← Next Up with Mark Halperin
Next Up with Mark Halperin
Tapper’s New Biden Cover-Up Spin Blames Trump, NBC Autopen Flop, and Talking Politics with Brit Hume
01:14:02
Mark opens with a sharp look at the latest in media malpractice—the press’ increasingly absurd cover-up of its own cover-up of Joe Biden’s cognitive decline. Rather than taking responsibility for their role in downplaying the president’s condition, reporters like CNN’s Jake Tapper are now spinning a new narrative: blame it all on “Trump-ness.” Plus, Hugh Hewitt’s enabling interview with the Original Sin authors raises tough questions about accountability in journalism—and whether the truth will ever be acknowledged by the co-conspirators. Then, a can’t-miss conversation with legendary newsman Brit Hume, Chief Political Analyst for Fox News. Mark and Brit break down the skewed priorities of major newsrooms, NBC’s embarrassing auto-pen “scoop,” and why Brit believes the Epstein files are “startlingly unimportant.” From there, it’s all things politics: Brit on why Trump 2.0 is a very different presidency, the meteoric rise of JD Vance, and an early look at the 2028 Democratic ...
Loading summary
Transcript132 lines
- [00:00]
Mark Halperin
In the summer, all of Oregon is our playground thanks to our incredible park system. That's why it's so cool that Oregon lottery gameplay like video lottery or cash pop helps support tons of parks projects statewide like accessible trails at Silver Falls State park or upgrades to your favorite dog park in Newburgh. It's just one way a little lottery play for many Oregonians can add up to a lot of good the Oregon Lottery. Together we do good things. Lottery games are based on chance and should be played for entertainment only. Must be 18 or older to play. And we are back. Thank you for joining. I am Mark Calpert, editor in chief of the live Interactive video platform 2way and your guide to everything. Next up. And I could not be more fired up because our guest today is one of my professional heroes, Alexander Britain Hume, Brit Hume, chief political analyst for Fox News. There are three people basically in my career who taught me more about journalism and broadcasting than than anybody else. Although I continue to learn every day from people, Brit Hume is one of them. I couldn't be more excited to talk to him. He's been in and around Washington pretty much his whole life and he is a better guide to not just what's happening now, but to what's next up than anybody working in journalism today. So Britt will be here soon. Before that, kick off with my reported monologue new reporting. I have why it's important. We're going to talk about something we've talked about here before, Joe Biden's loss of mental acuity and the media's role in trying to keep that from hurting Joe Biden's chances. I am determined to try to allow the people in my business to do what we need to do, which is to be honest about what happened. Okay, so why are we talking about something that's not in the news? Because I saw an interview with the authors of that book, Jay Tapper and Alex Thompson. They kind of suspended their book tour a bit, but Hugh Hewitt wanted to interview them. Hugh is someone also respect a great deal. But Hugh's interview, that 45 minute long with the authors has reignited my passion over trying to get people in this country to believe the truth about the media's role in covering up, attempting to cover up Joe Biden's loss of mental acuity. So I'm going to tell you about that. We're going to look at Hughes interview with the two authors and I'll explain to you why I'm upset. There's lots of news we could talk about. There's Ukraine there's the Epstein matter. There's all that's going on here in the United States, politics and government, et cetera. But I feel obligated to keep talking about this, and I'm disappointed not just in the press's failure to talk about it and to be open and reflective about how this was, as I've said before, the biggest media scandal in American history, but also to not deny what happened. So in a two, two step thing, chronicle what actually happened honestly, but also then make amends, do better understand so it doesn't happen again. So we'll talk about that in a moment. Also delighted to announce, and this will be a relief to many of you, that after an extensive national process, more elaborate than American Idol, more elaborate than the national spelling bee, you all have a name. Now, the fans of this program for this moment on I christen you the Nexters. You are the Nexters. Nexters, my dear Nexters. Welcome in Nexters. Stay tuned. Nexters, please. Yeah, that's right, Nexters. Lots of good names were submitted. Many of you felt so passionately about your choices that I felt by not picking what you were offering up, I might disappoint you profoundly. But in the end, I did what all good parents did. I went with my son's favorite choice. I wanted to, I was impartial to Nexties like Swifties. But my son, although he secretly likes Taylor Swift, says he doesn't like Taylor Swift and he rejected Nexties. And so Nexters, you are Nexters number two. The top runner up was next up nation. I prefer Nexters in the end and again, my son preferred Nexter. So Nexters you are and Nexters you shall be. And as I said, next up, we'll have my reported monologue. Eager to, to share with you and hopefully it's entertaining to you, but hopefully also it breaks through to anybody from the media who's watching. It's amazing. Amazing to me how the conspiracy continues, the conspiracy to deny what happened, to pretend something else happened than what actually happened. In the long running effort by Democrats colluding with the media to cover up or attempt to cover up. I say attempted to cover up because it failed because most of America saw what was happening. Joe Biden's loss of mental acuity. There is a battle now to define Joe Biden's legacy, to hold Democrats accountable to what they did and didn't do, to ask people running for president in 2028 or might run what they knew, all of that and all that's whatever, it's not unimportant but for me as a professional journalist, the most important thing is to get people to admit what happened and to figure out how it happened, make sure it doesn't happen again. So I'll run through this Hugh Hewitt interview. I think it's unfortunately a perfect example of the state of that cover up, the COVID up of the media's role. And we'll talk through that. And then again, my great honor, privilege and delight to have Brit Hume here to talk about all manner of everything. So all that on this star studded episode for you nexters. Grateful to you for being here. My reported monologue and then Brit Hume coming up right after this. Well, ever since Donald Trump took the oath of office, this administration has been moving very fast. They're going at a breakneck pace to move mountains to get stuff done, but they can't manage your personal savings. That is up to you. One of the smartest ways now to protect your financial future is through diversification, especially with gold from my trusted friends at Birchgold Group. In the past 12 months, gold value has has jumped 40%. Central banks are buying gold at record levels. Global instability is now at its highest in decades. Birch gold, though, makes owning physical gold incredibly easy. You can convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax sheltered IRA backed by physical gold or simply buy gold to store securely in your home safe just right now. Text next to the number 989-898 and Birchgold will send you a free info kit about gold. There's no obligation, only some useful information with an A plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and tens of thousands of happy customers. Take control of your savings today. Text the word next to 989-898. All right, next up, why am I returning to the topic of the media's role in the attempt to cover up Joe Biden's loss of money mental acuity? I'm doing it because we had a long running cover up of the press's attempt working with the Biden people and other Democrats to suppress the truth and now they're trying to suppress their role. The media has still not admitted what they did. So you had a long running attempt to create a fiction that Joe Biden was just fine. And now you've got a long running attempt which unfortunately seems to be succeeding, to pretend that this was a problem for the Democrats, that people in the Biden circle covered up Joe Biden's loss of mental acuity decline and there was no way for the media to know that this was happening and that the Only reason now we know some of the details is because of the groundbreaking reporting of Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson. The lies about both things, about what happened in real time and about what's happening now. It survived the book tour. It survived the book tour, both for these two authors, but also for the dominant media at large. If you look at the coverage, you won't find the Washington Post, New York Times, et cetera, writing long pieces about how their newsrooms failed, and not just failed because they didn't work hard enough, but they failed because they were browbeat by the Biden people not to report the truth. And they didn't want to report the truth because they didn't want to help Donald Trump. These are facts. Okay? So now what's revved up my interest in this again, to talk about it to you again, is that the authors are back. Hugh Hewitt loves doing book interviews. Hewitt's a great interviewer. He's really one of the best interviewers