A (2:40)

Well, the holiday doesn't begin until tonight, so I'm strictly, I'm acting in accord with Jewish law. My rabbi is going to be fine. As long as he can watch this before sundown, he'll be happy. So that's good.

B (2:50)

You'd think having gone to George Washington University, I would have been familiar with exactly how the holiday works, but apparently not. I was just happy to get bonus holidays off when I, when I went to school. All right, I want to start with the biggest news of the weekend, which comes from Carol Lennig, one of my favorite podcast guests and one of my favorite co panelists on the Nicole Wallace Show. Hopefully we'll be talking to her later this week. And she reports about an undercover operation last year in which the FBI recorded Tom Homan, the White House border czar, accepting 50 grand in cash after indicating that he could help the agents win government contracts if Trump were to win again. The investigation was launched after a subject in a separate investigation said that Homan was soliciting payments. So maybe not a one time thing. The Trump administration has shut down the case, Bill. I mean, Don Homan is going to work this morning, I guess is the biggest top line news here, which is just absolutely crazy and unprecedented in any type of administration, that this, not only would they shut it down, but that this man is going to continue to be a top, you know, law enforcement official for the country.

A (3:57)

Yeah, it is pretty amazing. I'm glad you're having Carolig on later this week. That's great.

B (4:01)

Hopefully she's, hopefully if she's been pressured, now that I've said it live, you know, totally guilt tripped into it.

A (4:06)

Now we love, I phrased her and I praised her in one of the shows.

B (4:08)

She's busy. She's busy. She's out there making, you know, you know, breaking news, interesting backstory.

A (4:13)

I mean, this tiny footnote on it. So she was at the Washington Post for, I think 25 years, won four Pulitzer prizes. Really an excellent investigative reporter. Really wonderful work on this Secret Service. People might remember some of those stories that came out. Those were, that was entirely her. I think she turned it into a book. Right. And part of the Washington Post collapse under Bezos, she took a buyout, like, almost. Almost so many of them did and ends. But luckily she's at msnbc, where they let her write these pretty long. This was a long investigated piece done with Ken Delaney, who's also a good reporter. So just to say, very well sourced. They're working the system to get information in an effective way, which is heartening. And they got documents, so she actually quotes documents. It's in a way, very simple. Right. There's an actual. I mean, there was an FBI St. Holman actually gets kind of drawn in. It sounds like by accident. It's a counterintelligence thing. So it's not even true that the Biden Justice Department was going after a critic, Tom Homan. He kind of comes into it by accident. Once they discover that he's interested from this other person they're going after, I guess that he's interested in this. They set up this sting. He's happy to take his $50,000 in a Cava bag and.

B (5:19)

Cava, I believe, pronounced cava.

A (5:21)

Did I say what? Did I say cava?

B (5:22)

Yeah, cava.

A (5:23)

I'm confused. You know, I've been to Cava Medi. There's one right near us in McLean. The grandchildren are big. Kava F. Oh, yeah.

B (5:30)

You like the sug. What kind of sauce do you put on?

A (5:32)

I like the lamb meatballs with avocado or something like that, kind of spicy lamb meatballs. I haven't tried that, but I say in the. In morning shots that this. And you. If you go to their website, which I did for eight seconds, they're advertising some new dish, which I haven't tried, so people feel. Should feel free to give us a judgment of that. Some spicy chicken schwarma or something. Anyway, kava. What's interesting is they put out a statement. You know, these are good reporters. And the Trump administration felt required to respond to the speech, which was sort of interesting. In a statement from Patel and Blanche, the number two guy at justice, they don't challenge a single fact. I mean, this is interesting. Some of these other things they. Oh, it's lies, it's false. I mean, literally no one has denied that Tom Holman took $50,000 in cash in a paper bag in September almost exactly a year ago, September 20, 2024, thinking that this was what he was thinking. The person who gave him the money said that basically this was to get him to make good decisions once he's in the Trump administration. If Trump were to win, that would benefit somebody, their business interests.

B (6:33)

Yeah, they're posing as business leaders that wanted government contracts. And it's a strange so it's very explicit.

A (6:39)

There's no other. It's not a tip for, it's not a tip for having been a good guy in the past. It's not something else. And it's also $50,000 in a bag in cash. That's kind of a little suspicious, I'm just going to say. And but they haven't challenged those facts. They didn't challenge the fact that it was an ongoing investigation. The Biden Justice Department seems to have behaved very responsibly. They didn't leak it before the election. They wanted to wait to see what would happen if he came into government and followed through. This is ongoing. The people in the Public Integrity Division of Justice think it's a real case and they have pretty good standards for this. And then it gets shut down by the Trump people. None of that is denied in the statement by Patel and Blanche. They just say, well there was no credible evidence of a crime so we just shut it down. So we have the crime, we have the bribe I would call it. We have the COVID up. And I hope a lot more investigating gets done including by I mean it would be nice if the Republican Congress took a look. I'm not holding my breath about that. But Democrats can cause some trouble I think at least.

