← Deadline: White House
Deadline: White House
“Perfidy”
00:42:53
Nicolle Wallace on the New York Times reporting that the U.S. attacked a boat with an aircraft disguised as a civilian plane. This is an example of committing ‘perfidy,’ which is prohibited in the Department of Defense Law of War manual.
Loading summary
Transcript100 lines
- [00:00]
A
Now is your time to get into a new Dr. Horton home by taking advantage of its national Red Tag sales event going on right now through January 25th. Stop by any of its participating communities and find select red tag homes at Incredible Pricing. So whether you're buying your first home or looking for an upgrade, you don't want to miss the red tag sales event going on right now. Discover the Dr. Horton Difference. Tap your screen now or visit Dr. Horton.com Dr. Horton, America's builder and equal Housing Opportunity Builder the new year brings.
- [00:31]
B
New health goals and wealth goals.
- [00:34]
A
Protecting your identity is an important step.
- [00:37]
B
Your info is in endless places that could expose you to identity theft leading to lost funds. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second.
- [00:45]
C
If your identity is stolen, our restoration.
- [00:47]
B
Specialists will fix it, guaranteed, or your money back.
- [00:50]
D
Resolve to make identity, health and wealth part of your New year's goals with.
- [00:54]
B
LifeLock, save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com SpecialOffer terms apply.
- [01:05]
D
But what I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service. You have two individuals in clear distress without any means of locomotion with a destroyed vessel who are killed by the United States.
- [01:26]
E
Congressman Jim Himes on December 4th after viewing classified briefing about the second strike in the Caribbean. Hi again, everybody. It's now five o' clock in New York. You do not have to be an expert in warfare. You don't need to have any sort of encyclopedic knowledge of the Geneva Conventions or the laws of armed conflict or the history of the rules of engagement. You don't even need to have heard of the word perfidy before today to grasp the rank moral depravity, how far from normal we are, and what is at the center of what may very well turn out to be a war crime perpetrated by Donald Trump's Department of Defense. It is the subject of some extraordinary new journalism, some groundbreaking new reporting in the New York Times that shines a light on the first of what would be dozens of deadly military strikes on boats alleged to be smuggling drugs in the Caribbean. We are back at that September 2nd operation. It's in question again, video of which you just heard Congressman Jim Himes described as, quote, one of the most troubling things he'd seen in his time in public service was already the subject of scrutiny, having to do with that second strike that killed two survivors floating amid the wreckage. And now this. The New York Times citing officials briefed on the matter reveals this, that the Pentagon used a secret aircraft painted to look like a civilian plane, its munitions carried inside the fuselage rather than visibly under its wings. And that's a big deal. Such deadly deceit goes back millennia and is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions. In the same way, it is wrong to go in for a handshake with a knife behind your back. Disguising military assets to appear civilian and attacking with them flies in the face of the modern rules and laws of engagement. And even if you buy the Trump administration's dubious position that such strikes are part of of a larger armed conflict with drug cartels. From the Times reporting, quote, regardless of the specific aircraft at issue, three people familiar with the matter acknowledged that it was not painted in the usual military gray and lacked military markings. But they said its transponder was transmitting a military tail number, meaning broadcasting or squawking its military identity via radio signals. Several law of war experts said that would not make the use of such an aircraft lawful in these circumstances, since the people on the boat probably lacked equipment to pick up the signal, end quote. A White House spokesperson telling the New York Times that, quote, the strike was fully consistent with the law of armed conflict, although depending on what Congress decides to do or what Congress decides not to do, that question may not be for the administration to determine. That new reporting is where we begin the hour with some of our favorite experts and friends. Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling is here. He served as the commanding general of the US army in Europe. Also joining us, Margaret Donovan. She served as the captain as a captain in the army, serving in the 101st Airborne Division and later in the 5th Special Forces Group. She was captain in the JAG Corps and is the former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut. She's now a visiting lecturer at Yale Law. Also joining as former under Secretary of State for Public diplomacy and Public affairs during the Obama administration, Mississippi. Now political analyst Rick Stengel is with me at the table for the hour. General Hertling, I start with you. This alert from the New York Times under six or seven bylines is one of those stories that I'll remember for a long time where I was when it was alerted and where I read it. I stopped something that's usually sacred family dinner time and stood there and read the whole thing and said, oh, my God. And I just wonder your reaction to the reporting.