in the country. He reads the book, he prepares, he's thoughtful, and he knows about the crafts of doing interviews. So when I saw that Hugh had an interview with the authors, I thought, well, maybe their attempt to cover this thing up won't work. Right? And so I watched it. Now, let's review the storyline of this book and of the dominant media about their role in the attempt to keep the American people from acting on what everybody was seeing. The loss of acuity decline was that until that debate in 2024 where Biden collapsed on stage with Donald Trump, that the public didn't know anything about Joe Biden's decline, that this was a revelatory evening, and that what's happened now, according this is the storyline of the book and of the narrative and of their press tour, is that Tapper and Thompson uncovered the truth. And that their truth was that starting in 2023 and the end of 2023, that a few hundred Democrats in private settings saw Biden's decline, but they didn't say anything about it. And so that they're guilty of having witnessed something no one else saw. This is the storyline no one else saw, and they didn't say anything about it. And that therefore we got to the debate and oh my goodness, what a surprise. Joe Biden has suffered mental acuity decline at 9 o' clock at night. The other part of their storyline, which again is a fiction, but that they've kept at it and succeeded in many quarters, was that the reason the press didn't report what everyone in America was seeing was not because they had bias against Donald Trump. That wasn't the reason. The reason was because they didn't see it. There was no way for them to see it because it was all kept secret. Okay? That it was hidden by a White House conspiracy that was so effective that no one, including Jake Tapper, could have known about Biden's decline until the debate. Now, Alex Thompson, and this is one of the weird things about this. Alex Thompson did write about it. He was one of the few reporters who wrote about it, but Jake Capper didn't talk about it. We know that none of that storyline is true. We know that the press, everybody saw what was happening, and we know that it didn't take their reporting to know this. What's the real storyline? The real thing that happened is the liberal media knew all about it because they have eyes and ears and C span too. But they kept quiet because they were part of an actual conspiracy of silence to try to keep Donald Trump from winning the White House back and because the Biden White House threatened them. That's what happened. That's the truth. So, as I said now, here comes Hugh Hewitt belatedly interviewing these guys who up until now, despite a few really strong efforts, Megyn Kelly is amongst them. They got away with it. They did all these interviews for the book. They were ubiquitous, and yet they got away with this fiction that their reporting is revealing the history of Biden, revealing his mental acuity decline, but only behind closed doors. And it's only in these six or so moments that Hugh talks to them about that. People saw it, Democrats saw it, but the press could never see it. So disappointing. Again, Hugh's a great interviewer, but a friend of Hughes told me when Hugh does book interviews, he just likes to let the authors talk, talk about the book, sell the book. And that's how he gets people to come on to talk about their books. And I get that. I get respect for authors. I'm an author. I like when I can go on a show and sell. But I was trying to think of a metaphor for this. Somebody writes a book about how to kill baby chickens, how to. How to torture baby chickens. You wouldn't let them come on the show and say, well, walk me through how you kill baby chickens. This is such a critical moment for our democracy. It's such a watershed after decades of liberal media bias. So disappointing to me that these guys were allowed to go on with one of the few interview or few interviewers in the country who could do this. Right? And instead, not only they allowed to continue to spread this storyline, this mythical storyline of theirs, that the press couldn't possibly have gotten to the bottom of this until these two swashbuckling and enterprising reporters did hundreds of interviews to find out what was happening behind the scenes. There was no difference between Biden behind the scenes and Biden in public. But that they continue to just talk about it as if uninterrupted. They're uninterrupted. And Hugh basically doesn't interrupt them. He not only lets them continue to spread their fiction, he. He helps them. He helps them. He starts out by talking to them. About what? He just Talks, walks through six events starting in September of 23 into the beginning of 24, where Democrats, and in one case some Republicans, are seeing behind closed doors, Biden behaving exactly like he behaved in the debate, but exactly like he behaved earlier, including in 2022 when he spoke at a public event to a dead congresswoman. So here's Hugh Hewitt beginning the interview, talking to them about some of these private events that they write about. Role A1, please.
- [13:04]
Jake Tapper
I want to start in the Manhattan home of Carrie Fowler and Amy Goldman Fowler on September 20, 2023. Jake, what was unusual about that? Michael Shearer, the New York Times frequent guest on this program, was there what happened. But where we are is what I've laid out. Here are six different events. And hundreds of people know that the President has fallen into infirmity. Is that fair, Jake? Hundreds of people know.
- [13:33]
Alex Thompson
I would say it's fair to say that as of what's going on in the fall of 2023 and early 2024, hundreds of people see moments of serious addlement that cause various degrees of concern. But your larger point, that there are hundreds of people who saw what we all saw debate night behind the scenes and didn't say anything at all to anyone that we know of in terms of like, trying to, like, reach out to people at the White House or the campaign and say this isn't going to work. I take your point. And, and I don't disagree.
- [14:11]
Mark Halperin
This makes me mental. Hundreds of people knew. Hundreds of people saw. No, millions of people saw. Hundreds of people saw it up close and personal in private events and great reporting on their port to tell the stories of these private events. Millions of people saw, as I've told you before, I saw it in 2017 at a public event. Millions, tens of millions. And the polls reflected that. And so when Jay Tapper is critical of these Democrats who were at these private meetings and didn't ring the alarm and say, guess what? We saw Joe Biden's mental acuity decline. The same thing's true of guess what, Jake Tapper and almost everyone else in the dominant media who saw it in public and didn't say a word. Didn't say a word. And at one of the events they talk about, there was a New York Times pool reporter who saw it. Now it got a little coverage, just as when Joe Biden talked to the dead congresswoman, it got a little bit of coverage, but it didn't cause the kind of uproar that we saw after the debate. Wonder why. All right, Hugh asked them about R.A. robert her. He's a special counsel who wrote in his report that he, although Joe Biden seemed to have broken the law by taking classified documents, that he wasn't going to indict him because he was an elderly, elderly, sympathetic elderly man with a poor memory. Okay, so again, the premise is her was beaten up for saying this about Biden and the press beat him up, including cnn. Lots of evidence that CNN criticized her for his report. The Biden people criticized him. And it's like, well, of course we didn't speak up at the time about her. And, and how accurate his report was, because how could we have known? Roll a four, please.
- [15:48]
Jake Tapper
Integrity points for Robert Her. And I also think the night, the night of the debate when one of his team text vindication or something like that of the debate, they are feeling vindicated because they got slimed. And again, there were hundreds of people who knew they were being slimed and nobody said anything. I'm just astonished that nobody who knows steps up and says no, Mr.
- [16:11]
Brit Hume
Hers.
- [16:14]
Mark Halperin
Again makes me mental. Hundreds of people knew and didn't say anything in defense of her. No, millions of people did. And many of us did say hers report seems accurate based on what we've seen in public. And yet again, I say with respect to Hugh aiding and abetting the mythology that the her report was, you know, quote, unquote, rightfully dismissed at the time. Because how could anyone have known that Her's characterization of Joe Biden was accurate? It just doesn't make any sense. All right, another example, Alex Thompson talking to him and saying, okay, like Democrats had this incentive to cover things up. Democrats had the incentive to not speak out. Here's, here's Alex Thompson on that.
- [17:00]
Hugh Hewitt
As all the incentives were geared towards not saying anything. Donors didn't want to say anything because they didn't want to be attacked by the Biden folks. Democratic leaders who saw moments basically felt that by speaking out they were going to end up like former Congressman Dean Phillips and basically be driven out of Congress. The threat that a lot of, a lot of Democrats believe, I think sincerely that Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy is. And if you believe that you can rationalize anything, including putting a person that you know is not up to four more years in the Oval Office.