B (7:36)

Well I mean they're still open ended questions like just for starters, at the most basic where is the 50 grand? Like what did he do with it? Did he pay taxes on it? Is it under his bed? You know, did he use it to buy strippers? I mean I don't know.

A (7:48)

I can't remember from when I was in the White House. I don't know if you have to make your tax returns public or just you put make a statement I think public of your holdings. But anyway it serves perfectly. The least one could ask and I hope people are going crazy asking this today, both the media and Democrats and everyone else is. Well, yeah. What happened to the money? What did you do? Did you pay taxes on it? Did you declare it? Do you still have it? I mean what's the story there? And then of course, well there are many, many other questions to be asked as well obviously.

B (8:15)

Yeah. I mean and there's precedent for this. I mean Jim traffic and went to jail for this like for taking bribes but like not paying taxes on it. Right. So there's a tax angled everything. You mentioned it in passing but I think it was worth sitting on again that the supposedly weaponized biden Justice Department didn't say anything about this and didn't say anything about it before the election, but also didn't say anything about it in the interim. Right. Like these are people in the Department of Justice and the FBI that were doing their job, that were acting, you know, according to just normal processes. And the result of it is the actual folks politicizing the Justice Department now come in and shut this thing down. And you know, as Megyn Kelly said to me on Twitter, they don't care about it. They haven't just shut down this case, they essentially shut down the Public Integrity Division. Yes, that is a straightforward story. And while the 50 grand is kind of small potatoes compared to the billions that Trump is getting in his stable coin and other crypto coins and all these other corrupt acts that we've seen around the Trump family and the Wick Cuff family and others close to the president, this, to me, I talked about this a little bit over the weekend is like, it's so easy to understand. You know, any person can, has watched a movie and understands 50 grand and a fast food bag, right? Like, it is, it's not cryptocurrency, it's not international, it's not, you know, making a deal about AI chips. Like, it's just like dude is taking cash to hand out contracts. And the Trump administration doesn't care about it because they don't care about corruption if it's one of their guys. I don't know. I feel like that's something that can have some staying power. What do you think?

A (9:52)

And it'll be good if some people who are Trump supporters more or less did say they cared about it. National Review had a fairly strong little piece by Andy McCarthy at least acknowledging this kind of a problem. And we need to have. Congress should look into it, they said. So we'll see if I'd like for.

B (10:09)

Somebody that's in good standing with MAGA to be able to write that. I mean, kudos to Andy McCarthy, I guess.

A (10:14)

Yeah, no, I agree. It'll be interesting if any Republican even thinks, like I should actually call for more facts or something like that. Or ask the questions you just asked.

B (10:21)

And it is crazy like that. You know, we always gloss over this like there's been a single Republican elected official at the time of this taping that's like that he has even done the Susan Collins. Like, I am concerned. You're not concerned about the top law and this person is a law enforcement official. It's not like some random staffer in the EPA or Like a deputy press secretary or whatever. Like that would be any better. This is supposed to be the Law and order administration. Tom Homan is deporting people based on their legal status. Tom Homan has, like, people's freedoms and their lives in his hand, and he's just being openly corrupt, accepting bribes. And everybody's okay with that. And it's. That is everybody in the Republican Party is totally okay with that. And that is crazy.

A (11:04)

And I do think, I don't know if you agree with this, that one reason I might have a little more political salience is some of these business guys, it's like, what a surprise that they're doing sleazy deals and whatever, payoffs, in effect, payoffs at all. Homan, I mean, he's reprehensible in so many ways, in my opinion. But one thought, maybe I kind of even thought maybe he's just a nativist bigot, but, I mean, he's a bulldog. And this is what he's done for his life, and this is what he truly believes. And he is, as you say, spent life in.

B (11:33)

Lord, he looks more like an ideologue, right?

A (11:35)

Yes. Taking the $50,000 of cash and a paper bag. I mean, amazing.

B (11:42)

I enjoyed AOC's tweet about this. Something to the effect of, like, who's the illegal now? Tom Homan. Homan. Being an illegal, I think also puts into a different light and context, like, what they're doing with ICE and like, what their plans are and what their messaging is around it and the credibility around it for regular fol. I had a friend in Denver that messaged me and asked if I'd been seeing the ads that ICE is running in apparently sanctuary cities across the country. I don't watch a ton of network TV in New Orleans, so maybe they're running them here, but I had not seen it. And we grabbed this one, which was running in Sacramento, but it seems like it's run a bunch of places. I saw people talking about it running in Seattle and elsewhere, and I just want to play this ad, which is. It's fucking horrifying. Let's just listen to it.

