Loading summary
Transcript74 lines
- [00:00]
Bill Kristol
Foreign.
- [00:13]
Tim Miller
Hello and welcome to the Bulwark Podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. It is Monday, Delight. Welcome back to the show. It's the editor at large of this year, Bulwark, Bill Kristol. Hey, Bill.
- [00:22]
Bill Kristol
Hey, Tim. How are you?
- [00:24]
Tim Miller
I'm doing pretty good. It's Pride Month. Can I tell you a probably a wrong thought, a wrong opinion that I'm allowed to have, but you're probably not sure. Can we just do that? It's June 1st. It's Pride Month.
- [00:33]
Bill Kristol
Is it okay if I listen to it and just don't. I mean, yeah, sure. I won't be canceled just for listening to a wrong opinion.
- [00:38]
Tim Miller
Yeah, no, I don't think it'll be canceled for listening. I do think it's a little overkill at this point, you know, and I think the gays, like, we had this big transitional moment. I think that, like, the spirit. I love going to a Pride parade. The spirit of pride is still important. And, you know, you've got to safeguard the rights that we've secured, of course. And it's good to celebrate forcing the Straits to, like, have to deal with a rainbow explosion every time they go into the store for a whole month. You know, at this point, I feel like we could just dial it back a little bit. Like just the parade itself, I do think is sufficient. That's just one man's opinion. So you can just. You can just. You solemnly nod.
- [01:21]
Bill Kristol
I don't honestly see. I guess the stories here in McLean, Virginia are not, like, wildly festooned. I don't know. Obviously it's not a problem things. So it's not a. It doesn't really come to the forefront of my mind.
- [01:35]
Tim Miller
Woke Bill Kristol outflanking me on Gay Pride Month. I like that. That's perfect. Let's start with the war in Iran. I did get a kick. Bill Maher's had a lot of misses lately, but he did have a little bit where he said he's not going to talk about the Iran war updates because people are going to think it's a rerun. I am starting to feel a little bit that way about the podcast, but there were some things that happened over the weekend I do want to highlight on. I guess it was Saturday. Friday. Axios, which keeps reporting their deals right around the corner, reported some sources for the Trump administration saying essentially there was a deal on Trump's desk. Trump was just waiting to sign it. And then there were some provisions of that deal that Trump wanted to be tougher. And so they were going to send it back to the mullahs in Iran, but that would take them like three days to get back to them. It's hard to even communicate with them because they live in caves and such. And so, you know, maybe we'd have a deal like more like next week, which is now this. So that was the pitch kind of going into the weekend right there, like the two yard line, it's like it's almost there. It's just we got to wait for these, you know, prehistoric monsters to get back to us from their caves. Since then, the Iranians rejected Trump's counter proposal within like two hours. So the cave wi fi must be better than they thought. And then active fire started. Last night the Iranians attacked Kuwait. US sent more self defense attacks onto Iranian radar because we're still in a ceasefire. So self defense attacks. Now this morning Iran's negotiators have said, according to their state media outlet Tasnim, that they're suspending all message exchanges with the US because simultaneously with this, Israel was also attacking Lebanon over the weekend. And they cited those attacks as the reason for ending the negotiations. So it seems like we can communicate with them if we want to. Seems like they're hearing the messages and it doesn't to me seem like a deal is very imminent.
- [03:27]
Bill Kristol
I mean, I think one question has always been how much leverage does Iran think it has and how much pressure do they feel to have a deal which maybe gives Trump a little bit of face saving Fig lease and how much do they just don't think they have much pressure to have a deal or want to really make clear that they retain leverage on the straits and retain and make no commitments on the nuclear issue and get some money up front and a lot of it and so forth. So yeah, I've been slightly on the side that they probably at the end of the day want to get to a deal and Trump certainly wants to get to a deal, so they'll get to a deal. But I also think at some point it's like you're on the two yard line forever. At some point you think maybe they're not going to get into the end zone and maybe the war could begin again. I mean it's not out of the question. Right?
- [04:07]
Tim Miller
Yeah. And part of the case for eventually reaching a deal is that it doesn't really seem like either side wants the war to begin again. Right. And Trump wants out badly. But they both want these face saving negotiations. Like I kind of figured that eventually at some point there would be Basically, two deals. The Iranians would say they got one thing and we'd say we got the other thing. And Trump would try to just flood the zone with BS and kind of move forward to try to cover up his humiliating defeat. And maybe that's still how things end, but it's certainly further away than the Trump folks want people to think as they try to calm the markets and on the markets. I guess the only thing that they've had any success with, really, with the war is jawboning the markets a bit. It. And there was an Exxon executive over the weekend that said basically that the oil reserves, if you look throughout the world and all the countries throughout the world, it's unprecedented how low the strategic reserves are. I was looking at a chart yesterday about the Japan Petroleum reserves, and it's just a straight line down. It's like an elephant trunk after being pretty steady over the course of the last few decades. And so this exact set, he thinks that, you know, it's hard to predict a date exactly, but two, three weeks, you know, we can see the oil prices jump to like 150, like, way higher than they've been. You know, that's just one person's opinion, but like, we'll, we'll see. But it does feel like they've been able to kind of put a lid on the damage because people just assume what you just said, basically, which is like, eventually, like, he seems to want to be out of this, and so eventually he can just get himself out of this. Like, maybe he can't.
- [05:51]
Bill Kristol
Well, and also just going on week to week, Trump seems to says he feels no pressure, he's in no rush. I guess in a way he's behaving that way. But I think the normal understanding, the normal economist or energy expert understanding is every day, every week, that the strait is closed or 90% closed, which is kind of what it is. The pressure increases in terms of energy prices, shortages, fertilizer, everything else. And there's some workarounds, but those workarounds almost by definition get less effective the longer the of the main conduits for energy and oil in particular is closed. I'm sort of amazed the markets are discounting that. I mean, I think if you had told us two months ago, three months ago, when it all began, that, you know, the strait would be closed for now. It's what, two and a half months? I think, basically closed. We would have said, oh, oil prices are up there 50%. That's not nothing. But still, I kind of think the markets are kind of complacent for the reason you. And I've just said that they kind of think there'll be a deal. They may be underrating how much damage has been done even if there is a deal. And the final point I'd make, and this is a point Bob Kagan emphasized to you when he was on with you is I mean I've sort of assumed Iran would accept the deal now intending to sort of monkey with it and semi violate it and torque it 3, 6, 9, 12 months from now. You know, it's like the U.S. if you want an analogy of U.S. and North Vietnam, you know, and eventually they broke the deal and we were out of there. We weren't going to go back in and they ended up conquering the South. And I've kind of, they could say free passage and leave it sort of murky about. Exactly, exactly. No tolls, of course. No tolls.
