← Federalist Radio Hour
Federalist Radio Hour
’You're Wrong' With Mollie Hemingway And David Harsanyi, Ep. 194: Ceasefire
00:52:47
Join Washington Examiner Senior Writer David Harsanyi and Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway as they analyze President Donald Trump's wartime rhetoric, examine the alleged ceasefire deal with Iran, and review who will replace ex-Attorney...
Loading summary
Transcript84 lines
- [00:00]
A
This is Julian Edelman from Games With Names. I want to take a second to talk about something that's personal to me. I've had the privilege of working closely with Robert Kraft for a long time. And one thing I've always respected is how seriously he takes up standing up to hate. As a Jewish athlete, my identity is something I am proud of. But I also know what it feels like to be singled out for it. That's why this new commercial for the Blue Square Alliance Against Hate that aired during the big game really hit home. It's about showing up for someone when they're targeted, even if you don't have the perfect words. And sometimes standing next to someone is enough. And you can show support by sharing
- [00:42]
B
the Blue Square IP Vanish protects every device you own. Your phone, your laptop, your smart tv. If it connects to the Internet, it should be protected. IP Vanish encrypts your connection and masks your IP address, helping keep your browsing private at home and on public WI fi and with no device limits. One account covers everything stream with added privacy. Browse securely.
- [01:04]
A
Connect with confidence right now. Save 83% off the two year plan.
- [01:08]
B
Get started today@ipvanish.com audio and take control of your privacy with Ipvanish.
- [01:32]
A
Welcome back everyone to a new episode of youf're Wrong with Molly Hemingway, editor in chief of the Federalist. David Harsanyi, senior writer at the Washington Examiner. Just as a reminder, if you'd like to email the show, please do so at radio the federalist.com we love to hear from you, Molly. Ceasefire time, huh? Which is. We're recording this on Wednesday, I believe on Monday. Donald Trump had tweeted out some, or maybe this weekend, something very ominous about destroying civilization and this and that. Hordes of leftists and others freaked out. Donald Trump's going to drop a nuclear bomb. Donald Trump's going to bomb civilians. And then he signed the ceasefire. Now everyone's like, Donald Trump's going to give in on everything Iran's asking for. We've lost, we're surrendering. What were your like, what was going through your mind through this whole thing?
- [02:29]
B
Okay, so I think he had this weekend suggested that there would be, that Tuesday would be a bad day for Iran. 8:00pm yeah, but then yesterday morning he said he was going to destroy the whole civilization and attack civilian infrastructure. So you saw a lot of people react that so stupidly that they discredited themselves. I think, you know, they're like, well, clearly he's going to nuke Iran and we have to 25th amendment him immediately. There are aspects of this which are just. I mean, it's just tiresome, exhausting. Say what you want about Donald Trump. This is the way he speaks. He's written books about it or has had people help him write books about this, about his style, which he negotiates, beginning with kind of an absurd position and then works back from there. But I don't think that means that everyone should be completely flippant about what he said. And how you speak is also important. And I'm largely a fan of how President Trump speaks. But if you go back to Reagan, his rhetoric was actually much better. The speeches he gave and the concepts that he inculcated into the American people were very important. He didn't just try and occasionally fail to pass policies of a free market and strong national defense and supportive of traditional culture. He did those things, but when he talked about them, he gave people a way to think of who we were as a country. That's important for not just how you vote at a federal level, but how you govern at a state and local level as well. Similarly, I have been just disappointed with how little philosophy or theology even, that people are putting into their approaches to war. Traditionally speaking, we have developed ideas about when it is and when it is not appropriate to go to war, and doing a checklist of those things is important. And then also, we have developed over time, through largely Christian philosophers, how to conduct ourselves in war, and we put limitations on that, to not just protect our enemy from genocide or something like that, but also to protect ourselves from becoming monsters. And so I am not losing my mind about how Trump talked about destroying the civilization of Iran. But at the same time, I think people should think through both when we go to war and then how we fight the war that we're in and understand that who we are as a people have to have standards about that and have to be justified in our actions.