- [05:11]
A
My reaction, Nicole, is that this is just another step against ethical behavior. And, you know, as soldiers, as commanders with our Jags behind us, like Margaret, we make decisions based on morality and Ethics and legality. It's how we fight. And we do that for several reasons. The primary one is because you don't want your enemies doing something bad against you other than fighting. You also know from readings of St. Augustine and others the moral implications of warfare and killing people, the controlled chaos that commanders have to have as one of their responsibilities. So when you start using deceit, not deception, not, you know, camouflage, but true deceit, it, it overrides that morality that's associated with war. And that's what we put our servicemen and women into, and they have to live with it. And unfortunately, the decisions that are being made to use some of these techniques, just like waterboarding was used during the 2000 early 2000 post 911 period, it gnaws at people. They don't like to do it. There's no proof that it works. So those are the kinds of things you have to consider and which your legal advisors, the SJAs of the world and help you help me as a commander work my way through. I happen to have nothing but great lawyers. The whole time I was in command of different organizations and they really helped me get my mind right. So when I put my soldiers into harm's way, I knew that they wouldn't walk away with some kind of stress disorder because of what they did in combat.
- [07:00]
E
So general, I mean, pull that thread for us. If inside the Hegseth Department of Defense lawyers greenlit what is in the manual. I mean, I think you were one of the people who educated me that striking shipwreck survivors of a missile attack is literally in the manual as something on the other side of the line of the laws of war. This is as well. It's on page 328 of the Department of Defense Law of War manual. It says treachery or perfidy used to kill or wound during international armed conflict. It is prohibited to kill or wound the enemy by resort to perfidy. Why? And that is what it. I mean you define it for me as opposed to listening to me bumble through it. But pretending to be using an aircraft that isn't a military aircraft is the definition of that crime. How did we get here?
- [07:59]
A
Because we keep crossing lines. And when you talk about the admission by various legal channels to what can be and what can't be done, truthfully, I hearken back to my time as a, as a young one star general in the Pentagon when they were literally debating the waterboarding actions and the chief of staff of the army was getting advice from his lawyers saying we don't want soldiers doing that. So the Army, General Shinseki refused to be a part of that and that's why it was transferred over to the CIA. And it depends on who your lawyers are and how much they want to bend and sometimes even break the rules. And when you're talking about the Department of Defense, you have the advisors to the secretary and then you have the staff judge advocates that are part of the command. And they're different people. One tends more towards civilian legalities. The other one understands. What I tried to explain earlier, probably not in great words, the moral aspects of combat and how you want to bring your soldiers home.
- [09:11]
E
Margaret Donovan, take us inside your analysis of how far from normal we are based on this New York Times reporting.
- [09:22]
F
Yeah, I mean, this is pretty problematic. And if most Americans haven't heard of perfidy before this, it's because it really doesn't come up. It is that text book of an example of things that you don't do in combat. As the General said, you can certainly use deception. We use camouflage, we use decoys. One famous example is called Operation Fortitude. In World War II, we set up basically inflatable tanks across the English Channel to try to deceive the Germans or try to convince the Germans that we were going to cross at a place that we weren't going to cross. So certainly decoys and camouflage are used in the military context. Perfidy is not. And here's why. When you are deceiving the enemy into thinking that you are something that has protected status, which is exactly what happened here, you convinced the so called enemy in this point. We could talk a little bit about whether or not this is an armed conflict. I know we've talked about that before, but when you are convincing your adversary that you are flying planes where you can't see the weapons and that appear to be civilian planes, do you know what that does that makes the enemy target civilian planes. And that's why we don't do that. That is the danger of committing perfidy. And what's more troubling about this initial strike, because I think this reporting ties back to that now infamous September 2nd strike, is we didn't even need to do that. If the issue was you didn't want the target to identify you. You can use an MQ9 Reaper or any other unmanned aircraft and fly pretty much without detection over your target if you're high enough. So it made no sense that we did this. And the only explanation that I can come up with is that the Jags were nowhere in the room when they came up with this idea. And somebody clearly changed course after that first strike.
- [11:06]
E
Yeah, Margaret, we're learning of all these things. They happened back in September. The intervening event is six lawmakers, all former military or former national security officials, issued a warning to the men and women of the military not to follow any illegal orders. I wonder if you see that urging any differently in light of all the revelations that have become public.
- [11:30]
F
Yeah, absolutely. When that video was first publicized, the main criticism that I could tell, or at least the most persuasive of them, was, well, the lawmakers did not identify what the lawful orders were, and therefore, as a secondary of effect, maybe soldiers would be confused by this. We now have two examples of unlawful orders if the facts are as they have been reported, striking on shipwrecked survivors and pretending that you were a civilian aircraft in a combat mission. So those are perfect examples of why maybe that video was actually justified. And we can go into the First Amendment issues of pursuing punishment there in the first place, but I think that any argument that that video was made for no reason or there was no need to remind service members of their obligation to follow lawful orders, that is undermined by these two instances if the reporting is accurate.