A (12:32)

Attention, Sacramento law enforcement. You took an oath to protect and serve, to keep your family, your city safe. But in sanctuary cities, you're ordered to stand down while dangerous illegals walk free. Join ICE and help us catch the worst of the worst.

B (12:49)

Drug traffickers, gang members, creditors.

A (12:52)

Join the mission to protect America with bonuses up to $50,000 and generous benefits. Apply now.

B (12:58)

Join.ice.gov Our tax dollars are paying for that. That is like out of a spoof. That's out of a Mike Judge movie or something. That is horrific. It's just like, hey, if you're a cop and you're upset that you're not able to hassle Brown people more aggressively, join ICE. We'll give you 50 grand of your neighbor's taxpayer dollars so that you can bully them more on behalf of Tom Holman. The corrupt racist Borders are.

A (13:25)

And I like the fact that they're offering $50,000 as the, as the inducement that maybe that number was stuck in Tom Homan's mind for some reason. Right. That that's the appropriate. That's what it costs to get someone.

B (13:37)

Yeah, yeah. Tom Owen's like, he can win me over with 50 grand. Maybe I can win over these corrupt cops and get them to come work for ice for 50 grand too. That is, that is a, that's a good, astute observation, Bill Crystal. It could be a South Park. If it was a South park ad this week, like, what would they even change? Like, really, it's just, it's truly astonishing that that's like, where we are and that those ads are like running on TV in this country, that we're paying for them.

A (14:04)

The kind of people who are joining ICE are presumably to some degree, the people who are responding to that commercial. The kind of people who are not joining ICE are probably the cops who think that's bad. You know, who's going to be staffing these new. How many are there? 30, 40,000 positions at ICE by two or three years from now. It's just part of the. What's really scary about the fact that this is not an eight month administration, but a three, but a four year administration. Maybe getting rid of Homuth. If he could be shamed. They don't do shame. But if he could be somehow driven out of office or Trump could decide he's too much of a burden. I'm not sure that would change anything with Steve Miller there, but maybe it would do a little good. But again, it does bring home. I mean, how that reconciliation bill, all that money for ice, and these are the kind of people they're recruiting into ICE.

B (14:48)

Still chuckling at that. The 50 grand bribe was good enough for Homan, so now it's going to be good enough for the cops. Give them the same amount. Boy, you got to go get a strategic reserve of kava bags to pay off all of the, all the new ICE officials, y'. All. You know, I still love a good night out in fact, I got two concerts I'm going to this week, so watch out. And luckily I found when you know, I don't want to deal with the after effects of the next day, it's nice to turn to the products for our sponsor. Soul Seoul is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes in the delicious hemp derived THC and CBD products designed to boost your mood and help you unwind. Their best selling out of Office Gummies were designed to provide a mild relaxing buzz, boost your mood and enhance creativity and relaxation. With five different strengths, you can tailor the dose to fit your vibe from a gentle microdose to the newest 15 milligram gummy for a more elevated experience. It's kind of like the double black diamond, okay. Of the Seoul Gummy Experience. So make sure you've been down the slopes a few times before you jump straight into the double black diamond. All right? Bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to Seoul today. Right now, Seoul is offering my audience 30% off your entire order. Go to getsoul.com and use the code the bulwark. That's getsoul.com, promo code the bulwark for 30% off. Speaking of corruption at the heart of our justice system, the president pushed out the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Eric Siebert, at the end of last week. The stated claim was that he had ties to Democrats, was a rhino. The kind of on background claim was that he had been taxed with going after Tish James for alleged mortgage fraud. That investigation stalled because the prosecutors and agents didn't feel like they had any evidence to obtain a conviction. So you know how the justice system is supposed to work. They look into tips. They don't feel like they have the evidence. They decide not to charge the person. Donald Trump was upset about that since the person he wanted charged was his political foe that he wanted vengeance against. And so he fired the person that did not prosecute and then he started going off on Pam Bondi on this on social media over the weekend. Before we get to the Pam Bondi part, do you have any thoughts just on the Virginia firing?

A (16:59)

I mean, that's my district right here. It's Eastern District of Virginia and it's a very well important district, sort of maybe after the two New York Southern District, New York kind of thing. What considered one of the most prestigious, largest, most important U.S. attorney positions. They do a lot of national security cases here because it's obviously the D.C. area, CIA is in the district and so forth. So, yeah, I mean, he's very well respected. Tough guy, though, kind of, I think was thought to be as good a fit as you could be for the Trump administration and still be a reputable, respectable, sincere, honest lawyer. Turns out you can be a pretty conservative, pretty hard charging, respectable and sincere lawyer. But you're still not a fit for the Trump administration if you're not willing to prosecute people who shouldn't be prosecuted because Trump wants you to. And I suppose also if you're not willing to drop charges against other people who should be prosecuted. So, I mean, yeah, the degree of corruption, the depth of it and the shamelessness of it, that Trump just talks about it now, I mean, is pretty astounding.

