← Bulwark Takes
Loading summary
Transcript49 lines
- [00:01]
A
Day or night. VRBoCare is here 24, 7 to help make every part of your stay seamless. If anything comes up or you simply need a little guidance, support is ready whenever you reach out. From the moment you book to the moment you head home. We're here to help things run smoothly because a great trip starts with the right support. And, hey, a good playlist doesn't hurt either.
- [00:31]
B
Hi there, Bill Kristol here. Very pleased to be joined on Bull Work on Sunday by my colleague Sarah Matthews, who was deputy press secretary in the Trump White House at the end of the first term, about seven, eight months, I think, at the end of 2020, quit in protest and on principle on January 6th, 2021. Testified honestly and courageously, I'd say, before the January 6th committee in 2022. And we're so pleased that she's joined the bulwark in the last few months, I guess, focusing on expanding our reach, especially on Instagram, where she's done terrific videos, which I recommend to everyone. So, Sarah, thanks for joining, joining me today. Oh, Sarah can't hear. I'll just talk for a minute. As I was going to say anyway, having introduced Sarah, that I wanted to take a minute to just give people an update on what's happening in Iran in terms of the negotiations over Iran and also in the election in Hungary. Today in Hungary, the polls close. We're speaking here just afternoon. The polls close in an hour, I think 7pm Budapest time. Huge turnout. Apparently they monitor that very carefully. It seems like in Hungary you get very precise numbers every two hours. People think that's the momentum's been with the opposition, the Democratic opposition, the candidate Peter Magyar. And they think, people think the big turnout is good for him. I think we'll know something in a few hours. But, but it's a complicated electoral system. There's vote from overseas that Orban has done a lot to try to buy, frankly. And also he could monkey with the election returns in all kinds of ways. So I think we may not know much for sure until tomorrow. We'll certainly discuss it in morning shots tomorrow morning. We have David Baer, who's covered Hungary for us so much and so well, honestly ahead of the curve in seeing Orban's vulnerability in this election cycle. And so we'll have something by David tomorrow morning and maybe I'll comment on the news too tomorrow morning. Andrew Agar actually will finally write about what's happened in Islamabad. The negotiations ended and ceasefire may be holding, we don't know. Trump has announced that he's closing the strait. So four moves, which slightly odd since we were supposed to be one of our unconditional demands, was that it be opened. But I suppose he's closing it for the sake of opening it. And we'll see. So we'll have an update on that tomorrow morning, too. So we'll update on these two news stories. Sarah, I wanted to talk to her about what to make of what's been happening in the White House in general. She worked there. She was pretty senior there. She knows the people she knew. Knew people. She know you very well, the people who worked there at the end of the first term and knows a lot of the people who were there back for the second term or knows people who knows them well, certainly has much more visibility into the Trump White House than most of us do. And so I thought it'd be very interesting to talk to her, particularly about Melania's kind of amazing appearance on Thursday, but more broadly about what one is to make of Trump himself and also what's sort of happening in his, in his White House. I don't know. And hearing me now, well, you missed, you've missed, you know, a nice introduction, I'm going to say. And I gave a little update about Iran and Ukraine. This is perfect timing because I was just saying that we wanted to ask you about what was going on the White House where you, which you have much more of a sense of more visibility into, obviously, you know, people and who are still there who've come back, you know, people who know people who are there and so, so forth. So very curious to hear your thoughts on, on what's happening in the Trump White House and what, what, what, what should we know about, you know, from your sense of what's happening at least maybe beginning with Melania's kind of astounding appearance on Thursday. What do you, were you surprised by that? What do you make of that?
- [04:16]
C
Yeah, you know, Melania is obviously not your typical first lady and she does everything how she wants to do it and she doesn't follow any sort of playbook. But I do think that that press conference did throw me a little bit for a loop because I know we've been joking here at the Bulwark that Trump started this war with Iran so we could stop talking about the Epstein files. But then what does Melania do? She re. Injects the Epstein files right back into the news cycle. And, you know, maybe that's because they want to distract away from what a disaster this unnecessary war has been. But I really think that Melania just wanted to go out there and try to clear her name. And I don't know if, like she got that much sign off from the President when wanting to do this. That's just my two cents because that's how she always operated. And her team, they just kind of did their own thing. And there wasn't as much coordination between the east and the West Wing. But obviously, logistically, to pull off a press conference like that, there had to be some, some level of coordination. I'm just not sure that they, maybe the West Wing was fully aware what she was going to say in those remarks.