- [12:26]
E
Let me let Senator Kelly, in his own words, speak to the First Amendment issues.
- [12:35]
D
Well, yeah, today I filed a federal.
- [12:36]
A
Lawsuit against Pete Hegsett for infringing on my First Amendment rights under the Constitution and the separation of powers in due process. And, you know, you guys can read it, but this is not just about me. This is really about all of us, including a lot of retired veterans out there who, if I didn't do this, would be worried about this Secretary of Defense or a future one coming after them. So that's the point of a lawsuit. Protect the rights, First Amendment rights of all Americans, but especially retired members of the military who in a lot of cases gave huge portions of their life in service of this country.
- [13:20]
F
Senator, just a quick point of clarification.
- [13:22]
E
Did the FBI ever interview you and the other lawmakers that were in that video?
- [13:26]
A
Speak. I'm just going to speak for me. You know, I don't know details about them, but no, they have not interviewed me. Thank you.
- [13:35]
E
Margaret. I think it's worth lifting up what he said there. This is about attacking men and women who have given, quote, large parts of their life to services of this country. This is what Donald Trump thinks of those men and women, that they are, quote, losers and suckers. I don't understand why they do this. Those are things he Said to General John Kelly, among others, at Arlington Cemetery, no less, at least some of them, quote, I don't know why they do this, end quote. What is your thought of this moment for not just the men and women inside the military potentially being asked to carry out illegal orders, but the veterans who are clearly being sent a signal to stay quiet or else?
- [14:15]
F
You know, I think that it is a very trying time for the military right now. And I just have faith in the leaders that are still in uniform that they understand what leadership looks like. And denigrating people's service, trying to threaten a sitting senator with punishment for his protected speech, trying to silence the legislator, a co equal branch of government, with fear of prosecution. I have faith that many soldiers will identify that for what it is, which is unlawful, unconstitutional, and uncalled for behavior by the executive branch.
- [14:55]
E
Rick Sangel, I will always take that faith, bottle it up and carry it around with me until I cover another Trump story. What is your sense on where it seems that the public reporting is catching up with whatever the lawmakers were warning against, either by intuition or some knowledge of what had happened in September?
- [15:18]
B
Yes. I mean, the backstory must be that there are people in the military who were deeply uncomfortable with this behavior. That's how the New York Times reporters would get this information. And, you know, even the fact that they camouflage the plane to do this deed shows that they thought that it was illegal in the first place. And it is part of this whole kind of effort of illegality, authorization of military force without congressional approval. It's part of that. It's typical of that. As the general said, these are lines that they're crossing all the time. You know, listening to Senator Kelly, I mean, and then the fact that he said obeying an illegal order is illegal with the other senators as well, which is, on its face, is something that's almost impossible to disagree with. And then being prosecuted by the Defense Department for saying, don't do something illegal.
- [16:16]
E
Which I think is like outside a building. I mean, I mean, like, if we're gonna get rid of the statement don't do anything illegal, we're in a whole new world.
- [16:23]
B
Oh, absolutely. And also, it's just a sign of weakness. It's not a sign of strength. They think it's a sign of strength that we're were being the revenge guys. It's not. It's that you have so little confidence in what you're doing that you have to prosecute someone for objecting to it and saying, don't obey an illegal order.
- [16:40]
E
Terrible I mean, there's Trump and Hegseth, but then there's the silence of people like Marco Rubio who know better. I mean, they've said that the operation to bring Maduro to New York was law enforcement, but the first and second strike in the Caribbean on September 2 was an act of war.
- [17:00]
F
How?
- [17:00]
E
Where are we that both and neither in either are being offered as justifications to the public?
- [17:07]
B
Yeah, I mean, I don't want to not answer the question, but I think the answer is pretty obvious. They're all afraid of the commander in chief. They're all, he's making decisions by whim, by instinct, without regard to law, and they're trying to figure out what is the legal buttressing to make it seem legal when they know that it's not.
- [17:28]
E
Jeremy, let me ask you the same question. What is your sense of, you know, Trump is Trump. We've all observed him on the public stage for 10 years now. But it takes the people around him to say, sir, yes, sir, and to not ask the kinds of questions that General Milley and Mark Esper and others asked when they were there the first time. What is your sense of the people around him failing to be a guardrail? It is.