B (17:54)

And to what I referenced there about kind of the pressure going on to Pam Bondi now for these prosecutions. Not happening. Trump sent out two bleeds on his social media feed over the weekend about this. The first one for people who are very online on the Internet. This one that I'm about to read, there's a lot of folks out there saying that this was like a direct message he had accidentally posted. I'm pretty certain that's not the case. This is in the tone of all of his other posts. I think that he's trying to publicly pressure her, whatever the case is. There's some discussion about that. I don't think that's right. But here we go. Here's the first one. It's addressed to Pam. Pam, I've reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying essentially, same old story as last time, all talk, no action, nothing is being done. What about Comey, Shifty, Schiff, Leticia, they're all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done. He goes on and talks about how he fired the Virginia prosecutor and then he suggests a new prosecutor for her to hire and says, we can't delay any longer, it's killing our reputation and credibility. And then he goes on and posts again after the backlash, after people are like, whoa, Trump's really going after Pam Bondi there. And he posts again and says, Pam Bondi's doing a great job. She's careful, very smart and loves our country. But she needs a tough prosecutor like my recommendation, Lindsey Halligan, to get things moving. There's no way to read this as any other way. Besides, the President of the United States is pressuring his attorney General to prosecute his foes. And he's doing it just in plain language, at least in the Trumpian version of plain language.

A (19:29)

Right. He's incited revealing little thing you were reading in the first bleat, as you call it, that I've read more than 30 statements and posts. I guess some one of his staffers who has it in for Bondi or has it in for attorneys Siebert gave Trump. I mean, God knows who these were from, right? I mean they could have been from real MAGA influencers, they could be from 9th rate MAG influencers if that's a meaningful difference. He didn't actually talk to anyone who knows anything, I suppose about the law. I. What if you're, I was thinking about this. What if you're the White House counsel, you just cheerfully going about your job, you're like a respectable lawyer sort of and you think it's fine that this is all happening. Does no one resign from the White House when this kind of thing happens? I would like to come back to this. No one, of course no one does. Why am I even asking this question? But you know, it is kind of astonishing, I think, right.

B (20:17)

This is noteworthy. Let's just do a little pop quiz for you in the audience. Who is the White House counsel? Do you know?

A (20:23)

No, that's just.

B (20:24)

I didn't know. I had to Google it. I'm not trying to embarrass you. I didn't know. The White House counsel now is a guy named David Warrington. I know absolutely nothing about that person. It's worth like just remembering that like we heard a lot about Don McGahn now Don McGahn, I'm not ready to put him on Mount Rushmore or do a bust of him in the Library of Congress or anything. But like, you know, he went along with a lot of bad stuff. But he was in there oftentimes challenging what was happening within the administration, raising the rights previous. And we all remember all these stories where they would have like, you know, heated meetings in the Oval office where Don McGahn would be there and say we can't do this, we can't do that. There was some of that. Obviously Pat Cipollone again was maybe less even bold than McGahn, but there were times that he was objecting to things, particularly during the stop the steal stuff after the 2020 election. I'd never even heard of this guy's name. This is the first time I've seen his picture. And so to your point, there is not. They don't care. They don't give a fuck. Like there's border czar can take 50 grand in a bag of cash, the President can pressure the Attorney General to prosecute political foes. What I'm going to get to next, the FBI director can, like, post insane false things. They can target people inside the administration illegally who haven't done anything wrong just because they're friends with Never Trumpers or whatever. And there's nobody there to even offer, it seems like a word of caution. I don't know, there's not like any Maggie Haberman stories about how like, ooh, some of the lawyers are worried about this internally.

A (21:59)

Lawyers do have some obligation, I think, to kind of object when illegal things are happening in organizations they're part of. I can vaguely remember reading about that and other circumstances and corporations and so forth. But anyway, I guess not in this case. They might as well just have Megyn Kelly as White House counsel, you know, I mean, she's, you know, gotta go after your enemies and ignore illegalities by your friends, you know, I think she.