- [05:41]
A
That's very well put. I agree. I don't like the language Donald Trump uses, but it is what it is. Right. And this is just how he is, and he's always been. Not for a moment did I believe that Donald Trump was going to destroy anyone's civilization. I got over that in, like, 20. In. Yeah, around 2017 or 18. I realized that we can't take what he says literally, and there's a lot of hyperbole. Obviously, it was part of the threat and pressure that the Americans were, you know, because the Americans were trying to get to a negotiating table and to a ceasefire. I do, though, I guess this is a nitpick, but I don't. The bombings and the threat to bomb bridges and power stations that are dual use targets for the military are well within the ground rules of war. I think the Americans have fought this war in the Israelis as well with more moral restraint than almost any war I've seen. There are. We do not target civilians. There is always tragedy in war. So the idea that we're out there that Donald Trump wanted, like Chuck Schumer says Donald Trump bombed on purpose, or our military purposely targeted a school filled with little. With young girls, is not true. It's a tragedy. And, and so I agree with you thematically what you're saying. There are just wars. The way we fight wars, it reflects on us. Donald Trump's tweets reflect poorly on us quite often, but it's just how he is. So we're in a ceasefire now. It's for two weeks. The Iranians, it's difficult to know who we're negotiating with. There's clearly groups in Iran, they probably are. There's probably anarchy in their leadership. They don't know who's in charge. But they have given us, I think, a 15 point, 15 demands, which are preposterous, and we've given 10 which were the same essential demands I think we were making before the war. There's a lot of talk about how we've lost. I just want to preface this all by saying I think that this has been an incredible military victory and a strategic victory in many ways. If we left today, I still think it would be a victory, but not a complete victory. Allowing the uranium to still be. There is a problem, though. The. From what I'm reading, the Israelis and Americans and we have destroyed a lot of the infrastructure necessary to actually create any kind of weapon or move anything. And we can continue to watch that. I think it's also a problem and a big problem if Iran is actually going to be charging $2 million or whatever for every ship that goes through the Strait of Hormuz. I don't think those things are going to happen. I could be wr. Are you happy it's ended? Do you. Are you skeptical that this is going to work out? Do you think we're going to go back out? I mean, what are you thinking?
- [08:51]
B
I don't know. Did you read the New York Times piece yesterday by Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman?
- [08:57]
A
I'm glad you brought that up. I think I did read it and I'm sorry I didn't read it before. I reacted to what People were saying about it, which is a weird, weird way to frame this. But we were told that this is proof now that Benjamin Netanyahu dragged Donald Trump into the war and this and that. I was bothered by everyone repeating that because these are the kind of reporters that no one on the right trusts except when they say something, they like, all of a sudden, boom, they take their word. You know, a sacred text. That's not even what the piece says. The piece, obviously, Benjamin Netanyahu is making the case for Israeli interests, which is what an ally does. I don't know why people get so upset about that. But Donald Trump was clearly very open and very interested in doing something with Iran long before that, to the surprise of even his cabinet members. And the idea that he didn't have agency here or that he was somehow cahoots into doing it is just preposterous. Even in the piece, even though it's shaded in a way to create controversy, which is the norm for these sorts of books, I thought the process was clear. People in the administration, some didn't like it. I don't know if all this is true. Some told him that he shouldn't do it. Some people were more interested in parts of the plan that the Israelis brought forward. He got all the information he needed and he made a choice, as presidents do, whether or not to go to war with Iran. Something that he's been talking about since 1988 or 87. I don't know. What did you make of that piece?
- [10:32]
B
So I just want to first of all say that the reporters of this New York Times piece, I am probably one of the more prominent critics of the New York Times. That's like something I've spent a lot of time doing with my life. But the reporters are very different. One is Jonathan Swan and one is Maggie Haberman. Maggie Haberman. And apparently they co wrote a book on Trump or something that's coming out. Maggie Haberman, to give you an example of the quality of her work, won a Pulitzer for her role in perpetuating the false and delusional Russia conspiracy hoax. She's someone who willingly participates in obvious information operations to hurt Republicans. You should keep that in mind when reading anything by Maggie Haberman. On the other hand, Jonathan Swan, while not perfect, he's a bit of a theater kid. And that drama, I think, comes out in the way he characterizes stories. I know many people who have been sources for him and they say he accurately reports what they said, even if they're anonymous. So he's got, I think more integrity as a reporter and does do the work, and I will. And so the fact that he was the main writer on this, I think means that you can take it a little more seriously than you would normally take a New York Times piece which is not at all related to that. I had spoken to some pretty high level people at the Defense Department, the State Department and in the Vice President's office. And at least as far as what was said about from State and the BP's office, that matched with what I had been told. So it corroborated what I'd been told. Now I had also been told that the Defense Department, which I guess this is. It's a little confusing because in the New York Times piece it portrays Hegseth as largely favorable of the decision to go to war with Iran and the other people in the Defense Department being much less so. So I'd heard that they, that this was largely a Donald Trump decision on his own. So I think it's interesting to see how different people talked about it and how they were giving, I think, thoughtful criticism. The other thing I saw someone say, these are based on leaks of classified information, blah, blah. I would bet money that Donald Trump authorized these people or their staff to convey this information to the Times. Not just because that's his general M.O. for dealing with stories like this, but because I think it does show him to be someone who is willing to receive criticism, in some cases, very strong criticism, make his own decision and take responsibility for it. Do you agree with that?
