← The Bulwark
The Bulwark
Amanda Carpenter, Sarah Longwell, and Sam Stein: No End in Sight for Trump Family Corruption
00:29:47
Loading summary
Transcript84 lines
- [00:00]
A
He is arguably the single most powerful man on the earth. What in any way, is there any harm that's being inflicted on him as he enjoys the greatest political position in the world?
- [00:20]
B
Hello and welcome to the Bulwark Podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. We have a quasi double header for you today in segment two. It is some of the live show in San Diego. Last night I was on stage with my bowler colleagues Sam Stein and Sarah Longwell, and we talked about the latest in Iran, how we are going to do an Argo style plot to put Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in charge of the country. We also discussed how Bill Cassidy's starting to sound like a Bulwark contributor all of a sudden. It's a good little discussion, so stick around for that in segment two. But first, formally at the Bulwark, she's now a writer and editor@protectdemocracy.org they got a substack called if youf Can Keep It. It is all caps. Amanda Carpenter.
- [01:02]
A
What's Hey, Doing pretty well. How about you?
- [01:04]
B
I'm doing good. Thank you for doing this. You know, the people want, want some actual podcasting every day. You know, they want some really deep thoughts from observers of our democratic condition. And so I appreciate that you're offering that because it's just, it's basically just you today. All right, I'm just going to be throwing up softballs to you.
- [01:23]
A
All right, let's go.
- [01:25]
B
Let's do it. I want to start by talking about
- [01:28]
C
what you are calling on social media,
- [01:29]
B
the Riot reward program. Everybody's just bouncing around, different names. We're going to l stand on one. You know, I was trying to call it Reparations for Whites. JVL had a name in his triad yesterday. Run us through the timeline of how we got here because I do think that we have had some kind of developments over the last few days on it.
- [01:49]
A
Well, first, I do appreciate all the people brainstorming good names for this because if I hear people keep calling it the settlement or the slush fund, I'm going to scream, right? Like, there's lots of good things you could call it. You can do Riot Rewards. I was kind of toying around with Henchmen Bailout, but I have landed on Thug Fund. I think Thug Fund really gets at the idea that's who is going to be getting these grants if they do come to fruition. But aside from the branding, which actually is important, like, let's please call it something that accurately describes it because it's absolutely not a settlement. One of the ways that you have to think about how this came about, which isn't important to the discussion that we're going to have about why it's so unpopular and wrong, but the reason this came about, if you even want to call it a reason, is that Donald Trump's tax returns were leaked. Right? That was bad. Lots of people's tax returns were leaked. Like, there's a whole, like, ProPublica investigation. We remember that. But the conclusion that Trump and the Department of Justice have come to is that because that bad thing happened, in which there is recourse, in which there, the leaker was prosecuted, is facing the consequences of that behavior, they've decided, I want two things which you don't like. This isn't a thing that you get to make a deal with the DOJ over this about what kind of reward that you want. We want two things. We want a free pass for all future tax criming forever and ever, apparently. And the $1.7 billion thug fund to give money to all my henchmen and cronies. None of these things are related. Like, can we just pause on that for a second? Tax returns being leaked does not mean Donald Trump gets $1.7 billion to throw around as Trump bucks for his friends like that. I feel like the news cycle didn't really pause on that enough. And Todd Blanche wasn't, you know, he was on Capitol Hill the other day. That connection, that tenuous, not even a tenuous connection, was never explored. But then if you want to rewind back just a little bit further, people are kind of surprised that this idea of J sex reparations came out of the blue. No, it didn't. It absolutely did not. This has been a part of the whole pardon discussion they had since Donald Trump was campaigning for the 2020 election. This has always been on the table. And people who brought it up, you know, the Republican allies that he has in places like the Hill would dismiss it just like they thought the pardons were crazy. Like, oh, that's never going to happen. Ed Martin, Eagle. Ed Martin was running around talking about reparations on podcasts with Benny Johnson. You know, how the J6 rioters deserve justice, and like, oh, that's crazy talk. Oh, well, here we are. Here we are, $1.7 billion later. And I do have optimism. I mean, this is so politically toxic that I do think it can and will be stopped. But it's kind of funny if you look at the people on the Hill who want to stop it, Even people like Representative Fitzpatrick, who came out against it very strongly, which I was delighted to see his interviews. Well, we have to kind of track down where this pool of money came from and where the appropriations are, because they have no idea. No idea. And so that's just another wrinkle in this whole crazy subject. But I've talked enough. You.