- [05:21]
B
Yeah, that's so interesting. I want to come back to what you said, your interpretation of that in a minute, but I just for me, having worked so many years ago in the White House, seeing her standing in the Cross hall, which is the, maybe what the most formal place, wouldn't you say, in the White House, where a president could give remarks. It's where President Trump spoke about Iran just a week ago. Standing behind, she's standing behind the lectern with the seal President of the United States, which is usually in my day reserved for the President, you know, I mean, with all due respect to the First Lady. And then she reads this almost six minute statement that's not about matters of state, but it's about her own unhappiness at what she claims to be bad reporting about her relationship with Epstein. I don't know, it's just pretty astounding. As you said, it has to be cooperation, at least on the operational level. The White House website carried her remarks, I think even announced them a little bit ahead of time. You could go to the White House and see that, you know, that black screen and then, you know, she comes on and so forth. So it wasn't as if it was a rogue operation, you know, which could have, I mean, she could have done it that way, right? She could have called people into her own office. She could have gone elsewhere to a reporter. She could have done it on the phone. And there are a million ways you could make a statement that are not official, formal would not be in an official formal White House setting. But I don't know. Have you ever seen. I've never seen anyone make a statement from the Cross hall who wasn't the President speaking about serious things?
- [06:44]
C
Yeah, no, not that I can recall. And so just, yeah, the setting of it was interesting. And I just have to imagine that if the President had a heads up on her wanting to talk about Epstein and put it back into the news cycle that he wouldn't be too happy about it. And even if she, he knew that she had a heads up, you would think then she would have more forcefully defended her own husband in that press conference when it really kind of just felt largely like Melania trying to clear her own name. It wasn't like she was really coming out there and defending not just her, but her husband as well. And so I, I makes me think that he really wasn't fully aware of what this press conference was going to be or if he had any awareness of it. But maybe on the staff level, there was coordination happening there to make it happen. But maybe they weren't even fully aware of, like, what she was going to be talking about besides maybe her most inner circle, maybe those folks. Obviously someone wrote her speech, so someone knew what she was going to go out there and say. But I just have to imagine that the West Wing wasn't consulted on it, because I don't think that they would want to be talking about the Epstein files again.
- [07:50]
B
You wouldn't think so. And I think, you know, you've almost been too modest or too cautious in saying how little she defended her husband. She didn't defend him at all. I mean, literally, that is to say, she mentions him a few times in the context of Donald and I went to some parties that Epstein and Maxwell were at, but that was just. We were in the same social circles.
- [08:08]
C
Well, that's the bare minimum.
- [08:09]
B
Yeah, right. She explains how she met, claims how she met her husband, but there's literally not a sentence in there about he's innocent of the charges. I stand with him. I don't believe he did what people are saying, or I don't believe he could have known about what Epstein was doing. Literally, the whole every, almost every paragraph begins with I or my, or me. And I never was on the plane. She said some things that kind of almost invited speculation. I thought about his role. I was never on the plane. Well, who was on the plane? Donald Trump, I think we know that. Right. And similar, you know, similar statements about, and then her expression of sympathy with the survivors and these criticism of these male executives who got away with so much, I don't know, wouldn't her husband fit in that category? So how much do you think she's sort of calculating that? How much is just in her own world? I mean, what, what is one, what do you know or if anything of the relationship of the two without getting, you know, too speculative.
- [09:05]
C
But, I mean, yeah, I mean, I think that this was such a display of self preservation. If, like you outlined, if she wanted to go out there and defend her husband, she very well could have and she didn't. And so I think that Melania is a lot smarter than people give her credit for. She is very strategic, and I think that was a strategic choice, not go out there and forcefully defend her husband. She was focused solely on trying to clear her own name. And whether that's because she's trying to preempt some story that's about to drop that we're unaware of, or I do think there's a chance too, that she's just been singularly focused on this issue because she doesn't like that her name has been swirling around with it. So she just wanted to go out there and just say her piece. But I, I, it makes me think that there might be some other news that's coming that she was trying to preempt.