- [07:20]
Tim Miller
The environmental fees.
- [07:21]
Bill Kristol
Yeah, fees. And maybe instead of the free passage they'll six months from now it's kind of a problem with that free passage. They need to, you know, I mean all kind they'll be there. So they have that huge advantage, I think and I've assumed that they would just decide to make sure we get out of there and because we're not going to go back in, presumably. And maybe one bombing raid, but nothing serious. Anyway. I still think it's all jockeying and but the degree to which Trump, I don't know is he even right? Does it matter at this point? I mean he's taken the hit on the war. Are people going to be fooled if he looks tougher for an extra week or they get some sentence on a piece of paper on an MoU, a memorandum of understanding in which Iran really pledges a slightly stronger version of addressing the nuclear issue or keeping the straight open.
- [08:06]
Tim Miller
It's psychological and it's psychological. It's part of his dick measuring contest with Obama which he's always gonna lose. But I think that it's that he feels like he needs something good and he has people around him. You know, the people around him that wanted to do this are still talking to him. I like he posted yesterday about how Mark Levin's show was good. We know, we hear reports in Mark Thiessen still talking to him. Rubio people sometimes don't like to throw Rubio in but this is Rubio's war as much as anybody Like Rubio was pushing for this Hagseth. So I think that those, I think that there are people in his ear that are like, well, you know, you gotta be tough. You can't back out. And this is to his. He sent this bleep last night after midnight. The president posting after midnight. Don't the Democrats and various seemingly unpatriotic Republicans. Republicans understand that it's much tougher for me to properly do my job and negotiate when political hacks keep negatively chirping at levels never seen before over and over again, that I should move faster, move slower, or go to war, not go to war or whatever. Just sit back and relax. It will all work out in the end. It always does. That was the president's kind of speech.
- [09:10]
Bill Kristol
I was amused by that tweet and I think I tweeted myself something about, well, we fellow political hacks keep on chirping. I mean, if it's annoying Trump, that's good. But it's interesting. He equates the people who are chirping for him to cut the deal and the people who are chirping for him to start the war again, right? So I wonder if he's getting a little tired of the Marc Thiessen types. Hegseth, you can finish it, Mr. President. This is the moment. I mean, God, the amount of rationalization that's going on, incidentally, among Trump supporters and the pretzels they're twisting themselves into to explain that it's all working out okay. It could be a little better if he only goes this extra step, but even so, it's been basically a victory. I mean, I was a strong supporter of the Iraq war, but I don't think I was deluded that it was going well. I know I wasn't because I was screaming and yelling about how Rumsfeld should be fired and we should send in more troops and go to the Petraeus counterinsurgency strategy. Not everyone was with me and the Weekly Standard on that, but even the people who were defending Rumsfeld and stuff. Well, there was a certain amount, I guess, of lying and self delusion. But I feel like here, the kind of the degree to which people who went in with Trump on this just can't accept the fact that maybe they should just cut their losses and get out. It's probably delaying Trump, cutting his losses and getting out, right? Do you think?
- [10:19]
Tim Miller
I think so, yeah. That's what I'm saying. I think that he wants the attaboys and he wants those hawks to be able to say, hey, this was better than Obama's deal and he cares about that. We're living in a psychological drama with somebody who has deep psychological problems. And so that's great, great work reelecting him. Again, one other foreign policy thing briefly, just because I thought it was noteworthy. Zelensky put out a long statement over the weekend about how he wants to have, speaking of deals, a deal with the US related to the Ukrainian drone technology and a cooperation agreement related to that. They've signed those with several of the Gulf states and some other countries. Because of all the advancements Ukraine's had in drone technology, having to defend themselves from Russia, the US has been slow rolling that. It's unclear exactly why. Phillips o' Brien posted this. The US Is putting its own troops in danger by not working as closely as, as possible with the Ukrainians on drone development, doing it to stay close to Putin. Trump is showing once again how little he cares about U.S. soldiers. We'll see kind of how that shakes out. But it is pretty interesting kind of side development that now that it's like the Ukrainians who have lapped us and other countries in this very important kind of technology of the way that the wars are going because of Trump's kind of stupid positioning. Whether you want to call it pro Putin or neutral or, you know, however you want to describe his positioning in the, in the Russia Ukraine war, we may be cutting off our nose despite our face a bit pro Putin, but
- [11:55]
Bill Kristol
also anti Zelensky and anti Ukraine. And that's true of Trump, but also I would think of Hegseth and, and therefore I suspect they're not like doing what you would normally do and rush to get the best possible equipment and, and get it incorporated into your own forces. It doesn't seem like in this case and the people I respect in the military world really are kind of worried we're not ahead in drones, especially not the real cheap ones, but that are extremely effective. You know, we're spending a fair amount of money developing them and all this. But yeah, Ukraine is literally signing deals with the Gulf states which are under attack from Iran. So they kind of have a real interest in having up to date technology and now they're signing deals with the Europeans. The idea that the Europeans are ahead of us on cutting edge technology, military technology, that's, that's a new world.
- [12:39]
Tim Miller
This episode is brought to you by IQ Bar, our exclusive snack, hydration and coffee sponsor. IQ Bar Protein bars, IQ Mix hydration mixes and IQ Joe mushroom coffees are the delicious low sugar brain and body fuel you need to win your day. The ultimate sampler pack is a great way to try all IQ Bar products and Flavors, you get nine IQ Bars, eight IQ Mix sticks, and four IQ Joe Sticks. All IQ Bar products are packed with clean, docious ingredients that keep you physically and mentally fit, like magnesium and lion's mane. RAWR. With over 20,000 5 star reviews and counting, more people than ever are fueling their busy lifestyles with IQ Bars, Brain and body boosting bars, hydration mixes, and mushroom coffees. I have to be honest, I was hoping that I could vouch for the IQ bars myself, but my husband, who actually goes to the gym, unlike me, was so excited that we got some free protein bars, some new ones to try that he ate them all himself between CrossFit or whatever it is that he's doing. And his review is good. I can tell you the IQ mixes, little hydration mixes. If you're not doing the hydration mixes yet, they're important. It's important to hydrate out there and it makes the water yummy. And right now, IQ Bar is offering our special podcast listeners 20% off all IQ Bar products, including the ultimate sampler pack, plus free shipping. To get your 20% off, text bulwark to 64,000. Text bulwark to 64,000. That's bulwark to 64,000. Message and data rates may apply. See terms for details. Yesterday on your Sunday Live that you're doing on substack and YouTube, you talked to Nathaniel Zelensky about specifically the case regarding the Kennedy center and getting Trump's name off of the John F. Kennedy Memorial and also the question of whether the Kennedy center should be closed for renovations. He's the lawyer on that case, so he's interesting on that case. But also there's some broader lessons. Just wondering if you wanted to give us a little bit shorthand of what your takeaways were. Yeah.