- [17:41]
Mark Halperin
Again, Alex Thompson's words apply, he's correct, to donors who saw it and didn't say anything. It applies to politicians, Democratic politicians who were worried about it. But guess what, it also applies to the media. The exact things he said, the incentives for the media, just like the incentives for the Democrats. The don't say anything even though we all can see it because you'll help Donald Trump win. That's not the proper role for the media. It's not the proper. They act in, in this whole book, in this whole interview. And again, I say sadly, Hugh AIDS and abets them. They act like Biden's decline was some sort of long running secret that they had privately that the small group or several hundred and say it's small or not, that the day secretly knew it and they didn't say anything. Guess who also knew it secretly and didn't say anything? The media. Guess what this book does to hold the media accountable? Nothing. All right, it's going to be a six. This is Jake Tapper talking about when Joe Biden's mental health decline started.
- [18:41]
Alex Thompson
I would say our reporting suggests that the, some of the infirmity like was as was was visible at times as far back as 2015, 15 after the, after the death of his son Beau. People thought it was grief, but in retrospect they thought it, it possibly was much more than that. And then it just got worse and worse and worse. But, but I, I do think 2023 is when it got past the point of no return. That's not just infirm because he's old, it's infirm because there is some sort of decline happening, some sort of cognitive decline.
- [19:18]
Mark Halperin
Okay, a couple things here. And again, this is, this is where the contradictions in how this book is framed are so outrageous and so obvious and so frustrating to me that other people pointing it out, the book says correctly there were signs of decline back in, while Biden was still in vice, vice president or just leaving the vice presidency. Okay. So if you could see it back then, now I don't know whether it got how much worse, you know, their premises had progressed to, to much worse in 23. Maybe he had good days and bad days. And remember, in 24, he gave the State of the Union, so it wasn't like he was bad every day. But Tapper, on the one hand, takes the position this could be seen in public long ago and that many people saw it in private long ago. But then he also takes the position, well, no one knew we couldn't possibly knit. Then. The other contradiction is they say, well, we could diagnose it, we could see that there were problems. Whereas elsewhere they take the position where you had to be a doctor to know wasn't right to be an armchair analyst, an armchair doctor. Okay, now Hugh says, and this is again why I'm so flustered and baffled by his role. Hugh tells them in the interview that he knew, like a lot of conservatives knew and spoke out, that somehow, magically, conservatives could see in public what Jake Tapper and most other reporters couldn't see, that there was a problem. And they were saying it from the time Biden was running for president in 20. Here's Hugh Hewitt, astonished. Eight, please.
- [20:51]
Jake Tapper
My father in law, Marine Corps Colonel Lake, great man, fought on Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima. He died of a combination of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. I was the lawyer in the family, so I got to walk him through that. There are lots of references to that in original sin, to people who have seen aging parents and in laws go down this slope either at a fast pace or a slow pace, but everybody knows that it's happening. What I'm astonished by is that we did not find out until the debate again.
- [21:23]
Mark Halperin
Now Hugh is, is. Is joining them in saying this is a logical thing. Hugh says, I knew it, I saw it, and I had a relative who had something similar, so I was very familiar. And then he caps that account by saying it's astonishing we didn't find out to the debate. It doesn't make any sense. Even if he didn't have a relative, as Hugh does did, with a comparable type of decline, it was on offer in public for years. And so when Hugh says we only found out to the debate, no, since at least 2022, when he talked to the dead congressman, although there are earlier examples, Hugh knows it's not true. He knows we didn't just find out at the debate, and he know we know that because Hugh talks about the fact that he referred to Biden as infirm. Now, he used the phrase infirm because it's not a medical term. But here's Hugh once again saying he knew a three, please.
- [22:23]
Jake Tapper
I've got it on tape from 2022, early 2022. I always use the term he's infirm and getting more so because that's not a medical term. It's an observational term that lawyers can use and people can make that judgment without being a professional. Infirmity does not mean necessarily cognitive impairment. But when the people in these rooms see him in the way. I didn't get to interview President Biden, and I think the reason is he wasn't up to a serious interview.
- [22:52]
Mark Halperin
So a guy's not up for doing an interview. Now, Hugh's a pretty tough interviewer, but a guy who's not up to doing an interview, a guy who says the things and does the things he does in public. No one should have been surprised by the debate. And that's again, one of the premises of the book and one of the premises of Hugh's interview, that the debate was a shock. It was a shock. People were shocked. I wasn't shocked. I wasn't shocked at all. How could anyone have been shocked? And yet that's the premise of the book, that you endorse it. So he asked the authors, again, this is contradictory. Why didn't they include people like Hugh and other conservative media and a few independent reporters who saw along with the American people what had happened? Okay, so their answer is hilarious. It's kind of a two part answer. And the first is that the book was too long already, so they couldn't include it. But also that they chose not to focus on what happened in public. A nine, please.
- [23:52]
Jake Tapper
Was it a decision by Alex and Jake at the beginning of the process to exclude the center right and the right because they don't have credibility with the people you are aiming the book at? Or did you not trust them? Because there are a long list of people like Ben Shapiro and Guy Benson and Mary Kathryn Ham and Hugh Hewitt and Ben Domenech, who all said, this man's infirm. And we said it for three years, but no one's quoted. Was that a decision editorially that you two made not to quote the center right to the right for reasons of your own?
- [24:27]
Hugh Hewitt
No, I actually say the biggest reason why we may not quote them is that we pitched a 50,000 word book and then wrote 115,000 words. And then Penguin was like, you, you cannot go above 85,000 words. I'd also say that, you know, there were lots of commentators, they were saying lots of things, including David Ignatius and Ben Shapiro, but. And Megyn Kelly and, you know, but there is a difference between reporting and commentating. And yes, you can look at Joe Biden tripping up the stairs and look at some of his comments, which were troubling in public. But our goal with the book was to show what was going on behind the scenes. That was not public.
- [25:23]
Mark Halperin
Our goal with the book was to not focus on what was public. Yeah, obvious because they didn't even include that dead congresswoman. This is the heart of what's so infuriating. I get the private scenes are interesting. I get it. But the whole point of what's going on here is it was all happening in public. By excluding the public stuff and excluding the unpleasant truth for them, that many people, including conservative commentators, were pointing it out. The American people in the polls were seeing it, it was clear, but they didn't, they can't acknowledge that it was seen. They'd have to say, well, these people were conservatives and they were just, they were making it up. It wasn't really true. They couldn't have known about Biden's mental acuity decline, so they were saying it for political gain. That's kind of the implicit premise that they have. It's just not true. Those people, just like the American people, had eyes and ears. And like the American people, they weren't cowed by the Biden White House. And in some cases, they weren't worried about helping Donald Trump win. Okay, so this comes down to the obvious question which is not addressed, which is bias, liberal bias. Okay? Jake Tapper's not stupid. He knows. He knows that there's liberal media bias, but his constituency doesn't allow him to admit it. So. And he knows that, Jake, that, that Hugh knows there's liberal media bias. So here he is trying to explain to Hugh, acknowledging that there's liberal media bias. But then, and this is one of the most incredible things in the interview, saying there's even more bias against Donald Trump, and that explains the press's conduct in this case. A 10, please.
- [27:03]
Alex Thompson
I think that there are lots of different silos, and you and I have talked about media bias before, and I don't disagree with your perceptions of there being biases in the media. I think that there are lots of different ones. I think that the. I think that Trump is an added factor. Like you can talk about media bias against mitt Romney in 2012 versus Barack Obama and that, you know, again, I'm not going to disagree with you, but I think, I think the Trumpness of it all adds an additional motivation. But I also think that there is a difference between white. What we can factually report and what we can comment on through observation. And we, like, like Alex said, we did focus on, on proof and not commentary.