- [09:58]
B
Yeah, we'll have to look for that over the next few days. So we need another big story in the news cycles is all we need.
- [10:04]
C
What about the white, our shortage of news?
- [10:06]
B
It's crazy, isn't it? I mean, you, so the White House you were in was crazy enough. It looked to us, some of us on the outside, and I'd love to hear your account of what it was like in there at a high level those, those eight or nine months you were there in 2020, both before the election and then obviously after November, November 3rd, or whatever it was Election Day. But also. Well, and what your sense of how it's working today, I mean, just how is it sort of functioning? Who's powerful, who makes decisions? Is there any mechanism even for sort of discussion and debate about what to say? Or is it entirely the president calling the press secretary in and saying, say this, or Steve Miller calling someone else and saying say that? I mean, what's your read on that?
- [10:51]
C
Yeah, I think when I look back at my time at the White House, I always tell people that working for any White House is crazy. Working for that specific president was crazier. But I think I had the craziest stretch of Donald Trump's first term. I was there during everything from COVID to the George Floyd protests to the president getting Covid, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's passing and, and then obviously the election, and then him pushing the lies about the election, which ultimately led to January 6th, which was, you know, the breaking point for me. And it, so it really was a crazy stretch there that I, I was able to witness at the end. And I think too that when I'm looking at comparing Trump 1.0 versus Trump 2.0, I think that obviously in 1.0 we say this all the time. You know, you had the people there who were there because they wanted to serve their country, they wanted to try to keep Donald Trump in check, and they kind of served as the guardrails. And obviously in 2.0, you don't have that. You have sycophants and loyalists who are willing to say and do whatever he wants. And, and that is how he operates. He, he does. When, especially when it comes to the press team, he, there would be times Kayleigh McEnany was the press secretary when I was serving in the White House in the first administration. And he would call her in and say, I want you to go do a briefing on this topic and I want you to talk about this and defend this. And it got really dicey there toward the end when it came to the election because, you know, there was potential Hatch act violations of her talking about campaign related things from the White House podium. But then she also didn't want to be involved in part of those conversations because I think she knew in her mind that he had lost. And so she was very careful with what she would talk about from, from the White House. And I think that that is how he is, though. And so I have to imagine it's the same thing with Caroline Levitt now where he's instructing her. And I remember toward the end of the first administration, there would be times where Kaylee would go out of her way to try to avoid the President because she would be afraid that he would find her and tell her, like, I need you to go do a briefing on this. And she didn't want to risk upsetting him when she would say no. And so. But I do think one of the biggest differences too, between 1.0 and 2.0 is that in 1.0, it felt like there was a lot more backstabbing and infighting than what we're seeing play out with 2.0. And so I'll give credit where credit's due. That's a good thing that it seems like they're functioning a little bit better in that regard. But I do think that there's more chaos in the second administration because you don't have those people in place who are willing to push back and say no to the president and certainly serve as those guardrails. And so it's a little bit of a give and take. Yes. You, you don't have the leaking happening and the backstabbing, and it kind of felt like every man for themselves at times during the first administration and you didn't really know who you could trust. And in the second administration, it does seem like they're operating as a more functional team. But I just don't know if I like the goals of that team and what they're trying to accomplish.
- [14:05]
B
Yeah, that's really a good point. I mean, people deplore leaks, and I was in a White House that actually had a fair number of leaks, and some of them were deplorable, some of them were reasonable, I would say, or understandable, to put it that way. And a lot of them were accurate. But that is one way in which it is kind of a guardrail, honestly. Right. I mean, you shouldn't, you know, without endorsing people leaking, especially if it's, you know, in a malicious way or certainly in a false way. But it is getting something out there that the President is planning to do, if you think it's pretty unwise and you think it hasn't been properly debated or ventilated, isn't necessarily a bad thing for the country, you know, if that happens and it is striking. I've been struck by this, too. I think, you know, people like, like me and like a lot of our friends who are anti Trump want to just say, well, it's. It's chaos, it's crazy, it's, you know, so dysfunctional. And there's a lot of truth to that, obviously. But I would say in terms of actual mechanics, it's not. I agree with everyone. I think you're making a very important point. It's fairly, in a weird way, it's a fairly tight ship. It's a pretty crazy ship. But, you know, they're pretty good at pulling surprises, Right? They're pretty good at not. Things haven't leaked. It's not like on the Iran announcement on February 28th of the war. There wasn't that much leaking ahead of time about what he was going to say or when he was going to say it. It was a bit of a surprise to a lot of people. He did it at midnight. I don't know what he did at midnight, 2am or something with a taped video. But if you think about it for a minute, he taped that, that video, Right. So the people knew about it. Right. There was someone who, who, who ran that, who arranged that, who. There were others who were ready to distribute it. And in that respect, the loyalty, the fealty, as John Bolton called it, To Trump, I suppose has helped him in the sense that it enables him to pull off surprises. And whether it's helped him in terms of just insulating him more in a bubble, I guess, is the question.