- [17:55]
A
Well, first, if I can address President Trump, he's lived a life that's been on the borders of legal versus illegal for his entire business career. We've seen that. Everyone who knows him has talked about that. We've seen him tried in court and indicted for those kinds of things, where he's on the boundary of legality and sometimes crossed over it. Now he's got a group of individuals around him who have been chilled by his actions, who won't say anything against it even if they know better. And Senator, excuse me, Secretary Rubio, like you said, is a smart guy. He knows better. So do all the rest of them, except perhaps for Secretary Hegseth, because he seems to be bought into all of this based on past experiences with the JAG Corps. I don't know what those experiences were that turned him on this, but there has been an effort in President Trump's first term when Pete Hegseth, the anchor, persuaded him to pardon a couple of war criminals who were turned in by their own men. So now we're just seeing the bending of the rules, and how much can we get away with and how cute can we be on the battlefield by using these kinds of tools that are so deadly? It's incredible. I mean, few people know how deadly some of the tools of the military are, and they have to be controlled. He's not allowing that. He's saying let's use all the toys at our disposal. And truthfully, he's probably got a bunch of legal advisors who are going right along with it as well because they've been chilled. They know if they say no, that's illegal or that's over the edge that they're going to be fired, too. And it has put a dampening effect on a lot of people. I just reinforced what Margaret said a minute ago. The only thing that's worse than not speaking up is not speaking at all. And that's where I think a lot of people are right now. And they know what's happening is wrong and they should speak up because it is not the kind of country we aspire to be.
- [20:12]
E
Margaret Donovan, thank you for starting us off this hour. To be continued. Rick and General Hertling, stick around a little bit longer. When we come back in what could be the biggest threat to the regime in Iran in decades. Mass protests have engulfed that country, triggered by economic hardship, with demonstrators now calling for the overthrow of the country's leadership. Human rights groups say that the death toll is already in the hundreds and there's no sign that authorities are backing down from their brutal tactics. What happens next and what steps the United States may be considering taking? That's our next conversation. Also ahead, it's becoming more clear who is willing to stand up to Donald Trump and his agenda and who is choosing to remain silent. How Hollywood media and big business are taking sides at a perilous moment for American democracy. Later in the hour. And then WHITEHOUSE continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.
- [21:07]
F
You lather, rinse, moisturize, repeat and repeat, but it never feels like enough. It's not your products, it's your water. Hard water leaves a mineral residue that clogs, pores and dries out hair. Culligan water softeners remove damaging minerals, revitalizing brittle hair and dry skin. Upgrade your shower and skincare routine with Culligan water you love. Hi, I'm Angie Hicks, co founder of angie.
- [21:38]
E
When you use Angie for your home.
- [21:39]
F
Projects, you know all your jobs will be done well, from roof repair to emergency plumbing and more done well. So the next time you have a home project, leave it to the pros.
- [21:48]
D
Get started@angie.com imagine relying on a dozen.
- [21:52]
B
Different software programs to run your business, none of which are connected, and each one more expensive and more complicated than the last.
- [21:59]
A
It can be pretty, pretty stressful.
- [22:01]
B
Now imagine Odoo. Odoo has all the programs you'll ever.
- [22:05]
A
Need and they're all connected on one platform.
- [22:08]
B
Doesn't Odoo sound amazing? Let Odoo harmonize your business with simple, efficient software that can handle everything for a fraction of the price. Sign up today@odoo.com that's o-o o dot com.
- [22:24]
E
We are witnessing and learning about an increasingly violent and horrific scene playing out in Iran right now, where the regime's response to massive anti government demonstrations has turned deadly in recent days. Human rights groups say more than 2,000 people have been killed in those protests and that thousands more have been arrested and that they include children. The protests began only weeks ago, fueled by Iran's worsening economic crisis. And they quickly turned into something else. A movement across Iran calling for an overthrow of the country's brutal authoritarian government that could be one of the biggest threats to the regime in decades. The New York Times is reporting that a doctor treating patients in Tehran and Istan said protesters are being treated for tear gas exposure and pellet gun wounds. Then on Thursday, he started hearing heavy machine gun fire from the hospital, saying this, quote, this was a mass casualty situation. The trauma cases I saw were brutal, shoot to kill. I want to bring in Kasra Arabi. He is the director of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps research for the group United Against Nuclear Iran. General Hertling and Rick are still with us. Kasra, tell me what you're hearing from your sources inside Iran. What is happening?