B (22:21)

Might have her sights set a little higher than that. Hey, everybody, you've probably heard me mention that the Bulwark is headed back on the road this fall, but we got some big updates that I want you to hear first. Most importantly, we are adding a show in Toronto. I told you Canadians I was doing my best to make it happen. I'm so thrilled by the response we've had from our Canadian friends and wanted to make sure if you wanted to be able to come, you could. So we added a matinee, a brunch show, whatever you want to call it, maybe a drag brunch. Don't tell JD Vance the next day. No promises on drag queens there, but, you know, maybe the spirit of a drag brunch. And so that will be Saturday the 27th. Go to the bulwark.comevents to get all the details and to get your tickets for that encore show in Toronto, also New York, that's going to sell out here any minute. So if you want to see us in New York on October 11th, get your tickets ASAP. There's still a bunch of tickets left for DC on October 8th, but we've got some exciting guest announcements coming soon. So if you're interested in coming to dc, get on that as well. All the information available@thebullwerk.com events. It's me, Sarah and Sam up in Toronto, Me, Sarah and JVL and some of our other Bulwark friends and a special guest in Washington, D.C. look forward to seeing you all out on the road. We'll catch you soon. Get those tickets now as referenced with cash. I want to get to a little bit on the Charlie Kirk Memorial from yesterday, but like related to that. Cash Patel, the FBI director, sent this tweet. It's still weird to say. Sometimes I just need to say that out loud to just like kind of accept that it's my reality. Kash Patel, the FBI director, okay. His tweet was also extremely long. This is also a new trend among the MAGA types that I don't understand, but they do these book basically novella length tweets. So I'm not going to read all of it to you, but I want to read a key paragraph. The context here is in addition to there being some conspiracy theories on the left about this assassination, which I've addressed and tried to debunk on this very podcast, there are also a bunch of conspiracy theories on the right about it. They think it's a little too pat, you know, for some of them. They think the Jews are involved. Some of them. They think it's even more the transgender roommate was involved. Like there are a lot of different conspiracy theories. Some of them are hard to even kind of follow. But Cash posts this we are meticulously investigating theories and questions, including the location from where the shot was taken, the possibility of accomplices, the text message confession and related conversations, discord chats, the angle of the shot and bullet impact, how the weapon was transported, hand gestures observed as potential signals near Charles at the time of his assassination, and visitors to the lead shooter's residence regarding specific details. They also are looking into questions about the plane that allegedly turned off its transponder after departing from an airport near the assassination site. And this is lunacy. This is Cash just basically saying that the FBI is taking assignments from the most crazed people on TikTok and he is going to have his agents look into the weirdest theories that are out there about what appears to me to be a pretty open and shut case. It's like a pretty short episode of Law and Order SVU for me. It's like, Guy has a motive. Guy confessed on Discord text message and to his family. Guy got caught anyway. He's going to have his agents looking into all this and rather than even just saying we've heard your feedback, we're going to be looking into additional Any other theories about this? He lists them all and he's giving oxygen to all of the craziest people out there. I don't know how we live as a society if this is the way that we're going to be. Where the social media account algorithms push the craziest fake theories Forward. And the people who are supposed to be in charge advance it. Do you share my. Just total. Total. I just. I'm apoplectic about it, I guess.

A (26:20)

Yeah. There's always been a lot of craziness that's obviously amplified and much. Kind of goes much faster on social media. But I mean, part of being a serious person is ignoring the craziness. And I mean, I also feel. What about these FBI agents? I mean, some of them might be. Think they should be investigating an act crime like Tom Homan, and instead go look at whether the transponder was turned off on something, which it wasn't turned off. I don't believe anyway, you know, that flew out of. I don't know what the alleged conspiracy even was. What they were transporting, some secret assassin.

B (26:49)

Yeah, One of the guys at the hand gestures. This was posted in our Slack and our guy Will Summer, who. Have you even signed up for Will Summer's newsletter following all these crazies? It's the best. But he's like. The guy with the Hand gestures is like a famous character and like magus. Like they're saying one of their own evangelical guys is like, in on it. None of them make any sense. You're an FBI agent. You gotta. What? You gotta track that down and then write a report for Mr. Cash so that he doesn't get yelled at by QAnon people that, you know, in his audience that he cultivated over the years. I guess that's where we're at.

A (27:19)

I think it is where we're at. I mean, I hope it honestly, it leads to FBI agents without breaking any laws and violating, you know, actually important restrictions on what they can talk about. I hope more stuff comes out honestly about what is going on at the Justice Department of the FBI, because it must really be. It is appalling, and it must be. It is obviously appalling and they should be infuriated. We see part of it, but we just. God knows there must be a lot we don't see. And it'd be good to see a lot.