- [13:35]
A
I do. I think the story showed the opposite of what people took from one little snippet in it. I think it showed that Donald Trump had a lot, had pushback on this idea, heard from the Israelis, talked to his own people, talked to everyone, and made a decision that was largely driven by his own, you know, his own decision. I think it clears the record. Now, I will say that the story is written in a way that creates drama probably where there is none. For instance, for instance, the Gulf states, I'm sure they were on the phone with Donald Trump pushing him to do this as well. For instance, I know Saudi Arabia, this is probably more important to them than Israel. Like this is, they want that regime toppled. But it's much more dramatic to talk about Benjamin Netanyahu because that will sell books. And the relationship with Donald Trump, which I think probably Benjamin Netanyahu is a smart man and he understands how Donald Trump operates. But Donald Trump is open to what Benjamin Netanyahu is to say. It's not like he brainwashed him into this. They think the same way on a lot of issues. Not all our interests aren't always aligned. But anyway, I thought the story was good, right? I know it's from a book. I thought it was, thought it was interesting. I thought it gave us a glimpse into how this unfolded. And I think that's good and important reporting.
- [14:56]
B
So I agree with you on the Gulf region leaders pushing for this war as well. And I've thought that it is weird how little play that has gotten. Everybody seems to be focused on Israel. It is also true, however, that Bibi Netanyahu has been a regular presence at the White House and has been pushing for this war for some time. It has been reported that I was at a meeting with various it was kind of an interesting collection, as it was reported of podcasters and journalists about a year ago, and people were talking about views on Israel. But it was reported that I had pushed on Are you trying to go to war with Iran? Are you trying to get the US to be involved in your war? And so I find this type of thing interesting, too, in how it supports something I had been concerned about or asking questions about a year ago. And the other thing that I thought was interesting from this portrayal, which does match, again, some of my reporting, was what Israel had told the United States was expected to happen versus how the war has gone. And so if you look at what the what that Joint Chiefs of Staff guy Dan Kaine said in response to Israel's presentation to the group was, Israel always says things are going to be easier than they are. That's what I mean. I don't remember the exact quote, but that's the gist of it. So he urged Trump to be cautious about accepting Israel's version of how this would go down. And I do think that's interesting in the context of the current ceasefire arrangement. Like, it does seem to me that Donald Trump had had such success and trust in his military for quick, easy, clean operations, whether it was the Fordo bombing or the Venezuela capture of Maduro. I mean, these were really impressive operations that were very simple, that took a lot of planning, but they were done within a matter of hours, not days, not weeks, not months. And they were done very cleanly. And I think this story conveys that Trump believed more the Israeli version of how it would go down than how it actually has gone down in terms of the cleanliness of the operation, the ease, the quickness. And you also get that sentiment even when he spoke last week about the war and his expectations that you Know, his belief that it needed to be wrapped up in two to three weeks and his push for a ceasefire. You're starting to see that division sort of be apparent for Israel. Top for Israel and for other countries in that region. Toppling Iran completely through a long drawn out war that requires a lot of US forces is an existential issue for them. And we are more wanting to help those people who we have become friends with in that region. So it's a little less existential for us and more about broader alliances, I guess.
- [18:33]
A
I didn't see it that way. The two, I think there were four basic parts to the plan. The first two came true exactly as Israel said it would. They eliminated the entire leadership. The military part of the plan is I just don't know that. It just boggles my mind that people don't realize how impressive it is. We eliminated their air force, we eliminated their navy. We took out over a thousand senior leadership military people, their radar sites, scientists, their ballistic missile production and their ballistic missile launchers, drones, their proxies. I mean, they have been utterly humiliated and defeated in a way. I don't think a regional power has ever been defeated or as quickly. And by the way, Trump said five to six weeks, not two to three weeks when he started and he never, even at the beginning when the White House laid out wanted to happen, the regime change wasn't even on the list. That's something Trump said that the Iranian people themselves had to undertake and the Israelis in this story at least, even though I've read other, other stories about what Mossad said, said that the people would, would probably rise up at some point and that the Kurds would do this and that. I don't know if all that's true, but that didn't happen. But this is war. Not everything goes according to a perfect plan.
- [19:58]
B
What I didn't say he began the war saying it would be two to three weeks. I said last week when he addressed the nation that this will be two to three weeks more. And then also he did actually say regime change right at the beginning. But one of the things that I think has been misunderstood about that you' mentioned that the story laid out four goals that Israel kind of presented to the US or that were part of the discussion. He was really only interested in the first two goals which were much more limited than the longer range three and four goals. And I think he's been pretty consistent on it. Like you remember, there was a story was like a couple weeks ago, it was like Donald Trump is secretly saying he wants this to be over in a matter of weeks. And Byron York tweeted, well, I bet he is saying that secretly because he's also saying it publicly. He'd been publicly saying, I don't want this to be a long, drawn out operation. I want this to be pretty quick. And his public and private comments have seemed to be consistent in that regard, as well as how it matches with this story. There were two immediate goals about degrading the military and taking out that top level of leadership. They've achieved them. So
- [21:17]
A
it's just those are incredibly important goals because now Iran cannot really threaten anyone. They have one leverage point and that is the straight that they can close down. And obviously the United States, one little
- [21:30]
B
leverage point down global shipping routes. Yes, but they didn't.