- [23:38]
C
Thank you for having me. We are seeing the regime escalate its violence to horrific, unprecedented levels. The death toll is now being reported at 12,000 civilians. 12,000 civilians have been massacred on the streets of Iran. Tens of thousands have been detained. Despite this, the Iranian people are still coming onto the streets en masse, calling for the downfall of the Islamic regime. And we have to understand these protests in the context of, of a much wider movement that began in 2017, reoccurred in 2019, and again in 2022. 2023. So this is where that protest movement began, and it's explicitly calling for the downfall of the Islamic Republic.
- [24:28]
E
Kazar, We've. First of all, we have a hard time covering what's happened. As you know, not a lot of journalists are allowed to freely cover what's happening there. And there's been a real crackdown on the Internet and on any signals coming out. But I wonder if you could just help us understand what's different this time.
- [24:50]
C
Well, what's different is that the people are, despite everything that they're facing they are coming out en masse. The regime has only one pillar to survive, and that is suppression. This protest, this cycle of protests and suppression has been going on for a long time in Iran. But the regime has never found a long term solution because all it has is suppression. What really is different this time around, though, is President Trump's support, vocal support for the protesters and his threat to intervene militarily through targeted strikes. That's the only thing that can stop the violence at this stage. This balance of power between the unarmed civilians and the fully armed and fully radicalized suppressive apparatus is only going to change if the capabilities and the willingness of that suppressive apparatus is targeted. And only at this stage, targeted US Military action can change that.
- [26:00]
E
General Hertling, that is the subject of something you write about today in the Bulwark. Take us through your piece.
- [26:08]
A
Well, what I said in my piece is because this is such a different type of revolution within Iran, in the past there's been statuses of protest against ideology, against religion, against the leadership. But because this one is so intense and it's against the economic situation in the country, we're talking about a need to look at other tools other than the military. The military can certainly be one tool. But it seems, as we talked about in the last segment, the Trump administration likes to turn to the military as their, as their tool of first resort. And there are some downsides in using the military to bombard the IRGC or different facilities inside of Tehran or anywhere in the country. For one thing, it again starts a war. It is a conflict between us and them, and it's killing a security force which the government can use to once again blame the Great Satan for the kinds of conditions they're in. Should this be moderated with the use of diplomatic solutions, this messaging on the world stage at the United Nations? I'm not sure what has happened with the UN Ambassador or other messaging. I do know that there is a fact that Terry Lake has turned off Radio Free Europe that was blasting into Tehran to inform the people, the citizens of that nation, what was going on. That is now off. So we're not using the messaging tool. It doesn't appear we're using the diplomatic tool. Sanctions are what's destroying the economy in the first place, or at least having a big hand in destroying economy. But should those sanctions be levied on a more precise basis against a few individuals, and then the use of military force should be considered, but only after the other ones, in my view, that are put to their advantage?
- [28:11]
E
Obviously, seeing protesters, especially the young people put their lives on the line and some of them pay with their lives. Is a wrenching image. And I wonder putting the hope in Donald Trump doing something that he ran against doing. I mean, Donald Trump has run three times for president. All three times. He ran to his own base and to the voters in this country as an isolationist.
- [28:38]
B
Yes. I mean, you mentioned the young people. I was saying before I did go to Iran in 2013, when I was still editor of Time, before I went into the State Department. And one of the things I found was just the incredible hunger among young people, young Iranians, for freedom, for democracy. The fit with this kind of religious authoritarianism that they had since 1979 has never been a good fit in Iran. Not that people are not religious, but that kind of repressiveness is something that really intimidated that culture, which is a kind of a lovely aesthetic culture of people who want to be independent. And so one of the things that we're seeing now is the fact that Trump is threatening some military action is. Goes against what we're trying to do. I mean, since Thomas Jefferson, we've encouraged democracy around the world for people to be. To have self representation, to vote for their own leaders. That's what we should be doing. That's what past American presidents should be doing. To threaten missile attacks or military attacks gives them the Great Satan to blame. And what we saw in the beginning of the protest, the new president of Iran had a more kind of sympathetic approach, saying, you know, we've made mistakes, we understand that. And now because of the Ayatollah, they are doing this incredibly harsh response, which we shouldn't in any way support, which we don't, but give them an excuse to do it by saying the Great Satan wants to invade us.
- [30:04]
E
I mean, Kasra, I'll give you a last word. I've seen these messages about America deployed. I mean, how do they impact what the protesters are doing on the grounds the risks that they're taking right now?