- [05:11]
B
One more thing. I just. I thought that was important that I saw. I want to shout out Congressman Mike Levin out here in California, actually, who was posting about this. When you think about the timeline, is this, like, stupid, frivolous lawsuit that the president was filing against his own government for 10 billion? The IRS did actually go through the process that you would go through in this sort of case. Right. Like, they wrote a memo laying out the defenses about why they shouldn't have to pay out the suit. They listed that Trump filed sue late. Trump's own lawyer was in court when the leaker pled guilty in October 2023, more than two years before Trump sued. You know, so, like, there was justice. Like, there was legal justice for this already. Like, before the suit even started, the Justice Department themselves never actually showed up to courts, never argued the other side. And this is, like, kind of crazy, like, fakacta, right? You're, like, talking about this. It's like there's two parts of Trump's government arguing against each other. But, like, that's how it would work. Right. In an actual. If there was. Trump was suing the irs. Like, the Justice Department then would give their argument on the other side. They never did that. The judge got suspicious and ordered both sides to explain whether they were opposing each other or just colluding and asked for a brief on that from both sides. And the day before it was due was when the Justice Department announced the Thug Fund. Right. Like, I think that that is also, like, important, like, context of how this happened. Right. Like, it was all. And we all know that it was wwe, like, kayfabe fake the whole time. You know, they made it as blatant as possible that this was all fake. All pretext for getting money to hand out to the J6ers and maybe. And maybe some others.
- [07:03]
A
Yeah. In any other lawsuit, you're not allowed to sue yourself. I mean, that's not a thing. Like, I, Amanda Carpenter, are going to take Amanda Carpenter to court for damages from a company. It's not a thing. That's essentially what Donald Trump is doing here. But another thing I want to pause on the idea that Donald Trump was harmed. I'm not saying leaking his tax returns were great or that should have been done or I'm having any defense of what happened in that scenario. But he is arguably the single most powerful man on the earth. What harm has he suffered legitimately? Like what business is he not doing, what money is he not making and what in any way is there any harm that's being inflicted on him as he enjoys the greatest political position in the world? I don't understand the thing that happened this morning.
- [07:53]
B
This is from Punchbowl. As you mentioned, Brian Fitzpatrick on the Hill sent a strongly worded letter to Todd Blanche. We'll see where that goes. There's been some other pushback even from Republican Senators Bill Cassidy. We talked about this in segment B a little bit. So the White House I guess felt like they needed to at least offer some explanation to the Hill. They sent a one pager over there about the fund that says that the fund will have no partisan restriction. But then my favorite part is like is a little bribed. Any. Any Republican senators who are feeling on the fen. It does say that any senators whose records were secretly subpoenaed by the Biden doj they're also eligible to apply. Was kind of wet in the beak of Republican senators who feel like they might have been harmed.
- [08:43]
A
Yeah. I don't know if you remember but during the funding fight was it last year there was a provision to allow members who whose phone records were subpoenaed in the Arctic Frost investigation to get up to I think $500,000 payout from the government. So this is kind of refreshing that and saying okay, we're going to make this very cool and legal now. And now there's no cap on the amount so why not? I think there was nine Republican senators that were possibly eligible for that. It was like Lindsey Graham surprise. Yeah. So maybe they can just get that now. And it was so controversial. It was struck out of the bill but now, hey, all cool.
- [09:22]
B
It was actually the House oversight Dems another shout out to Robert Garcia and Suhas Supermoney and caught that actually it was like really like ducked into a bill and then that became this thing and they took it out and now they're going back for a second bite at that apple. So the other thing I want to focus on because I don't think I've gotten to it on the pod is the other element of this settlement so called settlement was in addition to the thug fund was Trump and his family becoming immune forever from tax crimes. I don't really think that's how things work in the country where I know That's, I guess, how it worked for Jeffrey Epstein. And that was kind of part of the deal that he got with Alex Acosta, where he was immune for a bunch of other crimes. But generally speaking, in America, you know, if you commit a crime, no matter whether you're the President or part of the President's family or one of the President's friends, like you still are, you know, can be prosecuted for that crime just like a regular person, but they're trying to immune themselves. The IRS is, quote, forever barred and precluded from pursuing, quote, examinations of Trump or related or affiliated individuals or their trusts or their businesses. Truly insane.