- [15:51]
C
Yeah, no, exactly. So it does seem like he has that loyal team around him and they're willing, they're able to, you know, keep a secret and plan things like that and, and pull it off. But I, I, and I think that there's credit to be given to Susie Wiles in that regard, that it does seem like she is a professional and you know, she picks and chooses her battles with Trump, but she is running a well oiled machine over there at the White House. And I do think that she has a lot of power within that world and it's someone that Trump trusts because she was kind of, you know, stood by him when it felt like he had lost like everyone. She, she was there and stayed. And so I think that she has a lot of power. I think that obviously Stephen Miller has more power in the first administration, I mean, in the second administration than he did in the first when I was working with him, you know, in the first administration he was the speechwriter and largely focused on immigration when it came to policy. But now in the second administration, I mean, he's touching everything from the conversations I've had with people who are inside the White House. And he's not just focused on that issue set, even though that's obviously his baby and what he cares about most, but he is touching policy across the administration. So I think that the negative headlines that have come out though around ice, I think has kind of made him not as powerful as of late, but I'm sure he'll find a way to weasel his way back in. And, and I think too obviously Marco Rubio is just someone when we look at the cabinet, who is, who has this enormous influence. Obviously he's got how many titles now and doing however many jobs. But like I thought it was even interesting last night that he was the one who was at Trump's side at this UFC event and it wasn't the Vice President. But you know, that's funny because you would think, well, the President entrusted the Vice President to go to Islamabad for these negotiations and you know, sent him with his son in law and Steve Witkoff and, but it almost makes me think that maybe Trump, maybe I'm giving Trump too much credit here, but that he knew it was a fruitless effort and that it might not go anywhere. And I just thought it was interesting though that why wouldn't you send your secretary of state to be part of those negotiations? And, but Marco Rubio is at his side at the USC event. And so it just shows me that they have a very close, friendly relationship. And it seems like he's in the room for a lot of those important decisions that are being made.
- [18:25]
B
Well, he should be as Secretary of state, national Security advisor. Whether he's really running a, like a traditional National Security Council process that, you know, does a good job of coordinating agencies and stuff. I'm, I'm a little doubtful that he has the bandwidth to do that or the experience really to do that, or the subordinates to do that in the White House. But I was struck by the thing last night. Well, so give me your, so how does that work? I mean, do you believe Rubio saw advances in Islamabad? But I have a chance to be with Trump, suck up to Trump, be seen with Trump, or to be fair, tell Trump a few things as news breaks, you know, quietly in the middle of this raucous crowd, as opposed to, you know, having to place a call to him or something like that. I suppose that that would be the nice, the nice way of interpreting it. But do you think Rubio initiates that? Does Trump initiated it? How much, how much is Trump open to people saying, hey, I'd like to join you at this thing? And how much is he, you know, picking the people he wants around him?
- [19:17]
C
Yeah, I kind of think that Trump is the one picking the people that he's inviting. And you know, he, it's like, oh, well, he wants you to be there, so you have to be there and make it work. But there probably is a level and like, layer to it too, of having Rubio there to be able to update him on what's going on and give him those kinds of updates and having him by his side.
