that. And so when we get the opportunity to do it, we will also do these like performative, you know, mob cancellations of people for expressing, you know, anti right wing opinions or for being, you know, like saying bad things about Charlie Kirk after he was killed or things like that. And the play is always, we're not going to try to justify this like in any actual moral terms. We're just going to say it's your fault that we're doing this because you made these rules and now we are going to follow them. And when it, when you apply that not, I mean, that's a stupid kind of brain dead way to do argumentation even in your own mind. I mean, even just like in your own, in a single human being's way of sort of approaching interacting with other human beings. But when you apply it to the level of international relations and have it be sort of like the touchstone way that not only any country does this stuff, but that the United States of America does this stuff, which in theory ought to be, and at times in the past even has held itself to a completely different, much higher standard where not only were we not gonna sort of race to the bottom in this way, but in fact we were going to try to set a, the standard like for the world in terms of freedom and in terms of the rule of law and in terms of, you know, adherence to different international norms and things like that and by our example, to make the rest of the world more like us in this way and to go from that not only to just kind of like quietly abandon that, but to race from that down to this. Like, well, you're not mad when Iran says death to America. So why would you be mad at me when I say annihilation to the Iranian civilization? I mean, that's really astonishing to me and I think it's also. And here I will go to the Vance thing because it's not just rhetoric. It's not just rhetoric from the President. I mean, this is how explicitly how this administration is justifying, I was about to say, this illegal blockade of the strait. Ben Parker and I had kind of an argument about this while we were writing morning shots to this morning. My contention was that it was obviously illegal, he being more learned in these matters and different quirks of international law and stuff. Well, maybe not. Maybe it's just inadvisable. So maybe somebody out there can weigh in on their opinion. At least it seems to me there's controversy about whether it is straightforwardly illegal for the United States to be blockading the Strait as part of this mission. But it's at least bad. It's at least, you know, it's at least belligerent in much the same way as Iran blockading the Strait has been. So let's play this clip of the Vice President justifying why we're doing this

Bill Kristol (34:07)

to weapons of war.

Andrew Egger (34:08)

What they have done is engage in

Bill Kristol (34:10)

this act of economic terrorism against the entire world. They basically threaten any ship that's moving through the Straits of Hormuz. Well, as the President of the United States showed, two can play at that game.

Andrew Egger (34:19)

And if the Iranians are going to

Bill Kristol (34:20)

try to engage in economic terrorism, we're going to abide by a simple principle that no Iranian ships are getting out either.

Andrew Egger (34:27)

We know that's a big deal.

Bill Kristol (34:29)

We know that applies.

Andrew Egger (34:31)

Yeah. So that's. That's the main thing. I mean. I mean, it's. It's a very explicit argument. What they have done. What Iran has done is engaged in this act of economic terrorism against the entire world. They basically threatened any ship that's moving through the Strait of Hormuz. Well, as the President of the United States showed, two can play at that game.

Bill Kristol (34:47)

Is it that.

Andrew Egger (34:48)

I mean, that's an astonishing thing for the Vice President to say about the concept of economic terrorism. It's not only Iranian ships that we are blockading here, it's any ship Iran was letting through. Am I. Am I. I'm curious whether you think. Because I think Ben did think I was going off a little hot on this particular thing.

Bill Kristol (35:04)

Well, I. I think it's unclear that we actually are enforcing a black gate, first of all. I mean, Trump himself said there were 32 ships that went through yesterday or something, which I don't know. He may have totally made that up. Of course, he has in the past.

Andrew Egger (35:13)

My understanding is that that. Is that as of this moment, there is no transit. I mean, look, there may be no