- [28:01]
Mark Halperin
The Trumpness of it all. I'd like that unpacked. What does that mean? You can be more biased against Donald Trump then he says, we focused on reporting, not on observation. The people they were reporting with, Cabinet members, donors, members of Congress, they're not doctors. That's no, that's no more fact and less observation than what Hugh Hewitt saw and I saw. He says the Democrats had the conspiracy of silence, but he ignores that the media did. This is a fake distinction, he acknowledges there's bias, he acknowledged, but then he sort of says, well, it's not about the bias. It's about the fact that you have to have reporting. Again, if you watch Joe Biden speak in public, you had the same level of reporting that they got talking to Democrats who saw him in private over many years. Okay, so again, he acknowledges a conspiracy of silence by the Democrats, but he ignores the conspiracy of silence in which he and his colleague participated. A11.
- [29:05]
Alex Thompson
But I think beyond that is the, the omerta of all these Democrats who saw everything that you're talking about, and we're not sharing it with people beyond Ignatius, beyond Peter Baker, who had a couple pieces there, Michael Scheer, who had a piece there, beyond Alex, who had pieces like, there really was an unbelievable conspiracy of silence.
- [29:32]
Mark Halperin
There was an unbelievable conspiracy science. It's unbelievable. But it didn't just involve the Democrats. And, and, and again, I, I, I just, I get Hugh's philosophy. And again, I'll say I respect Hugh. I'm a big fan of his interviewing style and how well he prepares. But to say there was a conspiracy of silence, you can divide them and say there's two, or you could say there's one. The same conspiracy of silence between the Democrats and the donors, the politicians, the people in the government, in the White House and the Cabinet and the press. And why do I say it's one conspiracy? Because their motives was the same. The motive was the same. Not to help Donald Trump, to make sure Donald Trump didn't win. The brazenness of it when they have an obligation to the country, whether they're Democrats or the press. The brazenness of it, to pretend it's not happening in real time, to watch Joe Biden do things in public that make it clear that if cognitive decline is significant and to say nothing or to occasionally say a little bit. But to act on debate night like this is some revelatory shock, just like the Democrats did. The press did the same. To do that, that's a conspiracy. And to then write a book that says Democrats saw this in private. Now again, there's these inconsistencies. Well, you could see it in public, but Democrats saw it in private. Her saw it and was denounced. They talk about the Wall Street Journal, reporters who belatedly wrote a pretty tepid piece, but they get a lot of credit for it, for pointing out some instances where people saw the cognitive decline in private. This is the Emperor's New Clothes, folks. Real life. You don't need private accounts. I welcome the private accounts for history, but you don't need private accounts. You do not to know that Joe Biden suffered mental acuity decline to the point where there are serious doubts about whether he could do the job. You don't need any. You don't need the book. And yet Hugh Hewitt sat there and aided and abetted because of the way he does book interviews. He aids and abets this fiction. This fiction is so dangerous. Because if the media can aid and abet in a way that threatens the safety of the country in order to hurt the Republican candidate, if they can do that, how can anyone have any trust in what we do? How can anyone look at the coverage of anything and say it's on the up and up, that it's a level playing field, that regardless of party or ideology or personality, they're going to try to be fair? How could anyone say that they did it for the entirety of Joe Biden's presidential campaign? 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. They did it for the entirety of that. Then someone writes a book that says this was a scandal involving Democrats and what they saw privately and what they didn't say, not this is a scandal involving Democrats in the press because of what we all saw publicly. And then for Hugh to aid and abet that, it's very upsetting to me. I think you can probably tell from my tone it's very upsetting because this is where the credibility, which has been fraying for years because of the bias and other reasons, this is where the fraying becomes cataclysmic. It becomes overwhelming. It becomes something that no serious person could look at this and not call it a massive institutional failure again, I think the biggest one I've seen in American history. I hope that this report, humbly, I hope, gets people to think anew. Forget about the book, forget about this interview, this one interview. Think anew about what happened, America. Think about how outrageous it is that they deny the bias and yet the bias causes them to be part of a conspiracy and the country's lucky that nothing worse happened. But my goodness, my goodness, how could they get away with creating and perpetuating a fake narrative? How could they? All right, tell me what you think about what I just talked about. Love to hear from you Nexters. Next up email is nextup halperinmail.com Send us an email, tell us what you think. You can find this program always on X Instagram and Tick tock. It's at Next Halpern. Next up Halpern is our handle. And don't forget, you can watch the show if you don't want to, just listen. You can always watch us at YouTube, our YouTube handle, YouTube.com nextup helper. Grateful to you Nexters for being part of this. All right, next up here, the legendary Brit Hume. Please don't go away. What's one thing we all know we need to make America healthy again. And that starts with what we put in our bodies. I am constantly on the move, working, traveling, doing stuff with my kid. And I need a snack that fuels my body, not poisons it. Paleo Valley's 100% grass fed beef sticks are clean, high quality and free from all that chemical junk. So many other brands sneak in. I love them. Eat them all the time. Most healthy beef sticks at the big box stores, they're loaded up with preservatives like citric and lactic acid, not Paleo Valley. They use old school fermentation to keep their sticks fresh. No chemicals, just real food. That fermentation also supports gut health, which is something we all do need to prioritize. We deserve better than ultra processed junk pushed by the same industries that are making us sick. The system may be rigged in health, but we don't have to play along. Paleo Valley beef sticks come in five delicious flavors made from grass fed grass finished beef sourced from regenerative American farms. There's no MSG, no gluten, no sugar. Over 55 million sold and backed by a 60 day money back guarantee. Paleo Valley makes 100% grass fed beef sticks because healthy living should be easy and accessible for all of us. So right now get 15% off your first order using NextUp. Let's make America healthy again. One real food choice at a time. Next up, one of the three people who's taught me the most about journalism and broadcasting, both by getting having the privilege of working aside him for a bit, but also by his example. Brit Hume is one of the most important political reporters and analysts of not just my career but I'd say of American history. You wouldn't have to make a very long list before Britt's name would be on there and think about how to introduce him. Because I don't want to waste too much time because I want to bring him in. I thought what are the things that matter to me most about what I learned from Brit? I'll give you three, I could give you 43. First is in our business people talk about, well, you got to always decide what's interesting and what's important, right? And there's, there's a trade off and sometimes it's a zero sum game. One of the things I've learned from Brit is you can make the important interesting if you know how to do your job as a journalist and never, never seen him challenged with that, he could talk about anything and make it interesting. Second is learned that even in a business, like most businesses where writing is not valued the way it once was, being a talented writer is an advantage. And I think about it all the time. The quality of writing and television, the course of my career has steadily declined to the point now where it didn't, it isn't even thought about. People get hired to be network correspondents and anchors, they can't write a lick. Brit is a great writer and a great writer for broadcast and I learned how important that is. I'm not, I'm not in his league, but I did learn from him how important it is. And finally, and this one, this one's maybe sounds a little trivial but it always sticks in my mind. When you're doing a sign off as a correspondent you say, Joe Smith, ABC News, the Pentagon. Britt had the ability in the pause between where he was and saying his name to calibrate how long that should be and what facial expression he should have to convey. More than most correspondents could convey in a four minute piece. So you're like Brit Hume, ABC News, the White House and the pause. I put a stopwatch on it, it was different every time and I learned how to do that. And again, not in Brits league I'd say Mark Halperin, Des Moines, Iowa. Mark Halperin, ABC News, Des Moines, Iowa. Magic, television magic. All right, joining us now, Alexander Britten Hume. Again, someone I'm grateful to and would not have the career I have without him. Britt, thank you for joining.
- [37:51]
Brit Hume
My great pleasure. Mark, it's wonderful to see you.
- [37:54]
Mark Halperin
Really great to have you here. I talked in my monologue about media bias and it's one of the many things I learned from you when we worked together at ABC News covering a new Democratic president, and you covered them tough, the way you covered the Bush administration. But we were surrounded by people who were in rapture. First Democratic president since Carter. I'm wondering how you see the arc of liberal media bias from Clinton to Trump. And that's obviously a PhD thesis topic, but is it worse now than it was back when Clinton was president? Has it gotten worse and what accounts for the degree to which, even in the age of transparency, most of our major news organizations can be so biased?