- [19:39]
B
Do you think there's any pushback? I mean, they are, it's not like Jim Mattis, obviously, or, or, or General Kelly or John Bolton or, or should say even Kayleigh McEnany. I mean, I mean, even in a derogatory. But people who are less, had less stature on their own, you could say, but still were uncomfortable saying certain things. I mean, do you have any sense that, I mean, how much is he in his own information bubble? I've been debating this with people and I don't know the answer. I mean, is it, how much is he wants to do certain things, he says things that are clearly not true or that are highly misleading or one sided interpretations of events. Does he believe them because that's just all he hears. Or does he know what he's. He knows what he's saying because he wants to push things in a certain direction.
- [20:23]
C
I feel it's a little bit of both, because the way I look at it, having worked for Trump, I think that oftentimes, you know, Trump has a way of bending reality to what he wants. And so if there's a narrative that he wants to push, he's going to find a way to push that and he's going to spin it. If, even if it's a defeat, somehow he makes it into a victory, and he's going to do that regardless. But I do think, too, that from what I've gathered of just reading about what's going on in the second administration, it does seem like he's living in this little information bubble and not getting as much, you know, the negative reports of, like, what's going on with the war. For example, there was a story recently about how Susie Wiles is encouraging people to tell him the truth and tell him how the negative polling and how people are unhappy with the war and, you know, the negative attacks that are happening against U.S. troops. And I thought that that was interesting because it makes me think that Susie Wiles is the source of that story, and it's trying to present herself as she's the adult in the room and she's willing to, you know, tell him the things that he doesn't necessarily want to hear. And I do think that he's being fed a lot of what he wants to hear. And, and, I mean, there was a story recently, too, about how he's not hearing as much about the negative impacts of the war on US Troops and how there was an example where there was an attack, I believe, of, like, the Iranians had shot at some of our aircraft, might get this wrong. I think it was an Axios piece, if I'm remembering correctly. But they were saying that Trump found out about it from the news, that he wasn't briefed on it from his own team, and that they like to keep that. They brief him with these little video montages of things blowing up, and it's because, one, he has a short attention span, but two, they don't want to tell him about the negative things. They want to make it look like we're winning this war and that we're successful, and so they're leaving out the bad. And that is a really scary and dangerous, dangerous thing to think that he's not operating with all of the information because they're terrified of him throwing a tantrum if he does hear about what is going wrong.
- [22:34]
B
How much did people exaggerate from the outside that, you know, he's watching Fox News all the time, and a startling percentage of what he does is driven by something he hears on Fox or sees on Fox and. Or maybe a few other sites that he likes. I mean, is that exaggerated or is that. Was that your experience?
- [22:51]
C
Yeah, no, that was 1,000% my experience. I think he sat in the Oval Office dining room and would watch TV and consume it. And you have to be really careful with what you present in front of him, too. So, like, how we were saying, you know, if he hears something on Fox, he'll repeat, was the same thing with us with the press team. We had to be really careful about what we would put in front of him and what facts and filter that, because if he sees something, he'll latch onto it and he'll repeat it. So you have to be very careful with what you're. You're briefing him with and showing him. And, and so that's why it was so important in the first Trump administration. This was before my time, but like John Kelly, one of his largest things that he had to do was act as the gatekeeper for the Oval because people were just walking in and out of there, which is not typical, but that's how it was operating before he came on board. And then he kind of had to help streamline things of, no, not everyone can have access to the president and present, you know, whatever it is that they want to show him, because Trump will just repeat it. And so it is, it is quite interesting in that way. But he does consume a lot of media, a lot of Fox News, and I think that's obvious. As, you know, we see him fire off these things when he gets upset about something he sees and will, you know, post on his true social, you know, attacking. I think, like recently he attacked Jessica Tarlov from Fox News. And even though I think she's amazing and I don't know how she does that job, and they, whatever they're paying her, they're not paying her enough, but it, it, yeah, he does. That is, that was my experience, though, was that that's how he likes to consume his media.