- [21:35]
A
The market, yes, oil's up, but it is not where you think it would be. I don't know if people understand that it could be a million times worse. But listen, all of this depends on where we go next and what happens. We can, I wouldn't put it past everyone says, oh, it's over. And I think the will, the political will for it hasn't really been there. It is maybe among Trump voters, but it is not popular. But I don't know that Trump would care about that. If the Iranians don't give in on the, on the 10 points, which include the uranium enrichment stuff and opening the strait to shipping and oil, I could see the bombings resuming. I mean, people think that it's not going to be easy for Iran just to rearm right now and to be anywhere near where it was at all. But at the same time, this two weeks also gives the Israelis in the United States time to think about what to do next, how to hurt them more if they really need to. Iran doesn't have any way to defend themselves anymore. This has been a massive victory. I know people don't like war, but Trump drew red lines and he, you know, that's another thing like Trump threatens them into the ceasefire negotiation. A month ago, Pakistan offered a two week ceasefire and Iran rejected it. The American position has not changed on anything. Only the Iranian position has changed. Do you know what I'm saying? Donald Trump still wants the ballistic program destroyed, done. He wants the uranium, which has not been bombed, so we can go get it. I think that that's going to happen. And if it doesn't, this war can't really end. Because I don't think Donald Trump is going to end this war without achieving his number. You know, one of his top three objectives. So I don't know, all the doom and gloom and the way people talk about this is really confusing to me because it is not reflective of the reality, what has just happened, where we have dominated in a military engagement in a way that probably we never have before. I don't know. I keep repeating that, but it's, I think, important.
- [23:47]
B
I think you're downplaying the significance of Iran's control over the strait and how that could continue to be a big issue. But one of the things that I had heard or read that Trump had said about the ceasefire negotiations was that people should start paying the US And Iran to travel through the straits to travel through the strait and pay them large sums and then in exchange they won't get bombed or have a war there. And there is something I kind of like about this. The United States has had the role of protecting global shipping routes for a really long time. And probably we only need to have the role of protecting our own shipping routes. I don't think people realize how much that strait is all about Europe and not about us. And yet Europe, which wants us to protect that strait, does not want to be part of the operation to go after Iran, which is like, fine, but I like this idea. Like, okay, you don't want to be part of it. And you obviously have problems with Iran and unlike us, Iran could hit you with a long range missile. So we will now charge you and we will split it with Iran. And through that carrot, we will incentivize them to just make a lot of money and be dominant in a good way as opposed to in a threatening the annihilation of its neighbors kind of way.
- [25:15]
A
Well, I, I'm very critical of NATO. I have been. It was in my book, Euro trash. Donald Trump didn't even ask them to go after Iran. He asked them to help, for help in opening straight. And they couldn't do it and they wouldn't do it. And you're right, they rely on, on the oil that goes through there far more than we do. The problem, of course, is that oil is a international commodity. And once it, something happens somewhere, it's going to affect our prices as well. But that relationship in the long term has to change. I don't know what NATO's point is anymore. Just to, to prop up Ukraine, which I'm all for, but is that it? We just do what they want. When they want to go into Libya, we go and help them. And when they want to go into Serbia and create a Muslim country middle of Europe, we go and help them, but we ask them to open a strait that they rely on and they can't help us. And what, what kind of relationship is this?
- [26:05]
B
Are you referring to the North American Treaty Organization?
- [26:10]
A
The great thing about that headline in the New York Times, which they got wrong Atlantic, obviously is that. And then all the reporters are out there saying everyone makes mistakes and it was just a mistake. It's true. Everyone makes mistakes. I've made mistakes. Gigs. But, but that the entire headline was playing on the America part, which isn't in the name of the organization.
- [26:34]
B
Not just the headline, the story. So when people say, oh, it was a, it was a simple typo type error. Okay. Was the entire article a simple error as well? Yeah. The headline was the North American Treaty Organization without America.
- [26:53]
A
I'm all for alliances, but if these are one way alliances, right now everyone says, oh, they send troops, you know, on 9, 11 and, and this and that. Great. You know, we've been, we propped up Western Europe for 50 years before that. Right. And we, because of our umbrella and our treasure and our nation and taxpayers, they were like allowed to thrive while the Soviet Union was right next door. I think they owe us.
- [27:21]
B
Well.