- [14:38]
Bill Kristol
Friday had two different judges also halting the slush fund for now. Sort of different K1 Florida, one of these different, different litigants, different cases. One takeaway I think, is the courts can slow things down, maybe reverse them. And a lot of these district judges, I mean, Judge Cooper here is a very well respected district judge, the Kennedy center judge. His opinion is 90 plus pages and very careful. And he's just totally exasperated by the kinds of arguments Justice Department lawyers are making. It does seem like there's more of that going around. District court judges, appellate court, supreme Court. We'll see how much, you know, some of this stuff will get overturned. But I think the courts are proving to be a little more of a guardrail than perhaps one expected. You know, on some of these substantive policy issues which are so important, they, yes, tough for us to intervene against the president, though they did on terrorists and they will do on birthright citizenship. But it's funny on the less, quote, important things, putting your name on the Kennedy center or, you know, in a way, these, the ballroom. In a funny way, it's easier for them to just say, well, look, this is pretty straightforward law where there are processes that have to be followed and you're not following them. Right. In a funny way, this fits more in the, maybe it's a little more in the judges wheelhouses than a kind of taking on a massive economic thing like terrorists than they did tariffs. But anyway, no, I do think it's encouraging. And Trump was very unhappy about that Kennedy Center.
- [15:56]
Tim Miller
He was, he did an extremely long bleat about this and Trump's social media behavior. And this is another, you know, story that feels like we're on Groundhog Day. But he posted like 50 times in one afternoon over the weekend. And it's all insane stuff. It's like half conspiracy theories and rants. And you know, as mentioned earlier, he's, he did the bleed about the war where he's just telling everybody to chill out. Here was his post on, on the judge that you mentioned, Judge Cooper. And I'm not going to read the whole thing because that would take the whole podcast. I mean, it was really, he benefited from that character limit and getting rid of the character limit has kind of allowed him to get a little lengthy and rambly in his posts. But here we go. A Barack Hussein Obama judge named Christopher Cooper has stopped a magnificent structural and aesthetic rebuilding of the Trump Kennedy center, where millions of dollars, material, marble, furniture, steel, air conditioning, heating and so much else was ordered, or soon to be ordered, with the end result being a structure that would no longer be in a potential state of collapse, rusted, rotted and rat and bug infested to the one that would be the finest anywhere in the world. Now that won't happen anymore because a judge whose wife is an anti Trump hater and he is too, decided unprecedentedly to not allow a desperately needed building renovation to go forward. On top of that, he said, rip his name off the building. He's got 20 days to do so, even though a large board of some of the most distinguished people in the country voted unanimously to put that name up. I didn't do it. The board did it because they thought it would be good. He then finishes with a lengthy attack on the judge's wife, Amy Jeffress. Who's a lawyer, who's been working with pro democracy groups and folks that we know. So, I mean, the combination of going after the judge himself, you know, that is very unusual and not the type of behavior we've expected from a president bullying a judge's wife over her work. That is very authoritarian in nature. The Kim Jong Un esque renaming of the thing after himself and then saying he didn't really do it, but it was all these distinguished people that felt it was absolutely necessary that he be put on there. I mean, it all is extremely fascistic and outside of the American tradition. And concerning.
- [18:13]
Bill Kristol
It's crazy. And I mean, as you say, all the posts have become so unhinged and this one has all those elements that you mentioned. This distinguished board just consists literally of his chief of staff and a whole bunch of Trump administration everyone. They're all appointed by him and half of them seem to work for him. So it's ludicrous, of course. And the place has could use some renovations. And it has been getting renovated. The Opera moved about 10 years ago. We had to go to the opera elsewhere in D.C. for years. They renovated the opera house. I mean, it's not like they're letting the place fall down. It's a perfectly nice place to go to concerts. A lot of people go. A lot of people went until Trump took it over and started to ruin it, you know, a year ago. So what struck me most about the post is the very end. He has a sentence where he says something like, our court system is rigged and the political system is rigged and it's all terrible, but I will fight, you know, something like that. And I'm this typical Trump rhetoric and all that. He's used the rigged verb for what, over 10 years? Didn't he say it in 2015, 2016, that Hillary was going to be rigged, the election was going to be rigged against him by Hillary and all this. But I feel like sitting president of the United States, who has already tried to overturn one election result in 2020, saying that both the court system is rigged and the political system is rigged. That's not good for me. Reading that thing kind of brought back. And then reading some of the other news of what they're trying to do about voting lists with the Justice Department and all the other stuff, and he controls the executive branch. And this time, unlike 2020, they're all loyalists and they're down. They're loyalists down 2, 3, 4, 5 levels. I've been a little too putting at the back of my mind the concerns about 2026 and 2028, and I'm now getting those back to the front of my mind because his numbers are horrible. He's all in on the authoritarianism. He's all in on the kleptocracy. Can they really afford to lose. They can afford to lose Congress probably, but can they really afford to lose in 2028 and have the next administration turn over the rocks? Can even afford to have a non super loyalist Republican theoretically take over. So the degree to which we are at a Kim Jong Un, he only trusts his family and he doesn't want to have real elections. Situation is alarming.
- [20:16]
Tim Miller
Is there anything in particular that you're worried about the midterms or is just a general kind of sense of alarm?