- [38:35]
Brit Hume
Well, I think it's gotten worse, Mark, I'm sorry to say. And part of it is, I think that people get into journalism for differing reasons. And when I was coming along, people got into journalism. In my case, it was because I couldn't find any other job at the time. But I think a lot of reporters thought it was interesting. In those days, the custom of neutral news coverage was deeply ingrained, and that's how you were taught to cover the news. And if you let any bias or opinions slip into, your copy would be X'd out and you'd be criticized for it by the city editor or by your editor, whoever it was. And I think that tradition has faded. And I also think that the arrival on the national scene of Donald Trump has accelerated the process, because if you were trying to design somebody that journalists would not like, you could hardly do better than Donald Trump. You know, rich, crude, in some ways vulgar, full of braggadocia, not really a liberal, except in some ways before he really got into politics. So I think he was a person designed to be disliked. And journalists were attracted to the idea that the man constituted a danger to the American system. And they treated his election in 2016 as a National emergency and felt it was their job to put out the fire, which is to say, was to try to bring him down, which they most certainly tried to do, and in my view, made fools of themselves in.
- [40:12]
Mark Halperin
The process and help Trump, right?
- [40:15]
Brit Hume
Well, in the end it did because it was so bad and so obvious, not just what journalists did, but what. What Democratic Party prosecutors did, what the intelligence community to some extent did. All those things I think became were clear to the public, and I think because of that, they ended up helping him in the end.
- [40:39]
Mark Halperin
There's a story today that nbcnews.com ran, and it says Chairman Comer, who's leading the investigation into Joe Biden's use of the auto pen for pardons and other things, that Chairman Comer often signs letters as part of the investigation, using an auto pen. It couldn't be more different. Right. It's not about pardons and the question of who's signing them. And he's not signing subpoenas with the auto pen. He's just signing letters. No serious person could think that was a news story, and yet NBC wrote it up as if it was, you know, a gotcha, gotcha hypocrisy thing. So here's the question. Here's the question I'd ask you, which I engaged on Twitter with folks today. Do people at NBC know that that is a phony story, but they write it on purpose? Are they so deluded that they think it's a real story?
- [41:27]
Brit Hume
Well, I'm afraid I think it's the latter, Mark. I mean, as young journalists coming along and they hear a story about auto pen being used by Mr. Biden, and therefore, you know, anybody using the auto pen becomes a kind of an equivalent in their mind and imagination. And the next thing you know, you got stories written about it when it's perfectly clear, or should be, that nobody is talking about Mr. Biden's use of the auto pin for letters and other routine things. The concern, to the extent there is a concern, is about using the auto pen for very serious official documents such as pardons and the like, where he.
- [42:04]
Mark Halperin
May not have been the signer.
- [42:06]
Brit Hume
Right.
- [42:07]
Mark Halperin
The decider.
- [42:08]
Brit Hume
Yeah, that's right. And that's the concern. I'm not. My own view is that the pardon power, which is what's most often talked about, is so plenary, so nearly absolute, that if he chose to do it by, you know, saying certain categories of people should be pardoned and the staff then whipped up a group that fit the criteria and the auto pen was used to do it, that. That probably passes muster in the courts.
- [42:31]
Mark Halperin
You've been smart enough largely to stay out of management. But let's say you were the Washington bureau chief of NBC News and. And Comer's comms director called you and said, brit, this story you guys have on the website's ridiculous. And you looked at it and you said, yeah, it's ridiculous. What would you do then?
- [42:47]
Brit Hume
Well, I take it down, and I would call the journalists who are involved in it in, sit them down and ask some questions about how it is that they reasoned out the idea that this was a news story. And if the reasoning was as faulty as it seems to be, I would, you know, they would be reprimanded and it would be a mark against them.
- [43:07]
Mark Halperin
Okay, and then what if. What if the head of Comcast called you and said, britt, great job, you're absolutely right, we need to routinize this from not happening. We need to fix it. I don't want NBC News to be a liberally biased place. What would you do then? What would be the structural reforms you could possibly make, if any? Or is it impossible to fix it?
- [43:28]
Brit Hume
Well, I think it's deeply ingrained, but I know this. At Fox News, I was managing editor in Washington, and we were able to find people to hire journalists and tell them what our method was for covering news. I'm not talking about the evening opinion shows or any of the rest of it. I'm simply talking about our news coverage, the production of packages and other news reports that we were looking for. And I talked about the kinds of stories we were looking for, and I talked about neutrality in news coverage. And it used to be so customary, Mark, as I'm sure you know, that it wasn't hard to teach back in the day, and it shouldn't be hard to teach now. I just simply think it's not taught. Yeah.
- [44:14]
Mark Halperin
I want to ask you about the vice president. There's so many aspects of this administration that I find to be unprecedented, at least in my career, in modern times. I've never seen a vice president accumulate so much power so quickly in politics and policy and personnel. I'm wondering if you think about maybe Dick Cheney as the standard of a powerful vice president. Where do you rate JD Vance in terms of accumulation of power at this early stage?
- [44:39]
Brit Hume
Well, he'd be right up there. Dick Cheney was quite powerful. And because the president wanted him to be and leaned on him, President Bush 43 leaned on him for advice and counsel, and he was heavily influential in the field of national security policy, foreign affairs, and so on. Vance seems to have an even broader writ. And I think Trump likes him because he's a really good spokesman. He's a very bright guy, a very talented guy, speaks well. And I remember thinking at a time during the campaign, Mark, when there was a lot of talk about maybe Trump was gonna dump him. And I would see these interviews on the Sunday shows when Vance was out, and he was out a lot, where he would simply run rings around his hosts and make them look ridiculous. And I thought, Trump is going to like that and like that a lot. And he did. And he continues to in that account. In my judgment, his effectiveness as a spokesman accounts for his accumulation of influence, and I think it's considerable. Yeah.
- [45:44]
Mark Halperin
I mean, less than a year ago, not only Was there talk of Trump dumping him? But when he was picked, people in Trump's circle said to me, oh, this is a disaster. He's gone from that to, I can't find anybody in the party who doesn't like him enthusiastically. So, I mean, can you think of any, not just a vice president, but can you think of any politician who's gone from being somewhat unpopular with parts of the party to being universally acclaimed as a great spokesman, a crafty guy, a principled guy? I just don't remember a turnaround in less than a year like that.
- [46:16]
Brit Hume
No, I can't either, frankly. I think that's a good point. Mark of it. And I think he wants very much to succeed Trump, and I think at the moment, he's got a leg up.
- [46:25]
Mark Halperin
Yeah. I'll talk about Scott Bessant, universally acclaimed as effective in the job of Treasury Secretary. Most people who come in like he did no government service time in the private sector. Master of the universe, used to getting his way in the private sector. Most of them have failed. People like Jon Snow, long forgotten, but one of Bush's treasury secretaries. What do you think are the building blocks of Besant success so far?
- [46:54]
Brit Hume
Well, I think, first of all, he's deep, and I think he's very, very smart. And I think he has thought through a lot of these issues before he arrived at the Treasury Department. So he has a lot to say about these things, and he's prepared. And when he's gonna do an interview, and he does a lot of them, he comes prepared and he's quick on his feet, and he's good at explaining relatively complex matters. And he makes the case for Trump and his policies as well as I've heard it made by anybody or by any Treasury Secretary in my memory. You know, I remember when James Baker was. Was Treasury Secretary back in the day, he was effective, but he was not as effective nor as important in that job as Scott Bezen has proved to be.
- [47:38]
Mark Halperin
Wow. So you're saying he's more effective than Baker was?
- [47:41]
Brit Hume
Well, I think he was a better. He was a better spokesman, and perhaps that's because he was put out more. Baker was not that. Baker was a guy who was great at talking to reporters off camera.