- [27:22]
A
Oh, so. So Donald Trump is a deal maker. My problem with Donald, I'm worried now, I have to say, in a way, because I think Donald Trump views everyone, he views everything as a real estate deal. Right. And that works. A lot of times he's negotiating, he's using all the same tactics. The problem is when you're dealing with cultists, 12 or religious fanatics, it's much more difficult. Look at what they just did to their country for no good reason, really. And I'm not sure it's going to work. I hope it does. I, I'm not one of these, like, trust the plan. You know, Donald Trump's in charge. I mean, you can be critical of what he, what he does or, or not. But I do actually trust what he's done so far there. So I think I see people attacking me on Twitter saying, Donald Trump has accepted the 10 point plan. He's surrendered. He has 100% not accepted the 10 point plan of Iran, which has all kinds of ridiculous demands in it. I think he's just like, let's use this as a place to start because we have to start somewhere. This war is not going to end. These people aren't going to surrender. And one quick thing. I know I'm all over the place. The regime will have to, after this war, open up their economy, open up their Shops open up their country. Everyone believes that regime change failed. I'm not so sure. I'm not going to predict exactly what's going to happen. But the same, same dynamics and anger and frustration of the Iranian people will be heightened now and the regime will be much weaker. So we will see what happens over the next year or two or three where you could see regime fall after this. I, you know, to say that that's completely off the table, I think is incredible, just incredibly premature. So.
- [29:07]
B
Well, it's just as a goal of your military operation. So I think the first, the first goal that was laid out in the New York Times article was killing the ayatollah. The second was preventing Iran from being able to go after all of its neighbors. And then I know one of the third or fourth was regime change. Oh, third was kind of a civil war inside of Iran.
- [29:33]
A
Kurdish. Yeah, interesting.
- [29:35]
B
And fourth was regime change. Trump was like, all in on 1 and 2, 3 and 4. That's not our concern. Like, that's their business. And, and the writers say it's unclear if he meant by their business, that's Iran's business or that's Israel's business, but he did not feel like it was the United states business on 3 and 4. So by that metric, and I do want to say you, you're like, everything has been communicated so well to the American people and all that. I don't think it has been.
- [30:05]
A
I think I'd say that. That I did not say that. I think you're right. I think they haven't communicated that better, for sure.
- [30:14]
B
And the other thing is that I found so interesting about this New York Times article was that Susie Wiles and Marco Rubio and J.D. vance and Raisin Cain and maybe some others were very conscious of the costs associated with this decision to go to war domestically. And I don't mean by that the price of gas. I mean what it does to the Trump agenda at home, what it how Middle Eastern wars have a way of grabbing you for the long haul when you think you're just going to go in and get out. And it is somewhat heartening for me to learn that there was such a wide variety of people expressing that concern to the president. And I mean that both in terms of just, it's good that there's that kind of climate where you can talk openly about these things. And then, yes, it does reinforce that for President Trump, who everyone says is this guy who's stupid and petty and, you know, has all these, like, bad qualities that he very strongly believed in doing this and had wanted to do this for a long time. And he made that decision himself against the counsel of. Of all these people. I. I don't know how to explain it because I'm not actually a huge fan of what he did, but I find it. I find it somewhat respectable that he had that strength of his convictions. Does that make sense?
- [31:52]
A
Yes. Well, we should remember that some of these people who are in a cabinet have a responsibility to offer counsel and to bring up the worst case scenario or bring up the problems even when maybe they agree. I don't know where Marco Rubio stands, but he's clearly going to be more prone to supporting something like this than maybe J.D. vance. Right. So. But it's still his responsibility to say, Mr. President, this can happen, and at home, this can happen. We don't know how a Middle east war will work out, and we don't. So hold on.
- [32:24]
B
I just want to say the story says that Ratcliffe analyzed the Israeli assessment of what was going to happen and said it was farcical, and Rubio reportedly weighed in. In other words, it's complete bullshit.
- [32:37]
A
Right?
- [32:38]
B
I can't say that word.
- [32:39]
A
Yeah, you can, because you're quoting from a piece.
- [32:42]
B
Okay.
- [32:43]
A
I'm very skeptical that that's all that was said. Like the first two points, I think. I don't remember the piece, but I think they were talking about. That was about the second two points. The Kurdish uprising and the regime change points, not the. Not the decapitation of the leadership and the military part of it.
- [33:08]
B
Well, and I want to make. I want to say there, too, because I think people are trying to make it. Like, Rubio and Vance are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Rubio says, yes, if our goal is to do stuff in three or four, we should not do it. If our goal is the first two things, we should do it. And then Vance is like, y' all know, I don't think we should be doing this, but if we're gonna do it, we need to go in there and do it hard. These remarks from these two men, I think, show that they're worthy people to be in this administration. Does that make sense?
- [33:43]
A
Like, it makes sense, what you're saying? I am not a fan of JD Van, so I don't disagree on that part.
- [33:50]
B
You know, people try to paint various people as so extreme or so inflexible, and being in leadership requires sometimes this type of approach that these two guys were taking to give counsel, and when they are. When they lose that battle or whatever. You know, to, to still give good counsel.
- [34:14]
A
I think Vance has been a good soldier for, for probably policies he doesn't ignore, agree with on foreign policy. Right. And that's his job right now as Vice President, obviously,
- [34:27]
B
like, you know, it's been reported that he was key to these negotiations more recently, so.
- [34:36]
A
Well, I wish we had gone on. So we probably disagree on that. I think we should have totally.
- [34:40]
B
We want that regime change. Land war.