- [20:23]
Bill Kristol
Yeah, there. I think it's more, I mean, what the Justice Department is trying to do and I don't fully understand, follow the details as much with mail in voting and stuff. They're trying to butt into the states and localities that run elections, intimidate election observers, discredit Fulton County, Georgia and other places that will be strong Democratic areas in swing states, maybe lay the predicate for then seizing ballots, you know, and having the military involved. That would be the big extra step that we haven't seen yet. Certainly his people, though, have been saying, can't rule out using ice. Nothing wrong with having ICE protect polling places after all. So I don't know. I mean, I feel like this would be something to watch closely, I think over the next two, three months.
- [21:02]
Tim Miller
The good news is there are a lot of lawyers working on this. This is different than 2020 in that sense.
- [21:10]
Bill Kristol
Yes.
- [21:11]
Tim Miller
And I've had Mark Eliason and there's so many others, and I think we'll continue to monitor that. But on that side of things, people aren't getting caught off guard.
- [21:20]
Bill Kristol
Now, what I'd say also is I think the blue state governors, secretaries of state, attorneys general are on top of this. So I don't think he's going to succeed.
- [21:26]
Tim Miller
Or the purple states. That's the other good thing.
- [21:28]
Bill Kristol
Most of the purple states have good.
- [21:30]
Tim Miller
Yeah. Whitmer and Michigan and all the way down. And Shapiro in Pennsylvania and down and, you know, Wisconsin, like a lot of, a lot of these states, Georgia's Republicans
- [21:40]
Bill Kristol
will go Trumpy, but I guess the current ones will still be in power in November. So. Yeah, no, I think that's an important point. The scary thing would be the red states, red state governors cooperating with Trump's Justice Department. You could have real voter suppression in Democratic areas in red states and there are a lot of them. It's not like there are no Democratic members of Congress from Texas or from other states.
- [22:02]
Tim Miller
I know a red state Senate racist. I said the things that I'm the most worried about is, you know, if the Senate ends up hinging on Iowa, let's say Texas, that's alarming. Or Texas or Florida. Right. I got Alaska even, you know, so those are all red areas and that's the, the main area of concern. Plus you know, the delay. California's self owned on the fact that it takes them a month to vote. I mean like if we do it, God, the worst case scenario is you end up in a place where the House hinges on like waiting a month for California to count their mail in ball. And you know, I think obviously the elected officials in California end up doing the right thing, but they just create such a long period of troublemaking. That's another area that I'm concerned about.
- [22:44]
Bill Kristol
But think of the Senate hinges on Texas, which is entirely possible. And you know, there are all these fake charges both by both the Trump's Justice Department but also by the state of Texas that in, you know, black areas in Houston and in other. And in Austin, in Democratic areas in Austin there's been voter fraud and there's this and they've got evidence of that. And they get local Mexicans were voting
- [23:04]
Tim Miller
in the Rio Grande Valley.
- [23:05]
Bill Kristol
That's why Trump. Yeah. Arizona, they get local people, some local people to say this is a fraud here and here's some fake video of this. And so the whole thing gets delayed and so we don't know who the senator from Texas is going to be for a week or two and the entire weight of the federal government starts to and the state government starts to come down. That's where it gets really dicey, I think. Yeah,
- [23:28]
Tim Miller
you know, we're living in pretty uncertain times. Not even the reporters that cover the White House knows what's happening. The President's stupid war is tanking the economy and making everything more expensive. AI overlords are coming, our jobs. There's more cruise ship viruses. It's no wonder most of us are buckling down, saving and looking for ways to protect our future. One way to do that is life insurance. I hate to say it, you're probably underinsured, overpaying and underprotected. Our friends at Selectquote can help. Unlike other one size fit all life insurance companies, select quotes, licensed agents work for you. In as little as 15 minutes I'll compare policies from top rated carriers to find you the best fit for your health and your budget and they work for you for free. No medical exam. No problem. Selectquote partners with providers offering same day coverage up to $2 million without needing to visit your doctor if you have high blood pressure, diabetes or heart disease. Selectquote has partners with policies designed for many pre existing health conditions like those. Head to selectquote.com and a licensed insurance agent will call you right away with the right policy for your life and your budget. Life insurance is never cheaper than it is today. Selectquote they shop, you save, get the right life insurance for you for less and save more than 50% on term life insurance@selectquote.com bulwark today to get started. That's selectquote.com bulwark another kind of ongoing story that's been a little bit on the back burner that's out there is the Epstein cover up, the roiling Epstein cover up with the government. There's two interesting elements of that over the weekend or late last week. One was Bondi as this closed door hearing on Friday where she's getting questioned about this. Notably it's just Jim Comer himself. And then the Democrats like the other Republicans don't even show up for this closed door hearing. The other notable thing there is that Bondi blames Todd Blanche says that he was the point person on the document review. So that will be something to continue to monitor. And then kind of related though, there's a lot of things happening with crazy Nancy Mace. So you know, we're kind of reading between the lines here a little bit. But Trump endorses against her, endorses a lieutenant governor there, Pamela Vette in the governor's primary. Mace is running for governor of South Carolina and it just is noteworthy of him endorsing against her given the fact that she was one of the handful of Republicans that worked with Ro Khanna and Democrats on getting the Epstein files released. Both of those elements, the Republicans not participating in the Bondi hearing, Trump endorsing against people that went against him on that just provides us a few more data points that this is an ongoing cover up that they are interested in continuing to keep the lid on as
- [26:08]
Bill Kristol
much as possible and that he personally is very interested in. I mean the Massey thing, I always felt a lot of the coverage of it. He was a pain in the neck on some other issues too. For the House Republicans and for Trump, Epstein was the thing that he famously was kind of a leader on. Worked with Ro Khanna Bipartisan they were quite effective. And then who were the four Republicans who defected on the discharge petition for Epstein? It was Massie. It was Lauren Boebert whom Trump is now going after. Is he going after he said he was going to go after in Colorado?
- [26:35]
Tim Miller
Yeah. I don't think he's actually endorsed against her. He did call her dumb and his
- [26:39]
Bill Kristol
like, sort of asked for someone to run against her. I think he's now gone against Nancy Mace in South Carolina and Marjorie Taylor Greene left the Congress. He's gone after the four who crossed him on Epstein. That tells me that he cares a lot about Epstein because he hasn't gone after everyone who's crossed him on everything. Cassidy was impeachment cares a lot about not being impeached and he cares a lot about the Epstein files being covered up.