Bill Kristol (35:18)

transit, because who's gonna risk going in there if we're allegedly blockaded? I mean, who knows what we would do actually? Would we board every ship that tried to go through? Would we shoot at them if they're not, you know, because they've stopped at an Iranian port? Maybe we would. I'm not so sure we're keen to pick a fight with Chinese flagships, you know, here in the. We have enough trouble as it is dealing with Iran, you know, but anyway, whatever the truth is. No, I think. Well, you're certainly right on the fundamental point. And also, just on a more practical level, this is pathetic. I mean, we were there to help the Iranian people. Forget about the Iranian people, we're going to exterminate them. We were there to insist on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which got closed after we started the war. Well, that's sort of secondary now. Now it's tit for tat. We're doing economic terrorism too. So just as a matter of kind of pathetically trying to find some rationale for continuing to be tough guys, I guess, and for trying to salvage something from this ill advised adventure of Trump's, we're now lashing out and we're doing so. In a way, though, I think this is your key point, that the rhetorically and to some degree in reality, we are doing things that we would never have done and are foolish to do and just lay the predicate. I mean, these things do have real world consequences. It's not just that it hurts us in the sense of it hurts our own understanding of ourselves, which is not a trivial thing, and degrades kind of our image and our standing in the world, as I say, even our self understanding. It also means that when the Chinese said, you know what Strait of Taiwan kind of close to us, we don't really want all these ships coming in, suddenly we have a fake crisis with Taiwan, we're just gonna, you know, close that off. Just, I mean, you guys closed off the Strait of Hormuz. Strait of Taiwan is a lot closer to us, the Chinese can say, than the Strait of Hormuz was to you. What was, what were they doing to you? You know, the Iranians weren't attacking you. You know, they'll invent some fake, you know, Taiwanese attack on them or something, or insult to them anyway. God knows there are other places that have similar situations. So it's very fundamentally eroding the notion that we do stand for freedom of the seas, that there's a sense that we want a world where some of it is governed to some degree by international laws and norms and not by simple exercises of power by countries that can get away with it nearby to their shores or not so nearby to their shores. So it is bad. I mean, it's bad both, as I say, as you say very well in warning shots and as a kind of matter of, you know, American standing in the world and America's self understanding. It's also just practically bad. And it just continues the erosion of the whole notion of a liberal international order or somewhat rules bound order that we were at the heart of.

Andrew Egger (37:52)

Yeah, yeah, I probably should wrap it there, but I'm not going to, because I. Because that's such a grim note to end on. And you were less grim today in morning shots, writing about sort of the one bright spot maybe and move in the other direction or a fever breaking or something like that. I will let you characterize it, but you were writing about this weekend's election in Hungary where Viktor Orban was, you know, despite all of his sort of long standing and growing grip on the institutions of the state there and all of his own sort of anti democratic and authoritarian structures that he had placed around, the election was just run out of office by sort of a massive pro democracy, pro liberal sort of movement in the form of this man whose name I'm not going to try to pronounce, even though it's not that long. The gy. The Hungarian gy.

Bill Kristol (38:43)

Yes, confusing.

Andrew Egger (38:43)

I'm not going to try. I'm not going to try. But you know that guy, that guy. Magyar. Magyar. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. To the Hungarians in the audience. You know how to pronounce his name? Somebody teach me. Somebody tell me. But, but. Swept to victory. Swept to victory over Orban. And I'll just let you kind of give the last word on where this sits in terms of this whole morass of awful stuff that's going on right now. How you see this Hungarian election.

Bill Kristol (39:10)

No, it's important because a year ago, two years ago, people assumed Orban was just continually tightening his grip. He was. He had won reelection three times, won election four times in a row against, you know, decent opponents, sort of liberal opposition types. And then suddenly, two and a half years ago, I think Magyar, I'll just call it, I guess, kind of the way we west, we're allowed to pronounce these names. Not.

Andrew Egger (39:34)

I should have just gone for it.

Bill Kristol (39:35)

Appropriate. Yeah. And I think it's used routinely in the west, the word Magyar anyway, whatever. To characterize Hungarian civilization or something. Anyway, he emerges, leaves Orban's party, goes to the other party and turns out to have this be a very skilled politician. The opposition unites behind him. I give some credit. Suddenly to the Hungarian left, the equivalent of the resistance slips. You know, who really had been fighting Orban a long time and could well have taken the view that where have you been for the last 10 years? You know, he was tightening. He was changing the constitution in 2012, he was crushing independent media in 2014, 15, 16, he was announcing he was in favor of a liberal democracy. Back then, you were kind of going along with all this, you know, sort of the same thing people here would say about Liz Cheney or about others who, you know, even Mike Pence until he broke on January six. But they all got behind him. I would be almost as if the entire Democratic Party supported. I'm slightly exaggerating here. Mike Pence, you know, for President in 2024, 2028, which is explicitly what we're

Andrew Egger (40:35)

calling for right now. Everybody get in line.