- [30:18]
C
It has mobilized the protesters. It has boosted the morale on the streets. The people in Iran. All your guests are saying stuff that sounds very theoretical. Is it as if we're in a university lecture hall? But the reality is the regime in Iran is a totalitarian dictatorship. There are no reformists. They are all hardline. And power is in the hands of the Ayatollah, who has personalized every aspect of power in the regime and his brutal irgc. The. This pro. The cycle of protests and suppression has been going on for decades. The only thing that can change this cycle of protests and supply suppression is to change the balance of power. How do you change the balance of power? You have to weaken the capabilities and the willingness of the killing machine of the ayatollah. And unfortunately, there is only one solution to that in terms of there has to be targeted military strikes. And by the way, that is exactly what the Iranian people have been calling for. They are on the streets calling on President Trump, calling on the United States to target the killing machine that is going on the streets and causing violence, is going on the streets and is leading. So as I said, as many as 12,000 civilians, unarmed civilians, have been killed by the Ayatollah's killing machine. If that's not stopped, if that's not weakened, the reality is the bloodshed will continue. So I agree this needs to be part of a comprehensive strategy. It needs to have sanctions. It needs to have diplomatic isolation. But crucially, the only thing that's going to stop the bloodshed is weakening the apparatus. And that apparatus is fully armed. The only means to that is a military targeted military strike.
- [32:11]
E
Kazra, thank you for your insights. Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, thank you for spending so much of the hour with us. Rick sticks around when we come back. This weekend saw the importance of demonstrations and protests in our country over the shooting death by ice of Rene Nicole Goode. We did see something else. The chilling effect on full display in a lot of places, including Sunday night's Golden Globe Awards, where the biggest brightest stars in Hollywood are on stage. And they at least the folks who won, who took home the highest prizes that night, remain largely silent over the killing and Donald Trump. We'll bring you the latest reporting on that after a very short break.
- [32:55]
F
You lather, rinse, moisturize, repeat and repeat. But it never feels like enough. It's not your products, it's your water. Hard water leaves a mineral residue that clogs pores and dries out hair. Culligan Water water softeners remove damaging minerals, revitalizing brittle hair and dry skin. Upgrade your shower and skincare routine with Culligan water you love.
- [33:24]
B
Imagine relying on a dozen different software programs to run your business, none of which are connected and each one more expensive and more complicated than the last.
- [33:33]
A
It can be pretty stressful.
- [33:35]
B
Now imagine Odoo. Odoo has all the programs you'll ever.
- [33:39]
A
Need and are all connected on one platform.
- [33:42]
B
Doesn't Odoo sound amazing?
- [33:44]
A
Let Odoo harmonize your business with simple.
- [33:47]
B
Efficient software that can handle everything for a fraction of the price. Sign up today@odoo.com that's o-o o.com hi.
- [33:56]
F
I'm Angie Hicks, co founder of Angie. One thing I've learned is that you buy a house, but you make it a home. And for decades, Angie's helped millions of homeowners hire skilled pros for the projects that matter. Get all your jobs done well@angie.com.
- [34:17]
E
Returning now to a story we covered yesterday when we remarked on the seeming chill at the Golden Globes this year. The glitzy awards show coincided with large protests happening in our country from coast to coast over the shooting death of Renee Nicole Good. Not one of the winners on Sunday night used their victory speech to address the mass protests over Good's death. That is not to say that no one cared about it. That's not to say that the evening was absent all politics. Here are the individuals who did use their star power and their platforms to weigh in. Watch so many A listers.
- [34:51]
F
And by a listers, I do mean.
- [34:53]
E
People who are on a list that.
- [34:54]
F
Has been heavily redacted. But.
- [34:59]
E
And the Golden Globe for best editing goes to the Justice Department.
- [35:05]
D
Host 10 years ago.
- [35:06]
E
You know, since then we've had Covid.
- [35:08]
D
I believe we're a dictatorship now.
- [35:11]
E
I feel like we're kind of at.
- [35:12]
A
A turning point in this country.
- [35:13]
E
And I hope people can keep their heads. And because that's actually going to be the hardest thing, I think, is to keep our heads.
- [35:20]
A
This is for the people in the.
- [35:22]
D
United States who are terrorized and scared today.
- [35:24]
A
I know I'm one of them. This is not normal anymore. And so I don't know how I, how I could be quiet.