- [34:44]
A
No, I don't want to land any soldiers unless. And obviously there were the, the, the, the, the cost of landing to try to get that uranium and the cost of trying to open up the straight, you know, by landing paratroopers and so forth. It seems to me that the assessment was that there would be casualties. So they didn't do it. That. That's what it seems like to me. And that's fine. No, I would have kept, I think, the pressure. If you're going to do something like this, you should finish the job, not do it, you know, do a half the job. And. Yeah, that's what I think. But I think the world will be a safer place. I think it's already a safer place than it was before started, and I'm happy it was done. I'm not going to pretend I'm not. But I agree there are, There are dangers in the Middle East. You get pulled into crazy quagmires. You don't know what's going to happen. A civil war in Iran. I don't know what's going to happen. So, anyway, here we are. We'll see next week what's going on. Maybe we'll be back at it, maybe we won't. Maybe there'll be a deal. We'll see. Did you know one Annie Ann's pretzels is the same amount as an hour of work in Pennsylvania? The Watchdog on Wall street podcast with Chris Markowski. Every day, Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the economy and how it affects your wallet. How is a pretzel worth an hourly wage? Because we keep printing money. Our government is living beyond our means. Whether it's happening in D.C. or down on Wall Street. It's affecting you financially. Be informed. Check out the Watchdog on Wall street podcast with Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify. Spotify or wherever you get your podcast. Other news. Pam Bondi was fired. That seems like it happened two years ago. We happened a week ago. Less than a week ago. Did you foresee that happening? I, I was not. I didn't think she did a very good job at All Well, I definitely
- [36:35]
B
been hearing rumors about both her and Kristi Gnome for quite some time. And I think there was frustration with how she was running things or like both, both of those women had had some unforced errors. Chrissy Noem by falling right into the left's trap on the Minnesota organized antifa action and then Bondi through her mishandling of the Epstein stuff, which is kind of spiraled out of control. But more importantly, I think many people voted for Donald Trump. This was, this to me is like the number one uncovered story, undercovered story about the 2024 campaign. They voted for Donald Trump because they were disgusted by how the Department of Justice had become weaponized to go after Joe Biden's political enemies, after Democrats political enemies. They were so appalled that in the United States of America they would take this, you know, institution like this and just turn it on its head to go after political opponents. Now the media report it. Oh, everything was nice and rosy when Merrick Garland's teams were trying to throw the number one Republican in prison and bankrupt him and destroy his family. There were no problems with that as we jailed thousands of people for a protest that got out of control while letting tens of thousands of people riot all the time on the left. You know, that's the media's approach to this. The lack of, of accountability, of achieving accountability for some of those horrific acts done by the Department of Justice was untenable for Trump. And that is continuing to be a completely non covered story. In fact, you're getting agit prop from left wing media. Axio said, oh, Pam Bondi could not have been a better soldier for Trump. She was gratuitously going after good people merely because they disagreed with Trump. In fact, the reality is almost 180 degrees opposite. There are a lot of people who should be in jail and none of them are. And yes, it takes creativity and strategy and smart people to figure out how to hold these slippery, disgusting people accountable. But it wasn't happening and it certainly wasn't happening at the pace it needed to be happening for the American people.
- [39:04]
A
I saw your friend Cassidy Hutchinson was under investigation. Did you see that?
- [39:10]
B
I have seen that. So Cassidy Hutchinson was a low level Trump secretary who the Federalist broke major news about how she had no support for the stories that she worked with Liz Cheney to tell as part of the corrupt and completely illegitimate January 6th committee. So we had text evidence of how she was talking about Trump, how little she cared about the J6 riot, how little she saw anything bad going on including, oh, my goodness, I got called to testify. I have nothing to say to her friends, her longtime friends. She meets with Liz Cheney. She does some dirty work with her previous lawyer that the, you know, Trump world was helping her with. She lies about that lawyer, about what he was doing. She gets new counsel provided by Liz Cheney. And who's that friend of Liz Cheney? Barbara Comstock. They're kind of like working with her to help her craft a narrative she puts on. She's a pretty girl and she put on a pretty white suit. Peggy Noonan endorses her book and says, this woman is like the most wonderful person ever. A giant. And she's so courageous. She was so obviously lying. You would have to be a world class idiot to fall for it. She claimed Donald Trump broke through the beast and commandeered a vehicle to try and take him to the Capitol. I mean, it's insane. It's truly insane. She lied about me. She falsely claimed that I, you know, went to Georgetown for a surreptitious meeting with an intel source to take classified information that I wasn't authorized to or whatever. Never happened. Never, ever happened. And again, you'd have to be an idiot to believe these things. And yet Peggy Noonan, who's supposed to be somewhat on the right, is out there praising her for her work helping Liz Cheney hurt the nation.
- [41:32]
A
Whenever I see her name pop up, I'm like, I have to mention this on the podcast. Get Molly worked up. Yeah, it's okay. So that's the sort of person you're talking about. Basically.