- [47:52]
Mark Halperin
Yeah.
- [47:54]
Brit Hume
And he knew how to give you something without hurting his cause, and that's a valuable skill. But that's entirely different from what is a source of Besson's influence, in my judgment.
- [48:03]
Mark Halperin
If Vance and Besson are over performers in this administration, who would you say is an underperformer?
- [48:08]
Brit Hume
I think Hagseth has been, has had a hard time. I think Pam Bondi has run into trouble. Because the question with Pam Bondi, it seems to me, is whether she's lighter than air or whether there's any real depth there. She certainly had a lot of experience in the law and she's a reasonably competent person. But this is the Attorney General. Attorney generals operate at the nexus of law and politics, and it's a very tricky and difficult balance to manage. And you have to support the president. You have to be for him. But what you don't have to do and what she does is recite all his talking points verbatim all the time, which is, I think, what she does. I think it'd be reassuring to the public if she seemed a little deeper and more serious.
- [48:54]
Mark Halperin
The president and his supporters say this is like an all star cabinet and certainly they're visible. I think it's the most visible cabinet in terms of TV appearances and interviews and press conferences. Do you consider this to be an all star cabinet or more of a mixed bag?
- [49:09]
Brit Hume
Well, he's got a lot. They're all out on the field, as you suggest, Mark, and they're very visible. I think that's right. I think some of them are all stars. I think some of them are not. You know, I think the Chris Wrighted energy is effective and I think Doug Burgum has proved to be effective. You know, they've got the president's policy, they believe in it, they can articulate it. And so they do a good job in the White House, which is to some extent responsible for whether a cabinet secretary is visible or not, has let that be. And who would have thought, Mark, when Trump first became president, it was all Trump, all the time, for everything.
- [49:51]
Mark Halperin
Exactly.
- [49:53]
Brit Hume
Cabinet was in the background. Some of them struggled that in this new Trump administration, we have a very visible cabinet and the president is fine with that, which is, I think, an interesting change.
- [50:05]
Mark Halperin
Yep. It's totally different. All right, I'm going to run through some others. You tell me. All star or weak link? Ready?
- [50:13]
Brit Hume
Yeah.
- [50:13]
Mark Halperin
Transportation Secretary Duffy, all star. Homeland Security gnome, weak link. Secretary of State Rubio, all star so far I agree with every one of yours. I, I, I bet we'd agree at the rack. Head of the National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett, all star. White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, all star. It must be all my training, Brick, because I agree with every everyone so far. Secretary of Education McMahon now all star, all star so far we agree on every one. Is there somebody in this administration Besides Vance and Rubio, who you think someday might be president.
- [51:02]
Brit Hume
I'd have to think about that, Mark. None comes to mind. Off the top of my head, I'm.
- [51:07]
Mark Halperin
Now, I think Sean Duffy might be president. What do you think of that?
- [51:12]
Brit Hume
Well, he's an effective politician. He's youthful. A lot will depend on how this plays out in the role that he's been given. And it's now he's what, head of NASA now, too, on top of everything else?
- [51:21]
Mark Halperin
Yes.
- [51:22]
Brit Hume
So that's. So that's an opportunity to shine. We'll see if he can do it.
- [51:26]
Mark Halperin
And do you have any sense of why Trump has changed? As you rightly point out, in the first term, everybody was a supporting player. Now he's got all these folks out there, lots of screen time. I mean, Kristi Noem, I think might break Regis's record of most air, live air minutes logged. Any idea why he changed?
- [51:42]
Brit Hume
Yeah. On top of that, in her case, you get all these commercials that are running with her all over them.
- [51:46]
Mark Halperin
That's right.
- [51:47]
Brit Hume
I've never seen that before, but. Well, here's what I would say. I think when Trump was first elected, he really didn't really know what he was doing. He was. And in some ways he has said so. You know, he said when he picked his Cabinet, he, you know, he didn't really know what he knows now. And I think what happened is, I think he was. This is a guy who has certain insecurities. He's bold and he's got guts and he believes in himself. But you consider what greeted him when he was first elected four years ago and the fact that he didn't know the ways of Washington and so forth. I think he learned a lot in that first term in office, and I think he learned a lot between the time he was defeated and the time he was elected again and thought about it a lot and achieved it. And I think the mere achievement of it has had an effect on him psychologically, not to mention his own reaction to being shot. And I think he comes in with a bigger, more comfortable sense of himself and a better sense of how to pick people and how Washington works and how politics works. And that's enabled him to see the value of having strong people around him, which I think he did in his business. You know, I think he's done that, and he's not afraid to appoint powerful women around him and has had them throughout his career. And I think all that is coming to the fore now. He's a much more assured, confident, and comfortable figure and appreciates and wants strong performances around him.
- [53:19]
Mark Halperin
Four years off turned out to be a good thing. All right, we're take a little bit of a break and then next up we'll talk about the Democrats. That's next up. Let me ask you a question. What if you could delay your next two mortgage payments? That's right. Imagine those putting those two payments in your pocket and finally getting a little breathing room. It's possible if you call American Financing right now. If you're feeling stretched by everyday expenses, the groceries, the gas prices, bills that are piling up, you're not alone. Most Americans are putting those expenses on their credit cards and there doesn't seem to be a way out of that. American Financing can show you how to use your home's equity to pay off that debt. You need to call American Financing today before you get to a point where you can't make those payments at all. Their salary based mortgage consultants are helping homeowners just like you restructure their loans and consolidate their debt, all without upfront fees. And their customers are saving an average of $800 a month. That's like getting a ten thousand dollar raise. It's fast, it's simple and it could save your budget this summer. Call now before it's too late. You can call 866-886-2026. That's 866-886-2026 or visit americanfinancing.net Ben hadn't.
- [54:37]
Brit Hume
Had a decent night's sleep in a month. So during one of his restless nights.
- [54:42]
Jake Tapper
He booked a package trip abroad on Expedia.
- [54:45]
Brit Hume
When he arrived at his beachside hotel, he discovered a miraculous bed slung between.
- [54:51]
Jake Tapper
Two trees and fell into the best sleep of his life.
- [54:56]
Brit Hume
You were made to be rechargeable. We, we were made to package flights and hotels and hammocks for less Expedia. Made to travel.
- [55:09]
Mark Halperin
All right, we're back for more next up with Brett. Brett, you've seen plenty of out of power parties. Don't control the White House, don't control Congress. This feels different to me. The hole the Democrats are in now, if you think about what, what breeds a comeback, they seem to lack a lot of it. So how would you evaluate the state of the Democratic Party right now in terms of once again being a majority party?
- [55:32]
Brit Hume
Well, I think that Trump has made inroads, as a million people have said, into what used to be the base of the Democratic party, to wit, working class white people. And the party really given the direction it has taken over the last several Decades really has drifted left in a way that's not suitable for that, for that constituency. And it's going to be difficult for them to get it back because the changes in the Republican Party have hurt the Democratic Party. So I think that's sort of where we are. The other thing I'd say about it is that the hardcore base of the Democratic Party so loathes and despises Trump and so strongly requires of Democrats that they be in full bore all out 247 resistance to Trump that has kind of paralyzed them and led them to make one mistake after another in terms of appealing to a broader electorate. And until they can break that habit and begin to say things that make broader sense to the American people at the risk of alienating their hard left base, I think they're stuck. And you see this level of resistance, it's just absurd. I mean, they do completely silly things. I mean, Cory Booker's endless speech against the big beautiful bill, so called, was a pointless gesture that took forever. But no doubt what he was up to. He was trying to say to a lot of rank and file Democrats, hey, look at me, I'm doing everything I can to stop this man. And went nowhere. It was bound to go nowhere, but there it was. And I just don't think it gained them any ground.