- [35:33]
E
As we mentioned yesterday, a number of celebrities wore pins emblazoned with Be Goode in honor of Renee Nicole Goode. Still, many of the celebrities in attendance are known to care deeply about politics and a free press. So what explains the silence? It's such a big moment for Hollywood and a coinciding moment of national crisis. Our friend Oliver Darcy reports that out and calls what we saw at the Golden Globes quote, golden silence. He writes this in Status quote, if someone were to go back and REWATCH the show 100 years from now, they'd likely have no clue about the political mayhem defining the moment. The silence did not go unnoticed. Several Hollywood and media power players told Status on Monday that they had observed the conspicuous quiet themselves, remarking that the political chill gripping Washington had unmistakenly made its way to Los Angeles. More than one described a sense of hesitation invisibly radiating through the room with a list stars reluctant to make a comment that provokes the wrath of the president and his loud MAGA supporters. I want to bring in the reporter behind that reporting, Oliver Darcy. He's the author of the newsletter Status, which covers all things media. Rick is still here. Your thoughts about, you know, George Clooney has spoken specifically about cbs and he seemed to sort of make a nuanced nod to the moment. Came out speaking French about his French citizenship. But these are people who care deeply about democracy and civil rights issues and social justice. And not one of the folks who won an award used their speech to do what Meryl Streep and many others have done in years past. Why?
- [37:13]
D
You know, I think they're afraid. I think that's what it really is. I think they're afraid to provoke this president. They don't want to be a target of one of his late night tirades. And they're afraid that if they do provoke this president, that could lead to business repercussions for them. And so I think they just decided to bite their tongue. It's great that some stars, only a couple really use their time on the red carpet to call out some of the abuses from this government. But when you watch the actual program on cbs, and it was an hours long program, three hours, you really did not see major stars call out this administration. Speak to the moment we're living in, where ICE protesters are now apparently being shot in the streets, where the president of the United States is deposing leaders of foreign countries, where he's using the federal government to retaliate against people who just refuse to go along with what he wants, like the Federal Reserve chairman. And I just think it's outrageous, Nicole, that the most powerful people in society today, whether it's the cultural leaders out in Hollywood, whether it's the big titans, tech titans in Silicon Valley, whether it's even some of the leaders in Washington, you know, the Republicans who know a lot and just refuse to call out this president, that these people are the ones who are silent because they're looking out for themselves, whether it's the money that they're making or whether it's their political aspirations. And the people that are actually protesting this government trying to make a difference are the people with the least power in society. They're the everyday Americans, you know, who are working 9 to 5 and who are going out on the weekends and spending time protesting this administration. They're the ones who actually arguably have the most to lose. And they're the ones putting it on the line for our democratic institutions. And meanwhile, the people who have reaped the most benefits from our democratic institutions, the people who have grown very wealthy and famous, they're the ones who are silent. They just apparently don't care about the health of our democracy and are fine to see it slip away if it means more money for them.
- [39:09]
E
But they're also very thin skinned. I mean, I covered this yesterday with Mark Elias. I said it was sort of like let them eat cake, let them watch our shows streaming on Netflix and help make us the winners tonight for but we won't say anything. And a lot of people were prickly about that, or at least a couple that seem to not like that commentary. And I heard from others, I mean, what explains it? Is it the fact that Trump's friends have bought up media companies or is it fear of being blacklisted, as Jane Fonda seemed to suggest with her activism this year around the industry moves, or is it something else?
- [39:46]
D
I think it's a variety of combinations, to be honest. I think that there are multiple reasons why people are afraid. I think part of it is, yes, they don't want to be seen as a radioactive star who is only appealing to a liberal audience and they want conservatives to go out to see their movies. I think part of it is the fact that the big studio heads right now, David Ellison, Ted Sarandos, David Zaslav, they want Donald Trump's approval right now as they're trying to get deals done before his government. And so they don't want to alienate him. There's a bunch of reasons why there's.
- [40:20]
E
Safety in numbers, though.
- [40:21]
D
That's what I was going to say is I think the fact that no one's doing it makes it more difficult for someone to do it because you're the odd one out. I think if everyone were to do it, it's really hard to retaliate against all of Hollywood. But because no one's doing, it's become taboo. It's just people bite their lip. And, you know, you saw Jean Smart, even someone who's at a late stage in her career, who actually delivered some remarks about this moment in our country on the red carpet and she gets on stage after winning an award for hacks and she says, you know, I could say this, but I'm not going to. And I thought that was a remarkable moment as well. If she's even afraid to say something at that stage of her career, at that level of fame, that does not bode well, for the rest of Hollywood you can't really. I mean you're not going to expect Timothee Chalamet, 30 or some year old star.
- [41:08]
B
Oliver, can I ask you a question? So how much effect does the Paramount Warner Discovery deal merger have? I mean, everybody in that room was touched by one of those companies at some point. We've never had a president who has meddled in the kind of operations of Hollywood. Even Ronald Reagan who was from Hollywood didn't do that. Is that, that seemed to me like that was the thing that the aura hanging over everything, I think, I mean.