- [41:41]
B
I just want to say, every time I put on my, my Burberry trench coat, my kids are like, are you going to Georgetown to get some secret documents?
- [41:50]
A
I love in movies where people meet on the mall to, like, give secret documents to each other or Georgetown, like, they're, you have to go to some CD bar and like, I don't know, some outlying. I actually, I'm not gonna tell you how to do your job, how you get your classified information. I shouldn't, I shouldn't reveal that here on the show. All right, well, we'll see. So do you know who, who do you think is going to take, who do you think is going to take the job? Do you have any thoughts on that?
- [42:14]
B
Oh, well, I immediately put out my thought on it, which is, I think Ron DeSantis would be great. Now I do it. I will admit at the beginning there's a huge mark against him, which is that on the day that some of the worst and most egregious lawfare against Trump happened in New York City. Ron DeSantis response that dealt with the woman who claimed, I can't remember who it was, Stormy McDaniels. When she did, there was something related to her. There was a loss, there was something filed in New York City. Ron DeSantis did not say, this is disgusting. We all know what's going on and we should judge people on real things and not use lawfare. Instead, he was like, oh, sounds like it's bad to be Donald Trump and get in all this trouble. That's a real huge mark against him, and I will admit it. But he already suffered. That's probably why his candidacy went nowhere, because people didn't like that. So Ron DeSantis is very good at running organizations. He's almost, I think, I believe all men are somewhat on the spectrum, but he seems maybe a little higher than most on the spectrum. So he's very focused on what needs to get done and he achieves results. And he desperately needs a way out from what his failed candidacy put him in. And I think doing a great job as AG would be a great way to have an exciting future politically for him. So I like Ron DeSantis for it. I like Eric Schmidt for it. He's a Missouri senator who ran the AG office in Missouri and got wins. He had that successful suit against the federal government for their censorship. He really understands how to run an organization and what the problems are with the current Department of Justice.
- [44:05]
A
Isn't he only like two years into his term, though?
- [44:07]
B
Yeah, but Missouri is a Republican state, so if he were to be in the Senate, doesn't do anything anyway. You won't let them debate because you think that's killing the filibuster. So he can't do anything anyway. So the governor could appoint someone probably good. And also Mike Lee. I, I like Mike Lee for this. His, his dad was the former Solicitor General of the US Rex Lee, who started a big law firm and started the BYU law school. And Mike Lee, who's also been thought of as a potential Supreme Court justice, I think he would also be good. So that's what I'm thinking. What are you thinking?
- [44:44]
A
Now that you mention it, I think Mike Lee would be good. Get him, get him off Twitter with his boomer Twitter account based Mike Lee and all the nonsense. So I used to think of him as a very serious person. I don't think of him in that way anymore, but he would be fine. I think Ron DeSantis is probably the best choice of the ones you mentioned. I'm not an expert on this. I just think he is very. He probably would be very motivated to do a good job, honestly, on the national stage. He's obviously, I think, probably the best governor in the United States already. And yes, has an autistic air about him. That means a lot of focus.
- [45:21]
B
I think all three of those would be easily confirmed. That's one of the things you have to think about is whether a Senate with so many Democrats and so many feckless Republicans will approve a nomination from Trump. So.
- [45:37]
A
Yeah. Okay. All right, let's do some culture. Molly, do you have anything for me? I know you've been traveling a lot. Again, I say that every week.
- [45:50]
B
Oh, I have been. I. I have been traveling so much, it's ridiculous. And it's not going to get any better because I have my book, Alito, coming out on April 21st. I'm probably going to just start asking everybody to buy as many copies of it as you can right now. Give it to family, give it to friends. You're going to want to know all about Samuel Alito, the, The, the justice that you know very little about and that you should know a lot more about because he's awesome. So I've started doing some traveling for pre tapes for those interviews. And also last week was Holy Week, and so we went to visit my brother who just moved to South Carolina. And on the way, driving down there, we visited like we would just stop at any college that was on the way. So we got a wide variety since we have the next kid being in that phase of life. And so we hit UVA and we hit Liberty, which is not a school I would have thought to visit, but we were staying in Lynchburg and Liberty is right there. We went to this wonderful Lutheran church for Madi Thursday services, and there were tons of Liberty students there, which was great. And we visited and I was oddly impressed by the school. I don't think it's like the most highly ranked or anything, but it seemed like great kids, great design of their programs, great campus, beautiful location. So. And then we hit High Point, which I feel like is a school Nobody knew about 10 years ago and now everybody knows about it. That was also beautiful, although they were on spring break, so we didn't get to see as much of the student life there. It was a nice school and it also seemed to be well designed in terms of the curriculum, their focus on entrepreneurship and business in general and incorporating that with their other degree programs. And also UNC Chapel Hill, which would Be a strong. No. It was so woke. It was unbelievable. And so did that. But also, we were in South Carolina, which I have not spent a ton of time in, outside of Charleston. And we were in the high country, I guess they call it. And it was beautiful, and the people were so nice. And again, we had this beautiful church to go to, my brother's church that he goes to down there with wonderful Good Friday, wonderful Easter vigil, which is my favorite service of the entire church here, and beautiful Easter services. So it's just great.