B (27:43)

Yeah, they should. Cash in. His open testimony in the Senate last week was talking about how they fired all these people, like the drizz, et cetera, you know, for cause that they weren't living up to the standard. If you're an FBI agent, you gotta be like, fuck you. The Drs wasn't living up to the standard. He was doing his job. He's been in the building for 20 years. Like, you're not living up to the standard. You're tweeting live, tweeting the investigations and getting things wrong. I agree with you. Hopefully the agents are, you know, they're continuing to do good work. Help us get a full picture of what's happening inside the bureau on the Kirk Memorial. We both said this in the Green Room. We'll just say it to the audience here. I couldn't watch it. I just couldn't. No disrespect or any intended. I just don't. I just didn't. I didn't have it in me yesterday. I needed to spend the Sunday with my daughter. Luckily, some of our colleagues did. Andrew Egger watched, and if you want to hear his review of the Erica Kirk eulogy, apparently it was extremely dignified and respectful and unifying. And I appreciate that she did that. In contrast to that, the speaker right after her was the President of the United States. And I've only watched, I think, three clips. I've seen three clips from the whole thing, and this is one of them. And I weighed back and forth whether or not to play it on the pod this morning, and I just, I feel like we have to play it because I was going to read it, and it just doesn't quite do it justice. After Erica Kirk advocating for people to turn the cheek and, you know, follow Jesus teaching, here was Donald Trump.

A (29:11)

He was a missionary with a noble spirit and a great, great purpose. He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That's where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent and I don't want the best. Best for them. I'm sorry. I am sorry, Erica. But now Erica can talk to me and the whole group and maybe they can convince me that that's not right. But I can't stand my opponent.

B (29:40)

I mean, that's just so fucking noxious to do during a funeral, essentially. Funeral service, memorial service. And you see what happens. He's reading a teleprompter, some words somebody else wrote for him. And he pauses. He could hear the pause in that clip which allowed him to play it like somebody told him to say, charlie Kirk did not hate his opponent. And he paused because that notion, sentiment was so anathema to him that he could not even keep reading his teleprompter. And then he has to go off on a side about, no, how he hates his opponents and that we should. And that is the value that he wants to put forth at a very fraught time for the country. Pretty sick and alarming stuff, it sounded like.

A (30:19)

I didn't see it, watch it either. He gets a Certain amount of applause or kind of a roar when he says that from this crowd at a memorial service. I mean, terrible, terrible.

B (30:30)

The only other thing, I'm not going to play this audio from the service. Just worth mentioning, Tucker Carlson, during his eulogy, I guess, said that he wanted to reflect on his favorite story, which was an apocryphal story about Jesus in a room full of hummus eaters that wanted him killed, tying Kirk's murder to Jesus murder and feeling like the Jews are responsible for that. That is worth noting that the first recorded recipe for hummus was in a 13th century cookbook in Cairo, Egypt. But I don't think accuracy was what Tucker was focused on in that. So I don't know if you have any thoughts on that, but just wanted.

A (31:09)

To mention I saw the clip on social media. I felt I didn't really want to watch it, but I watched it takes 45 seconds and there's this maniacal laugh of Tucker's that you've seen elsewhere that he does this again in the middle of this memorial service. And this is just such a fantastic story that he's come up with or heard about, which is not a little league, I guess, in the Gospels, but as you know, a sort of a. You could see where he's getting it, I guess, getting it. I mean, it's, well, it's just beyond, in so many ways, so grotesque. Tucker's a very sick as we really, I do say this honestly, I think has become a very sick person. You know, some of these people are just. Yeah. Some of these people are just not just distasteful and bad and bigoted and, you know, terrible and opportunistic and corrupt at all. But Tucker is. Yeah.

B (31:59)

Mentally ill.

A (31:59)

There's something wrong. I'm Alastair Campbell from the Rest is politics.

B (32:03)

Nish Kumar here from pod.

A (32:04)

Save the UK and Cristiana Figueres from outrage and optimism. Rising inequality, conflict, climate disaster is very hard to find reasons to be hopeful about the future.

B (32:13)

That's why we're teaming up this September.

A (32:15)

During the 80th General assembly of the United nations, along with political currency pod, Save the World, the Weak Junior and more. We'll discuss the stories that give us.

B (32:25)

Hope and answer the question, how does hope turn into action?

A (32:29)

Look out for the B Hope takeover this September.

B (32:32)

All right. You said another thing you were riled up about, which I've not talked about anywhere, so I just want to let you cook for a second is a change in the Pentagon press rules. The Pentagon said Friday it would Impose new restrictions on reporters covering the Department of Defense, requiring them to pledge not to gather or use any information that had not been formally authorized for release or risk losing their credentials to cover the military.