- [41:33]
D
I think that's the aura hanging all over all of Hollywood right now. And I would be surprised if that's not part of these business calculations. I also assume that Hollywood publicists are like, you don't need this right now.
- [41:42]
E
Like there's no Kimmel is the opposite example. And I want to press you on why that didn't start a movement in the other direction. I have to sneak in a quick break.
- [41:51]
B
Okay.
- [41:51]
E
Sorry about that conversation. Well, I'll be right back. Who are we and you know, what is Hollywood anyway? It's just a bunch of people from other places. Hollywood is crawling without outsiders and foreigners. And if we kick them all out, you'll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts. Disrespect invites disrespect. Violence incites violence. When the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose. The one and only Meryl Streep in 2017. I've spoken to Jason Bateman, who was incredibly generous, his political views and Leslie Jones. I've had Doc Rivers on Doc Rivers and Steve Kerr, two of the only figures in sports who did speak out. I mean there are people we know, they care. There are people speaking out. I wonder if there's any. I mean, was there. Do you think this was all self censorship, I guess is the question I'm trying to ask. Or do you think there was any instruction given not to be political?
- [42:58]
D
I think that when a star goes on stage they can say whatever they want during their allotted time. And I think most of them just chose to turn a blind eye. And I just thought it was really out of touch, Nicole, that there's all this political disarray in this country and these stars are in their black tie attire, they're drinking cocktails, they're mingling and they're doing all of this while not acknowledging that outside the walls of the Beverly Hilton, our country is in deep trouble. And again, these are the people who have benefited from having the freedom of speech, from having access to our, you know, democratic institutions, and they are the ones, I think, that should be safeguarding it. They shouldn't leave the onus. That onus should not be on everyone else. They have a responsibility, just as the big tech titans have a responsibility, just as the people elected in Washington have a responsibility. And instead, it's just maddening almost to see them all shrug their shoulders and just look away.
- [43:56]
E
Yeah. I mean, the other thing is Trump is attacking them. I mean, putting his name on the Kennedy center is a direct attack on the ar. And if you look at who's in his corner, when we saw them all, they went with him to the county center honors this year. I mean, there is. If they wanted to speak for ideals that in the past they have championed, there was a way to not make it about Trump, but to stand with the protesters who are literally now risking their lives to go out and exercise their First Amendment rights or even all.
- [44:24]
B
Wear the button that commemorated what happened to Ms. Good. I mean, it was disappointing. In general, in life, I try to praise people for their courage and not criticize people for the absence of it. In fact, given the choice between a bunch of Hollywood movie stars speaking out against the president versus regular Americans out there protesting in Minnesota, I take the latter every day of the week.
- [44:46]
E
But you didn't have to criticize Donald Trump. I actually, I understand the fear of doing that, but you could have honored the people doing what you're talking about.
- [44:53]
B
I agree. And that would have been. That's a great platform for it. There's a long history of that, but there's also a long history of silence. The Hollywood 10 during the McCarthy era, people not speaking up. So it was a missed opportunity, especially.
- [45:08]
D
As free speech itself is under attack, too.
- [45:10]
E
Right. I thought Kimmel would have ushered it.
- [45:12]
B
Yes, they benefit from free speech. That is, every movie benefits from free speech. Right.
- [45:17]
E
All right, we're going to get to talk about it more. We'll have more on that later this week. Thank you for being here today, Rick Stink. Thank you for spending the whole hour with me. Quick break for us. We'll be right back. This week's episode of the Best People podcast is essential listening for our times. My guest is historian Heather Cox Richardson. She takes on all of the aspects of what we're living through, what we're covering this week, the current political moment, with absolute clarity and precision and a moral center. It is not hard to see why she is literally the most read and most listened to person on Substack in our conversation, we get to discuss everything from Donald Trump's actions in Venezuela to the importance of the health of our media environment and how it relates to our health and survivability as a democracy. Just scan the QR code on your screen to watch the full conversation, which is available now on YouTube or you can listen to it wherever you get your podcast. Be sure to let me know what you think on Instagram or Blue Sky. One more break. We'll be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes tonight. We are grateful.
- [46:27]
F
Not sure if you have the experience to start your dream job. Good news these days it's the skills that count. Udemy can help you get those in demand. Skills? Want to be an AI mastermind? Learn with us. Game Developer. We've got you covered. AWS Certified Cloud Practitioner. We can help you prep. You'll learn from real world experts who love what they do so that you can love what you do. Go to udemy.com for the skills to get you started and get set for your dream job.