- [48:32]
A
I'm not one to give life advice, but I think if you're looking at schools, going to smaller, less known schools isn't a bad idea anymore. I think your education, your. Your experience will probably be just as good, if not better. Your education will probably be better. Do you see GW is charging like 98k a year or something like that? I mean, I don't know why you would do that. So just a little advice from Dave.
- [48:55]
B
We make our children pay for their own school, which I think is almost as unheard of as our belief that they should not have smartphones. And they don't. And they don't even get phones until they drive, which is much later than the average. So we're doing things very radically. But it does motivate the kids to do well in school, pick schools that are more affordable, and try to get as many scholarships as possible.
- [49:23]
A
I think that's smart. The smartphone thing especially. I mean, I wish. I wish I had done that myself. I think I've said that on the show before. That's your culture. You say you didn't watch anything or do anything.
- [49:35]
B
I. So I. I was. I reread my book.
- [49:41]
A
Your own book?
- [49:42]
B
Have you ever done that?
- [49:44]
A
Because I've never read my book after I've written it.
- [49:47]
B
Yeah, I don't think I've ever. I didn't do it for the Kavanaugh or the rig.
- [49:51]
A
So which book did you reread?
- [49:52]
B
Alito, so. Oh, okay.
- [49:54]
A
Alito.
- [49:55]
B
I did it in part because it's, you know, I'm not a. I'm not an attorney, and it's about the court. So I just want to make sure I had all my facts kind of ready in the mind. And I was getting ready to do, like I said, some pre tapes. I did one in Dallas for Ellie Beth Stuckey, and I just wanted to be familiar. And I'm also thinking about. Yeah, just, like, what to draw when I talk about the book. And it was kind of nice because my two previous books I wrote in a superhuman fashion in a very short period of time. Very short. I'm talking three months. And this book was more like a three year project. And so there were parts that were written, you know, like two years ago, and I just wanted to refresh it. And I was so happy when I was reading it. I was like, oh, this is a good book. You ever do that when you're reading your old stuff and you're like, oh, I like how I did that.
- [50:48]
A
Yeah. Sometimes I'm like, I can't believe I wrote that. That's smart. Yeah. I. The. The reason I would not reread a book once, you know, it was once I couldn't change anything, is that I was worried I'd see some terrible mistake or something, you know, And I've had,
- [51:05]
B
like three errata in there. Yeah.
- [51:07]
A
Yeah. I had a terrible mistake in one of my books when I was rereading it for talking points. And this is a fantastic book. Started reading it. People should buy it. Very well done. So congratulations, Molly. I think it's out on the 21st, but you can buy it now. In fact, you would help, Molly.
- [51:26]
B
It would help me if you bought it now, Alito.
- [51:29]
A
Yeah. So that's great.
- [51:32]
B
Wait, I just want to say one thing too.
- [51:33]
A
Yeah, of course.
- [51:34]
B
I did not plan this, but there's like a little Alito moment happening right now. There's a more left wing journalist who's an editor at Politico who also has a book about Alito coming out at the same moment, actually. Like, I don't know if you agree with this, but I'm like, oh, thank God. Because the more people are talking about Alito, the more that helps book sales and. And helps me push the message that I have about Justice Alito. So I'm happy that that person had it coming out at the same time.
- [52:04]
A
Yeah. I don't know if you saw some. What's the name of the guy with the Nazi tattoo? Planter. He was talking about impeaching Alito.
- [52:13]
B
Thank you. I'm gonna use that.
- [52:15]
A
Yeah. Two he wanted to impeach, I think, Alito and Thomas.
- [52:19]
B
Oh. I mean, so did. As I tell in the book, I have the story about how AOC tried to get them impeached. You only try to impeach people who are worthwhile, so.
- [52:29]
A
Wow. Well, I look forward to it. We're going to talk more about that book in a few weeks when it comes out. I look forward to that interview. I don't have much either. I mean, in the sense of just regular culture. I read a book, though. I have a book recommend. It's called the Last Kings of Hollywood. It's about the 70s and the directors like George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Francis Coppola and how they got their movies made and changed Hollywood. If this is something that you're into, this book is really well done. A lot of it I knew already, but I did learn some new stuff, if you're interested in that kind of cultural stuff. I watched one new show, which I would not really recommend, called Detective Whole on Netflix. It's a Norwegian show. Last time I recommended a Norwegian show, Mark Hemingway very annoyed. Yeah, he got angry, I think. Let me put this. I think that Norwegian show was better than this Norwegian show. But. But it was just not my. My thing. Perhaps it will be for some of you. If you'd like to email the show, please do so at radio the federalist.com we'll be back next week. Until then, be lovers of freedom and anxious for the fray.
- [53:55]
B
Sam.