- [24:36]
B
As you say, if you're not getting regular intelligence briefings presented by actual, you know, intelligence community experts and to try to give you at least reasonably true account of what's happening, it's. It's unclear where you get it from, especially if you, I Had are people just intimidated from telling him the, the facts, I mean, is just, I think
- [24:56]
C
that people just don't want to. Yeah. To get, to get the backlash from him and like the anger. I mean, there were, I remember there were times where I had to tell him about a negative press story and he freaked out on me and you know, would yell at me. But it was, you know, whatever that story was had risen to the level that we needed to go to him because he was the only source that could push back on whatever it was that, you know, that outlet was reporting. And, you know, it's not a fun position to be in to have to tell him something that he doesn't want to hear. Know that whatever you're about to say is probably going to upset him and that you're going to be the one on the receiving end of that. But that that's what you do. You just have to do it. And, and so I do think that it's people, they're, they're looking out for themselves because they want to stay in his good graces. They want to stay, you know, the proximity and the power and all the things. And they don't want to risk upsetting him and risking their jobs. So. Which is, you know, that, that says a lot that they aren't thinking through what's best for the country and like what's best for the president and his decision making. No, I'm going to give. Paint him a rosy picture because I'm more concerned with my own self interest and protecting my. Myself.
- [26:10]
B
No, you're right. It does say a lot. Were you surprised by the firing first of Christine Ohm and then of Pam Bondi. And it seems like he was trying pretty hard not to fire people here in his second term. And I think one reason that I think maybe is a little under reported in this respect is there's so much corruption and so many dubious things going on. You sort of need to keep everyone in the tent. Right. I mean, there's a sort of real. And it's actually interesting that he gave Kristi Noem this fake job or whatever it was the Shield of the Americas or whatever that was. And Pam Bondi talked about somewhat crypto about how she'll be doing great in the private sector. I'm sure that they're arranging lots of ways in which she'll do fine. I mean, I think the degree to which it is, if you're running kind of a mob operation, you can't really afford to let people go out too unhappy. I mean, you need to keep them on a string somehow. So I kind of was a little bit of a doubter when people said, oh, he may fire. No, he may fire Bondi, but he has done both of them and there could be more. What's your take on what happened and do you think more firings are in our rude. Does he like firing people? I sort of. The first time I vaguely remember, he's both Mr. Firing because of this TV show, obviously, you're fired. But also he didn't really like doing it personally. One had the sense, I mean, he didn't quite have the nerve to look someone in the eye and just say, you're gone. Maybe I'm wrong about that, though. I don't know.
- [27:26]
C
I think that, to me it was interesting that I think obviously there were plenty of reasons why Noem and Bondi both deserved to be fired. But from what my sense is on the situations, he only chose to fire them when, when it came to, with Noam, he didn't like that she had said, oh, well, he signed off on these, you know, multimillion dollar ads and he, she implicated him and that is what pushed him over the edge and led to her firing. Not everything else that happened. I mean, sure, yeah, he probably didn't like all the negative headlines that were coming out around ICE and how she handled the killings of Renee Goode and Alex Preddy. But, but what ultimately made him fire her was something that made him look bad. And then I think same thing with Bondi. It was all about him when it came to her where, you know, I think she totally botched the handling of the Epstein files and all these other things. But it seems like he only fired her because she wasn't prosecuting his enemies enough that she wasn't able to, you know, go after them as effectively or vigorously as he wanted. And that that's all he cared about. He didn't care about anything else that's happening at doj. It was just, how can we enact revenge? And why aren't you going after these people more? And so I thought that that was interesting because you see, you know, with the incompetency of like, you know, Pete Hegseth, where he, I, you know, I think in any other normal, the White House and administration, that he would have been fired over signal gate, but that didn't happen. And, but Pete Hexseff hasn't done anything that has upset Trump or implicated Trump personally. So I think that that's kind of interesting that those are where he chose to finally, you know, break with these two people, notably women. But I think that, yeah, he tried to hold off firing for as long as he could. And I think he didn't feel as much pressure when there were negative headlines like Signal Gate and things like that, because he thought, these are my people and they're loyal and I'm going to keep them on board. I don't care. But I think that now that we're, like, a little bit further into the administration, I'm sure there will be other firings that will come down. I don't know if I know who that might be. I mean, maybe it will be like a. A Cash Patel or someone, but someone else who seems to have kind of, like, upset him a little bit. But I just found it interesting. I could. I guess Bondi and Gnome had weathered so many storms that I almost thought that they were. They were in the clear. But I had heard a lot of rumblings from people inside the administration about Noam in particular. So I was not surprised about her firing Bondi. I was a little bit more surprised about, actually. But Gnome, it kind of felt like it was coming because it was just so much. I mean, you know, just like the alleged affair with Corey Lewandowski and then the ICE and, you know, Renee Good and Alex Preddy and then the. The ad campaign that was just. Was absolutely ridiculous. Like, there was just so much there. So that one didn't surprise me at all, actually.