A (32:53)

Not to gather or use, incidentally. I mean, it's bad enough that you can't. You discover that there's a fight going on. I'm making this up between the Marine Corps and the, you know, Air Force about some helicopter or jet and whatever kind of standard Pentagon reporting or about any million of other things. You don't get to report that because it's not authorized for release. I was not talking about classification. None of this applies to classified material. This is all about unclassified material that reporters could get. They can't even gather it, let alone report it, apparently. I guess you try to make a phone call and you're going to. Under this, you'll lose your Pentagon credential. It's really. Well, it just shows. I mean, this is of a piece with their general desire to curb various freedoms, including freedom of the press. The Kimmel thing is so much more dramatic, of course, First Amendment. But it's kind of important that we have decent reporting about what's going on in this massive military enterprise we have. And a little bit of exposing of things when they're. When people deserve to know about them. It's amazingly shameless, too. It's one thing informally, they're doing all these other things, of course, to cook the book, so to speak, or slant the playing field on reporting and all that. But this is pretty extraordinary, I think.

B (34:02)

Something that's related to this. It's kind of a softer type of. I wouldn't even call it a challenge to free speech, but it is an assault on, you know, what has been traditionally thought to be the role of the press corps in a free country would maybe be a more accurate way to say it.

A (34:19)

Yes.

B (34:19)

Which is the way that they have stacked the press corps all across the administration. This is just kind of an expansion of that in the Department of Defense. But if you watch. I forgot what it was. There was a press conference. It was, you know, one of the. More in. In the actual. In the Brady. In the briefing room. And, you know, these days I'm so busy, I'm like, usually like. Like, you know, we've got folks working hard, suffering through all this for us, which I appreciate, like, sending me the best stuff. And it's like, I'm not usually, like sitting down to watch 50 minutes of a press briefing. Right. And I was watching it and I just was struck by just how many sycophants are in the room. Right. Like they have really stacked the press room with people that are just pure propagandists. Like, no different from having Sputnik in the press room for the further, you know, for Putin. And, and they kind of mask this assault on the press by all of the access Trump gives. Trump does give out access. So it doesn't really feel like they're shutting down the press, but they are shutting down people that are doing legitimate reporting and pushing them out and not giving them access and replacing it with people that are doing a lot of buttering up of him. And it hasn't been complete in total. Right. They kind of like having a couple of regular press people in there that Trump can berate or whatever to use his foes. But even still, it makes it hard to get information right in a press room, if any time like there's one. Because usually traditionally a reporter asks a question, the politician responds. If the politician isn't fully forthcoming, the next reporter asks a follow up. That's not happening. Right. Because half to three quarters of the questions are from people buttering them up.

A (35:55)

So I think that's very good point about the broader what's going on throughout the administration, including maybe especially in the White House. But the Pentagon thing, also think about the context. We've had these three strikes apparently on fishing boats that may or may not well contain people, civilians, I mean, who may or may not be smuggling drugs and do not propose an imminent threat to the United States and can be turned away by the Coast Guard. But leaving all that stuff aside, there's been some reporting that's been pretty helpful in helping us understand the fragility, maybe that's not quite even the right word, the whatever, the dubiousness of some of the administration's claims about whether they really knew what they said they knew about who was in these boats. Very good piece in the Wall Street Journal. Was it? Middle of last week, as I recall that lawyers in the Pentagon, both military lawyers, civilian, apparently very worried about the legality of what had happened. Obviously there was reporting about the Iranian strikes and maybe they didn't do quite as much damage as Trump said and other things like that. And Hegseth doesn't want any of that. So, I mean, military is kind of important to actually have good. And they have been good reporters in the Pentagon and the Pentagon traditions and State Department too, for that matter, are a little more, I don't know, as been to be a little less political. And because people of all parties have understood it's kind of of necessary to have serious reporting and not foot movements. Nothing that's going to endanger people's well being but after the fact reporting of this kind and I don't think it's an accident that this just came out Friday right after these three boat strikes and the reporting of how little support there is for this up and down the Chandra Camp. Maybe more stuff's about to come incidentally and maybe the Hexess trying to sort of chill further reporting on that.

B (37:36)

Just your point on that about how the kind of traditions have been different in the Pentagon. Just this one example. It's like worth noting that even Fox has had a pretty straightforward really strong reporter in that Pentagon seat for as long as I can remember. Jennifer Griffin's been doing it recently but even before her and she's like hegseth hates her. And you can see that when he's out there and he gets very kind of he's lashed out at her a few times. And so anyway, just to your point, even pretty partisan folks in the past have recognized the importance of the that space having a different type of credibility and standard and like everything else with this administration that is being attacked that tradition.

A (38:16)

I'm Alastair Campbell from the Rest is.

B (38:18)

Politics, Anish Kumar here from podsave the.

A (38:20)

UK and Cristiana Figueres from Outrage and Optimism. Rising inequality, conflict, climate disaster. It's very hard to find reasons to be hopeful about the future.

B (38:28)

That's why we're teaming up this September.

A (38:30)

During the 80th General assembly of the United nations nations along with political currency Pod, Save the World, the Weak Junior and more. We'll discuss the stories that give us.