- [26:59]
Tim Miller
And I think in the case of John Cornyn, he cared about protecting his own MAGA backside because of the potential backlash of him going against Cornyn. Cornyn's scorpion and the frog post. And it's been anything more pathetic than this John Cornyn might be. It's a competitive category. So if you want to give me nominations in the comments, I'm happy to hear other people. But I think he might be the most humiliated person during the Trump era, like the most cucked of the Republicans because he just. All of the other people that Trump's gone after like, showed an inch of backbone and one at least at one moment, not nearly as much as we wanted, but that's why he went after them. I mean, Pence, the most famous example of this Corny never really ever bucked him and, like, Trump still stung him, to use the scorpion analogy. And now after Trump ends his career, he's like posting this cryptic. I mean, it's not very cryptic, but, like, he won't. He don't name Trump's name. He's like, there's the old fable the frog and the scorpion and you know you're going to get stung and be careful. And it's just, it's unbelievably pathetic.
- [28:07]
Bill Kristol
No, when I saw it first, I thought I must be missing something here. Like, he's trying to make a different point than it seems like this fable is making and has always been invoked to make, but in which he appears to be the fool. I mean, that's what. Right. He was the credulous person who thought he could by voting always with Trump, by. That would be the equivalent the frog giving the scorpion the riot on his back across the river. He thought he would get Pardoned, but he didn't. So what's the lesson? I mean, God forbid he should actually. Well, let's see. I mean, I'm very. Do you think Corner will vote against Trump on some of these things, the way Cassidy seems to be willing to do now that he's a sort of lame duck in his last six months in the Senate?
- [28:45]
Tim Miller
Case by case, I think. Yeah, I think case by case, for sure. I'm in tbd.
- [28:50]
Bill Kristol
I'm not getting my hopes up, though.
- [28:52]
Tim Miller
No, me neither. The other little intra Republican political drama over the weekend was a New York Times piece about Trump's relationship with J.D. vance, and just want to give you a couple of the highlights of that. The lead of the Time story is this. In recent conversations with aides and allies, President Trump often interjects with the question about his Vice President, does J.D. vance have what it takes to go all the way? He usually answers his own question. He's not so sure elsewhere in the article. Susie Wiles, I guess, had a meeting with Vance where she told him his tweeting was undignified and not vice Presidential Trump. I guess this is just such a funny, like, just about Trump's mental mania and compulsions. Apparently Trump's been saying to Vance, I'm more of a peace person than you are, but I had to do it. When bringing up the Iran war, anytime JD Offers some light pushback on the choices in Iran, Trump brings up his Ohio State football trophy fumble. If you remember that. If you don't remember that, I did a funny video with Pablo Torre on that about a year ago, so you can go watch that in November. The president wondered aloud why Mr. Vance was not more subservient, like the officials who work for President Xi Jinping of China. Why don't you behave like that? JD Always butts into conversations.
- [30:09]
Bill Kristol
Assuming most of this reporting is pretty accurate. Someone's telling the Times this and it's presumably not J.D. vance's people. Right. So I think some senior White House people are not entirely on J.D. vance aside, which is kind of interesting in its own way. I don't know if they're pro Rubio
- [30:23]
Tim Miller
or the Susie Wiles meeting. One is particularly interesting because.
- [30:26]
Bill Kristol
Yeah. How many people were in that meeting?
- [30:28]
Tim Miller
Your friend Stephen Chung, the White House spokesperson, posted about how that was fake news, and the Times replied to them. The communications, like the official Times organ, said, we have two sources. We stand by our reporting. And it's kind of like it'd be one thing if it's like the Daily Beat. Nothing against The Daily Beast. But you might wonder, maybe they have two sources who heard it through a person. And it's probably true. But if the Times is like saying we have two sources, we stand by our reporting, to me, the source kind of has to be Susie Wiles. Honestly, I don't even know who else it would be for. The Times go to the mat on just a little detail like that. And so anyway, that's pretty telling.
- [31:05]
Bill Kristol
And we know that Susie Wiles does talk to the media occasionally. Right. Wasn't there that whole profile of her where she was going on about various problems with the Trump White House? And Tim Walls, I guess, has said that he, when he talked, he said this publicly, he said this to us privately in the Green Room in Minneapolis, but he would call the White House and talk to Susie Wiles and she would sort like, oh, my God, I didn't know Trump. I leave the White House at 8pm I can't control what Trump does after that. And yeah, I think, don't you think generally the amount of leaking from within the administration and certainly within the White House is much greater than it was a few months ago? I find that sort of heartening. I feel like this because it was
- [31:40]
Tim Miller
kind of notable, actually the opposite. Like the first turn, there was so much.
- [31:42]
Bill Kristol
They very much thought that.
- [31:43]
Tim Miller
Yeah. And they locked it down. As somebody who's worked for a vice president and is this just kind of indignity, just kind of standard fare? Does it. It feel worse than average?
- [31:53]
Bill Kristol
I mean, the idea that she would say it directly to Vance. She's much younger. She is. And he's much younger than Trump, Bush Jr. But I don't know. So in my day when I was Vice President Quayle chief of staff, the occasional little ruffles and getting crosswise for the White House and they wouldn't come to the vice president. I think because Bush had been vice president and because there was so much more respect in those days for just stature and status and so forth, protocol almost. I don't really think any White House staff would go directly to the vice president and say X. They would come to me and say, you know, your boss, this thing he said was kind of a little off and making you tell him not to say that again. It was always not my most pleasant sort of being an intermediary there, but he was fine.
- [32:35]
Tim Miller
Who would have been the person at the White House?
- [32:37]
Bill Kristol
Well, so Sunuda was chief of staff and then Skinner. Sunuda was pretty outspoken. And he and I ended up not getting along. So I wasn't the best intermediary, but. And then others, I mean, who just. It was more them. Maybe occasionally. Marlon Fitzwater, the press guy was a very nice guy, and so he was a little more. But they were transmitting messages, I'd say in each of these cases, incidentally, they were transmitting messages from Bush. There was never any doubt in my mind if they wanted to go to the trouble of telling me to tell, in effect, televised. Vice President Bush didn't want to tell Quayle, you know, but so it confirms for me that the fact that there are these random different leaks all fits into the pattern that Trump doesn't trust Vance to be his heir, which I've never thought he did or would, incidentally. Why would he? I mean, honestly, he doesn't know the, you know, and I don't think he trusts any of them. There's now a Rubio boomlet. Does he trust either of them to really allow the theft and the kleptocracy to go on and to allow none of it to be exposed and all the family stuff? I don't know. We're heading toward an Ivanka Trump, you know, nomination.