- [57:19]
Mark Halperin
If you do their balance sheet, what'd be on the positive side of the ledger right now as a party?
- [57:24]
Brit Hume
Well, it's hard for parties in power and the White House to stay in power for long periods of time. It'll be hard for the Republicans to. First of all, the midterms are coming up and in the House of Representatives, Democrats are well positioned simply because the Republican margin is so minuscule, to recover, to get control of the House. And once that happens, of course, the President's agenda legislatively is effectively blocked, just as it was when the Republicans took over the House in the middle of Biden's term. Nothing really serious happened after that. Legislatively it can't. So you'll have a paralyzed Congress which would prevent and President will be a lame duck and that will all be to the Democrats natural advantage. Now what they make of that remains to be seen, but I think they've got that going. And the fact that, you know, after two terms of Trump, although non contiguous, you know, it's kind of an uphill fight to get, to get the White House again.
- [58:31]
Mark Halperin
If you take the 20 or so Democrats who were talked about as potential presidential candidates, which ones would you say are underrated in terms of their prospect of winning the nomination.
- [58:39]
Brit Hume
I'd have to think about that. Mark. I really. Nobody's name comes to mind. Right off the top of my head.
- [58:47]
Mark Halperin
The correct answer is none of them.
- [58:49]
Brit Hume
Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Well, I didn't want to say that because I didn't want to see. I didn't want to seem like I hadn't thought about it very much, but I haven't.
- [58:58]
Mark Halperin
Yeah. Do you consider Gavin Newsom a serious contender not for the presidency, but for the nomination?
- [59:04]
Brit Hume
Yes, because he's got a lot of, you know, he checks a lot of boxes. He's been head up and banners flying in terms of resisting Trump sometimes to what should be his embarrassment. But, you know, he's got things. He's young and he's got good hair and he's. And he's well spoken. I know him a little bit. He's kind of a nice guy, actually. I mean, I think his politics are maybe out of step with the country to some extent. To a great extent, really. So I think, you know, he's somebody. He'll be a factor at least in the early going.
- [59:33]
Mark Halperin
Yeah. What about Kamala Harris?
- [59:36]
Brit Hume
It's hard for me to imagine they do that again. It's just hard for me to imagine that. I think she was the single weakest presidential candidate I can remember. And I. And, and she's. And look, there's no there there.
- [59:51]
Mark Halperin
You may well get. You may well get. Thank you. Notes from John Kerry and Mitt Romney.
- [59:56]
Brit Hume
Well, still, I hold to that judgment.
- [60:01]
Mark Halperin
Yeah. It's not, it's, it's not, it's not an outrageous position to take. You know, her, her supporters would say she, you know, she was thrown into it. And I say, well, if you didn't think you could win in 90 days, you shouldn't have put your hand up for the nomination. Wasn't like a surprise, surprise what the calendar said.
- [60:18]
Brit Hume
Yeah. One of her weaknesses is her tendency to overestimate herself.
- [60:22]
Mark Halperin
Yeah. Is. Is there something about Rahm Emanuel that makes you think he could be the nominee?
- [60:32]
Brit Hume
Well, he's taken the same general course to some extent, against the grain of the party that I remember a guy named Bill Clinton, we're both deeply familiar with. Took. He's a very smart guy. He's very able. He's very tough. He ain't cuddly. And I'm not sure how good a back slapper he is, but he's somebody to be reckoned with.
- [60:55]
Mark Halperin
Yeah. I want to ask you about some of the president, current president's challenges and see where you think we're headed on these stories. First would be Ukraine and Russia. Is there a path to ending the war besides the death of Putin that you see?
- [61:12]
Brit Hume
Well, I think the president is in a place he never wanted to be, and I think he genuinely believed, mistakenly, obviously. Now, I thought, mistakenly at the time, that Vladimir Putin wanted to end the war. And what Vladimir Putin wanted to do was win the war, and to win the war outright, that is to say, to conquer Ukraine, take it over. Now, there might have been parts of it that he'd leave as some kind of remnant, but that was. And I don't think his objective has changed, and I don't think it ever faltered. I mean, if you consider the bloody nose that Vladimir Putin has gotten for his invasion of Ukraine, the losses, and in blood and treasure, which have been just staggering, and the creation in Ukraine of one of the toughest militaries anybody's ever seen, and the addition of nations to NATO that he didn't want to occur. This has gone very badly for him. And yet he presses on and I think intends to. Trump looks at a situation like this and says, this is nuts. He can't sustain this. This is crazy. He must want to end it. But he doesn't and didn't. Now, it's possible that there's a level of pressure that the President could bring to bear that would bring Putin to the table with some serious proposals instead of the maximalist demands that he's been putting forward so far. I don't know what that would be, but strengthening Ukraine's military certainly would be a sensible way to go about that. And secondary sanctions on Russian oil exports could make a real difference, it seems to me. If he's willing to go through with that, I don't think he wants to do it. I think he would rather make a deal if he possibly could. But that's the direction I think things are going.
- [63:02]
Mark Halperin
Yeah. I normally stay away from hypotheticals, but I think this is one that's germane and that we need to think about. There's talk now that the President's going to give Ukraine missiles that could be launched and hit Moscow. What do you think the range of possible reactions from Putin would be if that happened?
- [63:18]
Brit Hume
Well, the big consideration, of course, all along in this whole equation has been whether Putin, when pressed, would resort to nuclear weapons, either tactical. I hardly believe he'd make a strategic nuclear threat because that would result in the annihilation of Russia. Annihilation on all sides, really. I don't think he'd go there. Whether he would resort to a tactical nuke in some way, I think, is an open question. I don't frankly think that that's where he's going with this. I think he wants to win this war with what he believes to be his superior conventional forces. I think he thinks he can do it. I think he's willing to withstand a lot of pain. But that's the question that would be raised if Ukraine started to fight this war on more even terms, which is to say, would be willing to really make some serious attacks on the kind of civilian targets that Putin regularly uses. Yeah.
- [64:16]
Mark Halperin
Do you think the president has the prospects of bringing some sort of stability and peace the Middle East?
- [64:23]
Brit Hume
I do. I think there's a greater chance of that now, and the president would get a considerable measure of credit for that. So, of course, with the hated Bibi Netanyahu, who has turned out to be, for all the ups and downs of that he's had in his career, a surprisingly and strongly effective leader in the aftermath of October 7th.
- [64:44]
Mark Halperin
What about Epstein? This is a story that also I don't see any precedent for. What do you imagine will happen with that?
- [64:51]
Brit Hume
Well, I, you know, I enjoy and am intrigued by a good sex scandal as much as the next guy, but this story strikes me, and the thing I can say about this story is it is startlingly unimportant. Yeah, I think it's over. And I think this, too, I think Pam Bondi, Dan Bongino, and to a lesser extent, Kash Patel said a lot of stupid and unwarranted things about this case before they were in office. And it was conspiracy theory on steroids. And, you know, it had a certain plausibility to it that, you know, he was blackmailing people and had a list and all of that. It all made a certain kind of dark sense. And I think they got in office, finally saw the papers and saw what evidence there was and turned out it wasn't there. And I think it's a testament to the unwisdom of the stuff they said before they were in office. But I can't believe. It's simply not plausible to me that those three people, particularly Dan Bongino, who made a to do about this on his various broadcasts, would get in there, look at the evidence, see something in there, and then try to cover it up. It makes no sense.
- [66:07]
Mark Halperin
All right. One of the great moments in television the last five years is when we end Assignment with the following exchange. Brit, Brett, Love when you're on with Brett, but I'm going to Ask you some questions Brett has never asked you, I don't believe. We'll see. We'll see if I can strike pay dirt on these. Who's someone living you've never met who you'd like to meet and why?