Bill Kristol (40:39)

But it is interesting. So, and Magyarra is right. They held the coalition together. And so I think it's, and David Baer is a very good who's been ahead of the curve on Hungary and who is writing for us on Hungary, had a very good piece of Morning Shots yesterday about, about it. And so I think it's a big moment. Orban, it's a big defeat for Orban. Vance went in to help him last week. He's been very, he's been by far the most pro Putin member of the eu. So it's a defeat for Orban, a defeat for Trump and Vance, a defeat for Putin. What's not to like? You know, and it's, and it's a small country and all that and it's got its own peculiar reasons why, you know, the economy wasn't good. And it's not, it's not, you know, one can't generalize from it to everywhere else. But I think it really is an important moment, actually. It could be a big moment. And what David then and I were texting a little last night and he said, you know, he wanted to emphasize he was reading the coverage over here and he said people are doing a little too much with well, he's a conservative, as we should say, you know, the Mike Fence kind of thing. But the key is he ran on a platform that was kind of liberal nationalism or liberal patriotism probably is a better way to call it. And David, who knows Hungarian and knows Hungary, went into some detail about the kinds of the Hungarian national poet who is the hero of the liberal revolution, a hero of the Liberal Revolution of 1848. That, that was some famous lines of his poetry were cited constantly by the campaign, by Magyar's campaign. And his rhetoric was very much one of we need to be able to be proud of being Hungarian again. Now that means being part of Europe, incidentally. So it's anti nativist version of Hungary. But it was very much, it wasn't, it was very much liberal patriotism, I guess. And I just think that is not, that could be the way forward for us. You know, the alternative can't be a kind of empty cosmopolitanism. In a way, the alternative to making America great, it has to be make the real America great. And the real America is not nativist and the real America is not bigoted. And the real America does not turn its back on the world and the real America does not. To tie it back into what you were just talking about to say, well, if you're going to say death to Israel, we're going to say death to Iran, it's all the same to us. That's not so. I think there's a kind of enlightened patriotism there that Magyar seems to have embraced in the campaign. We'll see how he governs. I'm sure it'll be complicated and not everything will be perfect, but I think it's a big moment. I do think it was not predicted two years ago. It'll have effects elsewhere in Europe, I think. And I think we're right to be cheered up by it.

Andrew Egger (43:07)

Yeah. Yeah. Well, whether or not we're right to be cheered up by it, I'm going to allow myself to be in this moment and as an act of radical self care. So yeah, thanks for that, Bill. Much more optimistic note to end on than some of this other stuff, and I think we will end it there. I have one piece of programming that I should get off before we split, before we let all you good people go, which is that Bulwark's going back out on the road again. The gang is heading to California. I guess we're returning to California. I was not under the impression we'd been out there before, but I'm wrong. The gang returns to California in May for two live shows in Southern California, May 20th in San Diego, my favorite city other than St. Louis, and May 21st in Los Angeles. Presale for subscribers goes live today at 9am Pacific time. So for the people who presumably will be attending, 9am noon out here, noon Eastern runs until Friday when tickets on sale for the general public 9:00am Pacific Time, 12:00pm Eastern Time then. So go to Bulwark Events page for more info. The Bulwark.com events if you are interested in doing that, should be a good time. The live events are super fun. I love them. They are great. We'll leave it there. Thanks Bill. Thanks all of you guys out there for watching Hit subscribe. Head over to thebullwerk.com to get our newsletter morning Shots and we'll see you all next time. Whether it's slots or live dealers. Spinquest.com has the fun and action you're looking for with Spinquest exclusives blackjack, roulette, baccarat and even live dice. With craps and bubble craps. The games never stop so you don't have to. And right now, new users get $30 coin packs for just 10 bucks. Play now@Spinquest.com SpinQuest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.