- [33:33]
Tim Miller
Just gonna say that I think Vance more than Rubio. You just kind of maybe unintentionally made the best case for Vance. Right. Which is him and Don Jr's fake friendship and Vance's willingness over the years to totally sell himself out and shame himself on behalf of his various mentors. It would seem like that would be a more trustworthy person to keep the grift going than Rubio. But tbd, plenty of time to talk about that. Okay, deep breath. Time for some Graham Platner discourse. Over the weekend, there was a Wall Street Journal story about the. I guess we call him the presumptive main Democratic Senate nominee. The actual election hasn't happened yet, but he apparently told one of the early staffers on the campaign as part of the self oppo process that his wife had discovered that there were some texts that he was sending to other women, sexual attacks. He had a kick profile that we've now got to see the picture of of him in a towel with his shirtless torso. That staffer and maybe some other sources, I guess, went to the Wall Street Journal and the Times and told them this. So they've reported the story noteworthy on that timeline. You know, they got married in 2023. So this is, you know, part of the story of Platner is that like he did these Reddit posts back when he had all these indiscretions and he had ptsd and he's come around. This most recent situation doesn't seem to fit that timeline, really. It's like in the last couple of years as he was looking into a candidacy, there's pretty powerful video, to be honest, from his wife defending his behavior and saying that they're going to marriage counseling. Platner kind of quasi denied the story in a press conference, kind of a weird press conference yesterday. And so a lot of discourse about this. Everybody has thoughts, some of them about Platner, some of them about their own feelings of hypocrisy and integrity and meta conversations. It yields a lot of conversations that aren't really about the main Senate race at all. But I have some thoughts, but I figured I'd just give you the table first.
- [35:42]
Bill Kristol
I haven't followed the race closely. Probably once Mills dropped out or even when she was the designated by Schumer candidate, I was a little dubious about that, but I was dubious about Platner. And I thought, I'm not going to be so happy with the main Democratic Senate nominee this year. But you know what? There are a lot of races and it's not my, you know, I don't have much. I can't control this. And it's better if the Democrats win the Senate. So I'm for the Democrats winning the Senate. And I will say my only general point this is an evasion I will grant, but I think it's a legitimate evasion, is if you look at the roster of, let's say the Democrats were to win the Senate and who would have to win the races that they would win. It's mostly people who I'm fine with, you know, and who the world should be fine with. They may not be perfect. They may be too liberal on some issues and all this, but no one thinks that Sherrod Brown or Mary Pattola in Alaska, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, Roy Cooper. I assume Josh Turek may win in Iowa tomorrow, Talamico in Texas. These are not people who, like, you know, one has to be horrified that they're the Democratic nominees who are going to make. We're putting the Senate in play. Roy Cooper in North Carolina. That's been my rationale for not paying close attention to Maine in particular. I did look after the story broke this weekend. I looked to see what this guy Costello, who's running in the primary, which I think is a week for tomorrow in Maine, did he have an outside chance? We've got to send him 250 bucks. He's a normal guy. He seems Like a normie dem, kind of a bureaucrat and a lawyer and stuff. Have worked on environmental protection for most of his career in his 60s. But he seems to be 65 points behind. So I think it's going to be hard for him to catch up.
- [37:10]
Tim Miller
Yeah, I think it'll be hard for him to catch up, too. Okay, I've got a long sermon on it, so just buckle up, have a sip of tea. It's complicated. And I think that a lot of people, like the big Platner supporters and both the good faith and bad faith opponents of Platner want to like, sand this down into kind of a one dimensional question. Like, the supporters of him really want to say, hey, they're really coming after him because he's this economic populist and he's a challenge to the status quo and don't let them do that. That's kind of true. But if he was a moderate candidate that also was like, you know, had this whole roster of history that he does, I think that there would also be a lot of consternation about that. So I don't think it's like, quite true how they're putting it. Like, the opponents of Platinum just want to say, like, Nazi tattoo hypocrite, you, you can't support this person. You can't be consistent and oppose Trump and also be for Platinum. You know, there's a lot of that kind of discourse out there. And like, the reality is that it's just, it is more complicated than all that. And he's not running for president, he's running for the Senate. So, like, the negatives of this, on the one hand, I would say from a political matter, and I've said this from the start about him, it does feel kind of unnecessarily risky for such an important race as Maine. You know, like throwing them in the, throwing a Platinum in the Nebraska Senate race. And it's kind of like, well, we'll just, let's give this a try. Like, maybe the people really do want an uncouth left populist. And it'd be a worthwhile political science experiment to see how that goes in Nebraska. But the main race, Maine's a blue state. And this is a point I'm stealing from Matt Iglesias. But all you need to do is to win the Maine Senate races, win the Kamala Harris voters. So it's not really a great place for an experiment of can we win back these Obama, Trump voters or working class types or whatever. Like Kamala Harris won't Maine. So you just need to win Kamala Harris voters. So on the one hand, like, it seems kind of unnecessarily risky to do this in Maine. Another thing I just kind of been reflecting on personally, because this was a take I've had for a while, is that I, you know, it's hard to know, like, the future ramifications of getting on board with somebody. And I think that, like, the echoes of the Clinton, like, personal behavior issues continue to cause problems for the Democrats until 2016. I mean, it's like Clinton had the Monica Lewinsky blowjob in, what, 1996 or something. Whatever. It was like, it was like 20 years later. Like there were echoes. And so you don't always know, like, when you're kind of, you know, getting on board with something, you know, somebody that has unknown baggage, like, you don't always know what the unintended consequences will end up being. And I don't think anybody, even platters, most loyal supporters would look at us and say, hey, there's nothing more that's going to come out. Like, obviously more is going to come out. We just don't know what. Exactly. Exactly. So that's the case for maybe just going back to whatever the guy that's at 5% that seems to not have any baggage. Is that not a better bet? Just in this case? On the other hand, he has demonstrated extraordinary political skill. And I think that a lot of his opponents don't want to say that. He's traveled Maine a lot. The voters, I've talked to people about this. Voters in Maine have got to know him. It's not a California race. It's. It's a state, you know, where like, everybody kind of, like, knows him or a family member. He's been doing the town halls. People like him. He's really talented. Like, even if he's not your cup of tea. Exactly. Like, he's, he's, like, objectively, like, a really dynamic speaker. And, like, his message is resonating with people. And so, you know, like, that's what democracy is like. Part of democracy is, like, that the people are going to go along with