- [30:47]
B
Yeah, that's interesting. Yeah. He seems to dislike his subordinates getting a lot of press, you know, doing the kinds of things he likes doing, you know, like getting a lot of public, you know, taxpayer money put to his own advantage. But he doesn't quite like it if someone is doing it and if it gets bad press and if he then gets kind of tarred with having signed off on it, I guess that was her. Her big sin.
- [31:06]
C
What?
- [31:06]
B
A couple other questions. It's been so interesting. Do you buy into the Vance vs Rubio competition story to be his air and all, or is that overstated and media speculation?
- [31:19]
C
No, I think there's definitely a competition going on. And I mean, Trump always, during the first administration, you know, he's always like, polling people, asking, like, oh, how do you think this person's doing? Do you think they're doing a good job? Or, like, what do you think of this person? And so I think there's a lot of that going on. And I think he knows that, yeah, those are kind of the top two contenders to be his heir to the MAGA throne. And so I think that. I think he's having a lot of those conversations and kind of testing them. And I think that there are people within both camps that are trying to make their principal look the best. I mean, we saw that recently with a story, I believe it was in the New York Times, talking about Trump's decision to launch the attack on Iran, and how there was the telling of Vance saying that, no, I don't support that. Support this, and I don't think this is a good idea, but I'll back you. And I thought that that obviously looked like it was a source story coming from Vance because it made him look good. When this is this unpopular war that the American people did not vote for. Trump campaigned on ending endless wars, and then gets us into this war with. With seemingly no way out as of now. And so it felt like it was a story that was planted in order to try to make JD look good. And so that way he can come out on the other side, you know, potentially as unscathed as someone who was vocally against the war. And. And so, yeah, that. That just kind of shows me that they're trying. His team and him are trying to frame him in that light. And I think that Rubio has been out there saying, oh, well, if, you know, Vance is the nominee, then I have no interest. And all this stuff like, that's. That's B.S. everyone, all these guys want to be president. So it is completely other bullshit for him to say that. He's just saying what he has to say publicly. But I imagine behind the scenes that I think there is a lot of things happening. And I think Susie Wiles is someone who would probably want to see Rubio over Vance as well, you know, just with her Florida background. And so I imagine she's kind of angling, too, to. To put Rubio in those situations where he is, you know, part of these big decisions and. And is by Trump's side. And so I. I think there is more to that story there of them kind of secretly battling. And you know what that also reminded me of was that that story that was. What was it. Was it the. Was it Time magazine where they photographed all the staffers?
- [34:01]
B
Yeah. Or some Time or maybe Vanity Fair or something like that.
- [34:04]
C
It was Vanity Fair.
- [34:05]
B
Correct. I know what you're talking about. That. Yeah. Very staged photo.
- [34:08]
C
Yeah, yeah. And it was reported in the. The story where Vance made some comment to the photographer. Well, make me look better than Marco. And it's like there's something to it. I think that they. They know that they have a secret little competition going on.
- [34:25]
B
How much do you think Trump will put out? I mean, JVL has been of the Trump will run again view. Others are just. If he were much younger, I actually agree with that. It's maybe a little less likely if he's 81, 82. On the other hand, I don't rule it out. Does he have full confidence that Vance or Rubio will protect him and his family in the way that he would like, you know, as the heir, but also psychologically. And this you have a good insight into. Could Trump put up with in 27, 28 with Vance or Rubio or both or five other candidates? I suppose all kind of just getting the headlines as they go through the primaries and Trump is just out of it. I mean, I feel like he doesn't really like other people being at the center of attention.