B (38:40)

Hope and answer the question how does hope turn into action?

A (38:44)

Look out for the Be Hope takeover this September.

B (38:47)

Final topic. I'm going to get deeper into this this week on the shutdown fight and what the Dems are going to do. But I just wanted to give you one chance to offer your wise stately advice to the Democrats as they look ahead to the coming potential shutdown and the need to pass a budget.

A (39:07)

I mean I think they should not vote to provide funds to this government in the way it's now functioning. And now ultimately, if there were certain concessions were made, could they either vote to provide those funds or I guess release a few people, vote to proceed on the filibuster? They shouldn't vote for the funds period. Should they insist on a filibuster? Maybe not under certain circumstances, but I'm right now pretty hard line on this. I see no case for being particularly conciliatory or for asking too little or getting in some negotiation. Even for now with Trump. There's so much one would have to ask for, including, what about Tom Holman, what about the Pentagon press rules? I just feel like, how can you vote to authorize your vote? You are authorizing a government which is doing all these things. And I feel like the right stance going in is we are not, we do not feel it is right to vote for this now, whether it's two weeks from now or even conceivably the day after the shutdown begins, circumstances could change and they could accept some deal or as I say, release some people to vote for cloture or not to oppose cloture. I suppose even if they wouldn't vote for final passage, which they certainly shouldn't. I suppose that's another question. Yeah. And I don't like the fact. I've got to say, if I could just criticize our friends, the Democratic leaders here. I mean, Schumer and Jeffrey sent this letter to the president Saturday. It was ludicrous. I mean, instead of listing all the horrible things they're doing and saying, stop doing these things. And then we can have a government that we could actually support, though governed by the opposition party, obviously, many, many, many members of Congress have voted for government funding when the other party controlled the executive branch. Instead of that, they read, we really feel like we need to talk to you. Thune is being kind of mean and he's not talking to Schumer. And so we need to go right to you. That's the tone. You've read the letter, right? That's the tone of it, really. Not the tone, the substance of it. It's that we really want a meeting with you. I mean, how what Schumer and Jeffries think, is it effective? I mean, maybe they don't believe it, I guess. I don't know if they believe it or not, but maybe they really do want that White House meeting. I don't know what's going to happen there. But again, the tone of it is so much of a supplicant and not of, I don't know if it's really damaging to them, but it was annoying to me. I'm just going to say that I was annoyed reading that letter.

B (41:16)

I was also annoyed. Bill Crystal. Well, I was going to wish you Shana Tova and let you go, but I just received this text. The BBC is reporting that Brigitte Macron has presented photographic evidence in court confirming she is not a biological male. So you can have a happy New Year and sleep deeply, you know, rest, rest easy knowing that Brigitte Macron has, you know, demonstrated her womanness to the what is a woman crowd.

A (41:46)

What a world. What a world.

B (41:47)

Thank you.

A (41:48)

Thank you for the good, for the Happy New Year. Salutations, and Happy New Year to you. Even for those. I think we're allowed to wish Shana Tova to those who themselves might not be be part of the tribe. And I'll be off for a couple of days. I'm gonna. I really try not to tweet at all during Russia shot. I think it might be easier to observe that for the first day, but, you know, maybe I might have. The second day is a sort of a question mark as terms of observance, you know, only the Orthodox really observe that. So I might bend a little bit on Wednesday, but tomorrow I'll try to. Try to stay silent.

B (42:19)

I'll keep an eye on your feed. All right, Bill, thanks a bunch. Shana Tova to you, to everybody else, we'll be back here for another edition of the Bulwark Podcast. We'll see you all then. And peace. Make your money with a student time.

A (42:31)

Make your money with true denial make your money exper.

B (42:41)

You can win make.

A (42:44)

Your own money with the power fly.

B (42:47)

Make your own money with the power.

A (42:51)

Make it fly as long as you.

B (42:57)

Need.

A (43:00)

I'm not keeping company make your money with exploitation make it home stay upright.

B (43:28)

Don'T forget to ask for mercy make your morning with a pretty face make your easy placement make it charged with controversy. The board podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.

A (44:25)

I'm Alastair Campbell from the Rest Is Politics.

B (44:27)

Anish Kumar here from Pod Save the.

A (44:29)

UK and Cristiana Figueres from outrage and optimism. Rising inequality, conflict, climate, disaster. It's very hard to find reasons to be hopeful about the future.

B (44:37)

That's why we're teaming up this September.

A (44:39)

During the 80th General assembly of the United Nations. Along with political currency pod, Save the World, the Weakness Junior and more. We'll discuss the stories that give us.

B (44:49)

Hope and answer the question, how does hope turn into action?

A (44:52)

Look out for the Be Hope takeover this September.