the people that they, you know, feel like, reflect their values. On top of that, this is, again, maybe where I'm a solo outlier and people can hold me to account on this, but I'm not really a pearl clutcher on cheating. I do think that's kind of between the person and their spouse. There's been a long history of senators cheating. The idea that grandfather would be the first senator that is unfaithful to their spouse? I don't think so. There have been good senators who are cheaters and bad senators who are faithful. It's just like, it doesn't really have anything to do with the job. And, like, when it came to Trump, that was, like, never. I have, like, a long, lengthy list of things that I dislike about Donald Trump and, like, his horrible behavior to his wives, like, is not at the top of my list. The sexual assault is for sure. And, you know, there's something to the fact of, like, the hypocrisy of the Christian conservatives going along with him. But, you know, look, if you are a David French or somebody who does, like, genuinely care about that, I respect that. Like, just for my sake, it's like, like, I mean, the whole history of the Senate is people flying to D.C. and being away from their spouses and behaving badly. So this is no new thing under the sun. This takes me to my final part of my rant when I look at this, which is I really struggle to take seriously the criticisms of Platner, particularly on the Nazi tattoo, from people who are fully in lockstep with what this administration is doing. And Sarah said something on the secret podcast that piqued a thought of mine on the plane, and I started to start to roll around in my head. And it's particularly when you compare Platner's Nazi tattoo to how Susan Collins handled the sending of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador. So just bear with me for a second. The critique of Platner, I guess, is that because he got this tattoo, the skull and crossbones, he's a Nazi. And so you can't support a Nazi, but there's not any really evidence that he supports any of those policies at this point. And our government literally sent people to a foreign prison camp based only on their nation of origin and the tattoos that they had. That happened a year ago. We did Nazi adjacent shit to people based on their tattoos. The United States government did. Susan Collins is the chair of the Appropriations Committee. She could have stopped that. They could have stopped funding for ICE and for the program that was sending innocent Venezuelans without due process to a torture prison because of their tattoos. She didn't do it. We looked into this, and she made one statement about the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case where she said this was troubling. Maybe she said something somewhere else that we couldn't find. But there was no opposition from her in the Senate to this. And so when I hear people say, like, oh, Your choices between a moderate senator and a person with a Nazi tattoo. Like, no, actually, the choice is between somebody that got a Nazi tattoo and covered it up and a senator who went along with our policy, American policy, to send people to an internment camp based on their tattoos and based on their race. That's we did to Venezuelans. You know, you look at that and all of a sudden this sort of, like, moral grandstanding on behalf of Susan Collins, it just really fucking pisses me off. As the chairman of the appropriation committee, she has the power of the purse. She could have stopped anything that Trump has done. The ICE campaign in Minneapolis that killed Alex Preddy and Renee Goode, the drug boat bombings that we're doing in the Caribbean, the stupid Iran war, the triumphal arch, like, et cetera. She could. Should have held up any of that, held up the power of the purse, and she hasn't. So, like, yeah, she voted to convict him, but she also voted to confirm rfk. She's voted to confirm all these horrible judges. So I'm just. She hasn't demonstrated any independence on any of this stuff. And it's a complicated race. I'm not arguing that there's not any baggage or any ethical considerations to consider. Like, when the question is, if Trump was to propose another migrant internment camp for people with tattoos in 2027, it seems like Graham Platner would oppose that and Susan Collins would be for it. And so that's where we're at at this point. Not ideal, but that's kind of my assessment of the situation. I do continue to be concerned that there's more to come about Platner that's even worse than all this, but tbd. So do you have any thoughts on that?
- [45:21]
Bill Kristol
I think I was already pretty much where your rant ended up, but that was very well, well articulated and explained, and I'm really very much with you. The only thing I'd say, if there's more to come, I mean, look, there's still a week till the primary. There's then a month, I think, about, in which the Democratic nominee could drop, according to main law, could drop out without having for reason could withdraw himself from the race, even though having won the nomination. And then I think the party would appoint a successor nominee. And, you know, look, if it's really bad, people should urge him to drop out. I don't think he will. But again, I mean, Cuomo did quit the governorship, right. And, you know, for when he was charged for things, and with a lot of pressure from Democrats, Al Franken, I think. I think it was good that Cuomo quit. Al Franken, I'm a little more dubious about that. But he also resigned from the Senate under pressure. That's a very different thing from giving possibly the 50th seat plus the VP. So the key control of the Senate back to Trump. I think that is a different level of calculation. It's not a matter of being opportunistic or unprincipled. That's a principle. It's a principled position. The country would be much better off if Donald Trump did not have Republican apologists controlling the Senate. So. But I'm somewhat on board if we, depending on what we learn about calling on him to step aside if we think he should not be senator from Maine. But as you say, it also is up to the voters at some point. I mean, just one last point, I don't agree.
- [46:43]
Tim Miller
And also, a governor's and presidential race is different than a Senate presidential race is totally different.
- [46:47]
Bill Kristol
And governor, governor, considerably different. I think it's a really good point. I remember being outraged as a youngish Republican when Democrats kept voting for Ted Kennedy for senator from Massachusetts after Chappaquiddick, which Chappaquiddick was horrible. I mean, it was the death of a young woman and he behaved horribly and lied about it. And I remember thinking, what's wrong with the Democrats? And I think I wasn't wrong to be outraged, but I was also a little bit naive maybe not to see that he was, I mean, in his case, a little complicated. He was a Kennedy and he was. Anyway, now, of course, he's a whatever, served another 30 years and did some good things. And I don't know, it now seems almost wrong to criticize and bring that back up. But I'm just saying, in truth, in the 70s, I was. That was one of my little outrages that kept me going as a young Republican.
- [47:30]
Tim Miller
Legit.
- [47:30]
Bill Kristol
Somewhat legit, I think. And so I think I'm sort of where you are. And we shouldn't under. On the one hand, it's not the fidelity thing exactly, but it's legitimate to be outraged by people's character. And I guess people do have to decide how much the accumulated evidence we have of Platner not being quite what we might want nonetheless doesn't add up to a disqualification on character. I mean, that would be, I guess, the thing, and I guess I don't know what you're saying is you're doubtful that at this point we're at a disqualification level.
- [47:56]
Tim Miller
I am. I mean, Again, because he apologized for his posts, and I don't really care if he's cheating on his wife. I just, I don't.