- [66:27]
Brit Hume
Well, I'm trying to think. Well, I've met him, but I've never really spent any time talking to him. I'd like to spend some time talking to Warren Buffett.
- [66:39]
Mark Halperin
That's a good one. Dairy Queen recommendation. But what would you be looking for?
- [66:43]
Brit Hume
I'd be willing to buy the steak at his favorite place in Omaha. All right.
- [66:48]
Mark Halperin
What's your favorite restaurant in D.C. and why?
- [66:51]
Brit Hume
Well, I haven't. I'm so out of touch with the restaurant scene in Washington that there may be great places that I've missed because I'm not there very much anymore. But there's a restaurant called La Perla, which is kind of at the foot of Georgetown, and it makes fettuccine Alfredo the way they make it Alfredo in Rome. And it's fabulous. It's my favorite dish in the world. And anytime I'm in Washington, I try to go there. So it's a. That's a favorite of mine.
- [67:16]
Mark Halperin
Awesome. What's the best advice you could give a young journalist?
- [67:24]
Brit Hume
Strive for neutral coverage. Remember, it's two things. Be fair, but be interesting. It's not always easy, because the easiest way to spice up a news report is to stick your opinion in it, which will catch people's attention. But if you can do those two things, be interesting and be fair, you're on the right track.
- [67:43]
Mark Halperin
Do you have a great Joe Biden story?
- [67:47]
Brit Hume
Yes, I have a story I like to tell because it illustrates two things about Biden. I was asked by the New Republic back in the late 80s when he was thinking about running for president the first time to do a piece about him. I was covering the Senate at the time, and I thought Biden was an uncomparable blowhard and would talk forever. He'd get his turn in a hearing and he'd soak it all up, blabbering about his own view of things without ever asking a question or without ever giving time for an answer or whatever. And. And so I. And the New Republic wanted me to do a profile of him. And. And what I knew of him, I kind of liked him because he seemed to me he. He was good natured. He or he seemed that way to me.
- [68:35]
Mark Halperin
Yeah.
- [68:36]
Brit Hume
So I asked to see him, and his office said, I don't think that's going to happen. And he finally agreed to meet with me off the record, I think we had a coffee in the Senate dining room to talk about whether he would talk to me on the record. And he said to me at the beginning of it, he said, I'll tell you, as a preference of this, I rarely, if ever used a Biden soundbite because somebody else almost always said it shorter and better, which is what you're always looking for in a TV package. Right?
- [69:03]
Mark Halperin
Right.
- [69:04]
Brit Hume
So I went to see him. We sat down, and he said, you have something personal against me? And I said, no, Senator, I don't. And he said, well, you don't cover me. Why is that? And before I could stop myself, I heard myself say, senator, I think you're a windbag. Now, Biden, then, to surprise that many people who've heard this story, threw back his head and burst out laughing and said, well, you're nowhere near the only person who thinks that. We went ahead and did the interview and we got along fine. And I did the interview and I included that anecdote in the piece and we were friendly thereafter. I'm not sure with me having said early on and often that he was senile, whether he would feel that way about me today, but that's a, that's a kind of a story on the two sides of Joe Biden.
- [69:51]
Mark Halperin
Love that story. I've told the story before, but I want you to tell the story of when you worked for the investigative columnist Jack Anderson. What advice he gave you about how to get people on the phone?
- [70:03]
Brit Hume
Well, he used to say he was. This is a matter of personal. Involved with him. It personally involves him and involves a potential crime or something to that effect. Now, people always call you back, I'm.
- [70:17]
Mark Halperin
Gonna have to remind you of your story. Ready? And yes, assistant would say, what's it about? And you'd say, malfeasance.
- [70:24]
Brit Hume
Oh, malfeasance. Yeah, malfeasance. That's right.
- [70:28]
Mark Halperin
I'm telling you, I'm telling your story more often than you are, apparently. But it's, it's, it's a great.
- [70:33]
Brit Hume
Well, Mark, you're younger and have a much better memory than I do. I do my stories.
- [70:37]
Mark Halperin
I write. I write stuff down. What. Why are you still, why are you still doing journalism? Like, why not just retire and hang out and do other stuff?
- [70:45]
Brit Hume
Well, I'm still interested in the goings on, and I still feel like I might have something to say, something to add. And I always want. When I first came to Fox News, you know, having graduated from being White House correspondent and before that congressional had a long experience as reporter. I kind of wanted to be an analyst, a commentator and they put me to work as an anchor and I was there to serve and they needed somebody to do it. So I did it. I never thought I was terribly good at it, but I did it and that was another 10 years. So I felt pretty steeped in stuff and I feel like I have the ability because of time and grade to take the day's events and hold them up to the light of what had happened before along these lines. And there's a certain circularity and cycle to all these things. We see elections and scandals and presidents and they come and go and I've seen a lot of them come and go and so I felt, I've continue to feel like I have something to add and I care about it a lot. I, I spend hours every day keeping up.
- [71:53]
Mark Halperin
All right, I'm going to ask you finally about a handful of people. Give me one sentence that explains their success. To stipulate these are all successful people. One sentence that explains their success. I'll try. All right. Brett Bear.
- [72:07]
Brit Hume
Perseverant, smart and honest.
- [72:11]
Mark Halperin
Megyn Kelly.
- [72:14]
Brit Hume
Spectacular gifts, great sound, magnificent voice, very smart, looks great, looked great on tv. In her, in her TV days she, she had the fullest package, one of them I've ever seen.
- [72:27]
Mark Halperin
Donald Trump.
- [72:31]
Brit Hume
Smarter than anybody thinks tough. The toughest guy I think I've ever seen in politics and bold. Yes, he's vulgar and all that but the rest of it is that's less important than the other characteristics.
- [72:45]
Mark Halperin
All right, lastly again stipulating these are successful people. Brit Hume.
- [72:52]
Brit Hume
Fortunate to have chosen this field of work. I had no idea, Mark, when I got out of college and needed work, what I would ever do. I had and I got a job as a newspaper reporter because I couldn't get any other job. And I stood in that newspaper city room all Those years ago. 1965, 60 years ago. And amid the clatter of typewriters in newsroom in 1965 was not really different from the newsroom of say 1935. Noisy typewriter. And here's a guy with a cigar in his mouth on the copy desk. His name was Bill Shea. And if his name hadn't been Bill Shea we would have needed to change his name to Bill Shea. Ruddy cheeked white hair, calling out copy in his deep voice across the room. There was an irreverent spirit about the place. News happening, changing every day. And I thought this is the coolest place I'VE ever been. I love this. That was day one of my first job. Now, you think of all the people we've known, Mark, who spent a decade in their 20s trying to find get their foot on the bottom rung of the right ladder. And I absolutely lucked into it. And you know, and essentially, Mark, I've never been any but a reporter since.
- [73:58]
Mark Halperin
You are a newsman through and through, Brit. Grateful to you for coming on and grateful to you for being, both through direct advice and as a role model, one of the people who responsible for allowing me to have the same kind of career. Grateful to you for that.
- [74:11]
Brit Hume
I am grateful to you, Mark, for having me on. And I'm grateful to you for our friendship through the years. And I must say to you, I don't think there's a smarter, more astute observer in politics and journalism in our day than you are. You're the top. Yeah.
- [74:26]
Mark Halperin
You're very great. I'm very grateful to you for that. And again, I owe my career to you. So grateful to you for always and ever. Thank you. Hope you come back.
- [74:34]
Brit Hume
All the best to you, Mark. I will.
- [74:36]
Mark Halperin
Thank you. All right, next up, we'll see you again with another episode coming later in the week. And as always, you can be part of the conversation here. Send me an email and watch the show or listen to the show. You can see it on YouTube, you can listen to it wherever you get your finer podcast. And as you know, forevermore, you are our nexters. See you soon on for what's next up.