- [35:07]
C
Yeah, I think that that's a great point. I think it's going to drive him crazy when he becomes even more of this lame duck president where he's irrelevant and people are focused on this. What's going to shape up to be, I imagine, a crazy primary. And I think that he, he's going to hate that, not having the attention in the spotlight. I do, I agree with JBL in the sense that we need to be taking seriously when Trump makes these comments about running for a third term. I mean, he's floated it out there so many times and it's, I do think it's because he's trying to normalize it and I think if he could, he genuinely would. But I do think that there is something about his age and how. I just don't know if that's feasible and possible and how maybe there will be people in the party that are, you know, push back on the idea of that and obviously, you know, just constitutionally push back on the idea of it. But like, I, I think that they, he, he is going to try to find a path, I think, to run for a third term or I don't know. Like, I just, I think he's been out there floating it. I don't think it's possible, which is, you know, great and thank God. But like, I, I really think that if he could find a way to do it, he would try. Which is a scary thought.
- [36:28]
B
No, but that's so important and that you would. And I, I guess it's somewhat analogous, isn't it, to what you must have seen after election day in 2020 as Trump starts. Well, he started a little before election day, but Certainly after the whole, you know, pushing of the big lie and then just the relentless effort to normalize that, even though there was no evidence that everyone was saying it's not the case, and people in his own administration were saying it's Bill Barr and others, not the case. And as you say, people in the White House knew it wasn't the case. I guess you've been through this, right? You've seen. I mean, you've seen the degree to which he's willing to lay the groundwork for something and then try to make it happen. It didn't work, luckily, on January 6th. But I don't know, maybe it's not a good analogy, but I feel like it's.
- [37:10]
C
No, no, I think it is, because, yeah, I think that it just shows that he's. He's like. I mean, God, he's the first president to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. And so if, you know, if that's what. And if he. And if he Learned anything from January 6th, it's. It was. He learned his mistakes. I think he's learned a lot from that process. And so it does scare me at the thought of what could happen moving forward, because I think he's just gotten, you know, lessons learned from that.
- [37:39]
B
And.
- [37:41]
C
And now I think, you know, when you have Steve Bannon out there also pushing this and trying to kind of put it in the. Just out there and normalize it. It's. It's a very scary thing. And so it. I wouldn't be surprised, but I don't think it will actually happen. So, you know, it's one of those things where you're like, oh, the sky is falling. And, you know. But I do think we do need to be taking it seriously when he says these things. I just don't think it will actually end up coming to fruition.
- [38:11]
B
But it's an important point about taking it seriously. And one of the lessons he learned is that ultimately he won the Republican nomination again, as you say. People forget how unlikely that looked in 2022 with DeSantis winning a massive victory in Florida, and he was not doing so great in the polls. And then he gets prosecuted. He survives all that. One lesson he learned is that he paid no price, really, for January 6, 2021. And if he paid no price for that, why wouldn't he try the equivalent this time? If his health were good enough and if he thought there was a path. If there's no path, there's no path. If he's just not up to it, he's not up to it. Maybe he's confident enough in one of his successors that he just thinks, okay, enough's enough. But I think it is interesting, right? I mean, I think that's a very good point you make about the lessons learned. And he did not learn the lesson that you shouldn't try unconstitutional or anti constitutional things.
- [39:05]
C
No, exactly. Like you said, he faced no accountability. So it's like, why wouldn't he want to try again to try to stay in power.
- [39:12]
B
Sort of a chilling note to end on, but a very interesting one. Thank you, Sarah. This is really fascinating and we should do it again sometime. And obviously people need to follow tell I'm. I'm not a big Instagram person tell what's the best way to follow you on Instagram? And they certainly should.
- [39:28]
C
People can follow me on Instagram, TikTok and Twitter because I refuse to call it X.
- [39:33]
B
That's good.
- [39:34]
C
They can follow me at. Sarah A. Matthews 1 okay, great.
- [39:39]
B
That's good to, good to hear. And people should do that. I follow you on, on X, but I maybe I need to get on Instagram. Yeah, I should refuse to call it X too. I don't know. I feel like Instagram is more for people your age, but maybe I'm just being old foolish about that. So I mean I see a lot of stuff as it gets repurposed, you know, on accident on Blue Sky. So it's you. I see your stuff because it's in the beat our own and we'll work our channels slack and so forth. So yeah.
- [40:02]
C
Yeah.
- [40:03]
B
Sarah, thank you for joining me today here on Bull Work on Sunday. And thank you all for joining us.
- [40:07]
C
Thank you.