- [48:04]
Bill Kristol
The tattoo thing is fake. I mean, I'm not sad. I don't really take the that seriously. That's not terrible. He's not a Nazi. I mean, he's not a.
- [48:11]
Tim Miller
And I think there are a bunch of red flags, though. And so it's like, okay, well, now we don't know. And that's the part that is scary. It's just like, you know, you don't know what you don't know, and you don't want to be in a position where you find yourself defending the indefensible. Like, we're not there. And in the Senate, like, the amount of damage that Trump controlling the Senate would do is significantly more than anything that one Democratic senator could do. It's at an executive position. And so to me, that question is pretty clear. Obviously, there are other considerations, and there's no primary isn't over yet, et cetera. But the people of Maine also seem to have made a determination. So we'll see. One other thing on the Collins Appropriations, among the other things that they're appropriating. I saw you did a post on this with the ballroom. He also announced the bunker and the drone port. I mean, it's pretty crazy. Like, when you look at the overhead picture of the White House right now and you have, like, the MMA arena on the front of it and the East Wing is in rubble, and now, like, he's demanding that they jam through this. Like, again, that's another thing. Where is Susan Collins? Like, is, you know, if she's supposedly an institutionalist, like, you would think that the Senate Appropriations Chair, who was an institutionalist, would have demanded that the executive branch, like, come to them with the plans for what they're going to do with East Wing, get it funded, get it approved, get it signed, right? And like, that's not what he did. They just bulldozed the East Wing. And now he's like, hey, I need a bunker for in case I need to stay in here.
- [49:42]
Bill Kristol
There are underground facilities, let's call them a bunker. At the White House, Cheney famously was taken to what, on 9 11, right? We have photos from within there. Either that's not in the East Wing, in which case there remains presumably quite good underground facility that could be strengthened and even more, but isn't susceptible to drought attack and so forth, or it was under the East Wing, in which case Trump shouldn't have bulldozed the whole thing. I mean, so I feel like it's a totally fake justification. Right? I mean, it has nothing to do with the ballroom. If we have to have better anti aircraft stuff on the roof of the White House. Again, I believe it's publicly known that there are abilities to protect the White House complex that go beyond having a Secret Service agent with a shark sharpshooter. And if those abilities need to be strengthened, they could be strengthened right now. And it doesn't have anything to do with the destruction of the East Ring or building the ballroom. So it's totally fake. People really need to come to grips with that, not need to come to grips with that. I mean, people might want to acknowledge that though, that it's not. We're not having a serious discussion about, about presidential security, let alone national security. It's entirely his. He was more honest about this at the beginning. I kind of like Trump better when he was being a little more honest. He wanted the ballroom because we should have a great ballroom because he's a big ballroom guy, you know, I mean.
- [50:55]
Tim Miller
Ye. Well, I mean, we do know also that Trump was in the bunker during the George Floyd protests and maybe he just decided he didn't like the accommodations.
- [51:02]
Bill Kristol
Right.
- [51:03]
Tim Miller
All right, final topic. As mentioned, the MMA fight. We've got the America 250 now about a month away. We talked about this a little bit with Liz on Friday. Six of the nine singers have dropped out. Trump did a post over the weekend. He's like, if these singers don't have the courage to do, you know, in the patriotism, then I'll just have to give a MAGA rally speech. And I don't know the whole thing I just find so depressing the idea that he's going to give this MAGA rally speech. And you could just imagine any other world that we were in with literally any other president, where it was a really nice celebration of the American anniversary that maybe didn't live up to Eddie Glaude's demands, but also wouldn't have sent us all into a spiral of misery. But that's not, that's not what we're going to get.
- [51:50]
Bill Kristol
Yeah, I remember that from the 200th anniversary with Gerald Ford. It was nice and it wasn't particularly focused on Gerald Ford and it wasn't the most meaningful and deep thing I've ever lived through, but it was appropriate. David Frum has a good piece about this in the Atlantic over the weekend. And I guess I wrote about Friday in Morning Shots too. So it's depressing that he's hijacking it all. And the triumphal arch everything is being justified by 250. Right. I mean, the stupid $250 bill. He's such an idiot. I mean, kind of childishness. Right? 250. It's a number or so. Going to have a 250 doll and the slush fund is going to be the for $1,776,000,000, because that's 1776. I mean, it's so juvenile, but also offensive, of course, that it's his attempt to personalize and. And hijack and politicize it all and make it all about him. So it deserves to be discredited. And it's depressing that it's sort of dragging the 250th anniversary down into the sewer with him in a way.
- [52:45]
Tim Miller
Yeah.
- [52:46]
Bill Kristol
My slightly optimistic take is this, that July 4th has never been about what happens in Washington. Yes, they have big fireworks display here. They have big fireworks all over the country. And they have, more importantly, local fireworks displays. We have them at Langley High School right here, even though we're only 10 miles outside Washington. And people go to that, and people go to their barbecues, if they go to whatever, they go to local parades, certainly in every small town and every other city, too. So on the one hand, it's important to discredit what Trump is doing. But I guess my only slightly upbeat side of it is we should recapture the spirit of July 4th, which has always been local and dispersed, and celebrations and barbecues and backyards ranging from that to gatherings at Langley High School of 2000 People to watch some local fireworks and so forth. And I think that's important to kind of talk about as we get into July 4th, I was thinking of getting in touch with the no Kings people, and they should say that if they want that the next no Kings event is July 4th, and they're not going to actually organize anything for on it, but they would REGARD Everyone celebrating July 4th locally as making a statement for no Kings, because you know what July 4th is about. It really is about no Kings. Right. And Trump's tried to hijack it here in D.C. so it's all the more important that all the rest of us appropriately celebrate. It doesn't have to be fancy. It doesn't have to be a lengthy perorations or speeches or anything. It just has to be whatever you like to do on July 4th. But think of that as we, the citizens, celebrating July 4th in an appropriate anti royalist, anti autocratic way. Does that make sense?
- [54:14]
Tim Miller
I love it. It does make sense. We'll leave it there. That's Bill Crystal. We'll have him back here next Monday and we will be back here tomorrow for another edition of the podcast. Look forward to seeing you all then. PE. The Borg Podcast is brought to you thanks to the work of lead producer Katie Cooper, associate producer Ansley Skipper, and with video editing by Katie Lutz and audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.