- [10:35]
A
So if you try to follow through line, there is no connection between the remedies that he's asking for and the original harm. So what is this really about? What I think this deal is really about is protecting his position in power, not only through the midterms and the 2028 election, whatever he decides to do, but post presidency as well. Why else would you be asking for permanent legal immunity, not only for all the crimes you committed in the White House that the Supreme Court so thoughtfully gave him, but for any kind of tax liability for all your businesses and family? To me, that's what this is really about.
- [11:11]
B
Yeah. And it's truly crazy. You know, you hate to do the counterfactuals, but, like, imagine if when there was all the question of the Clinton crime family, you know, like, had Bill Clinton in there said, like, you know what? In addition to, you know, what my DOJ has decided is that me and Hillary can do whatever we want in perpetuity and that the IRS could never investigate us again. And, like, that's what they're trying to do. It's like, it's totally insane. You called it, I think, autocratic entrepreneurship. And, like, that is. I think it is important to discuss this element of it because it's tied to the Trump family. Corruption that he is trying to ensure can perpetuate forever. No matter what happens, they can do it while they're in power. Right now, they're making a lot of money, but then in the future, it's like they can continue to do whatever kind of corrupt deals they want without any concern.
- [12:04]
A
Yeah. This idea of Trump as an autocratic entrepreneur and his plans post presidency, like, listen, it's a question, will he stay or will he go? His plans for the ballroom, essentially turning. It's really a bunker. Like, can we be real? I don't know if you've seen the videos of him lately where he's Standing outside, promising how great it's going to be and the gift that he's going to give future presidents. And, oh, by the way, we're going to have a drone empire on top of the White House. So we're not having a ballroom, we're having a drone empire that is essentially going to, what, turn the White House into some kind of military base where he's going to have drones flying around to protect him. I mean, maybe there's a chance he's really freaked out about the wars he's starting and retribution that might be coming for him. There have been assassination attempts on him several times, not only from domestic actors, but foreign. So who knows what's actually going through his head. But regardless of what he's thinking, what he is doing is insulating himself in so many ways inside the White House as a bunker. That again, I'm glad that there's Senate opposition to the ballroom and the funding for it. But how does he have the funding now? I mean, he's sitting there literally as, like, there's jackhammers and, like, stuff being thrown around. Like the White House is a giant construction pit. And they're like, maybe we'll stop the funding for it. Well, maybe you ought to do something now. That said, you look at the bunker, you look at the immunity that he's pursuing on all angles. You look at the things that he's setting himself up for, like the Board of Peace, in which he's the forever Trayman, the untold amount of corruption that we still fail to understand, explain, and confront adequately. He's setting himself and his family up to be shielded for decades. If we don't do something about it now to stop it while he's still in office.
- [14:00]
B
The other line that you had talking about all those types of corruption that I think sort of unites everything is this question of audit the White House. And I think that is pretty good because as you mentioned about the ballroom funding, like Bill Cassidy was saying, the Hill hasn't even seen. They haven't provided anything like, what are the plans? What are the specs for this? And I think that I've had Robert Garcia and Suhasan, like, what should the Democrats do next year? And I think something that kind of unites everything is audit the White House and audit the Trump family.
- [14:32]
A
Yeah, audit the White House because, I mean, we know there's untold amounts of corruption going on. And, you know, audit the Fed, I think, was actually a politically powerful issue for Republican primaries back in the day. Audit the White House should be that much more powerful because Donald Trump is so clearly trying to evade that accountability right now with this demand for protection for many audits in the future.
- [14:54]
B
You posted about your optimism on this, on some of the things we're seeing on the Hill and you've alluded to a little bit. I'm going to read your skeet. I'm not trying to blow smoke up anyone's behind. Good, because we don't do that on the podcast. But there is some decent opposition to Trump happening on the Hill. No save act ballroom funding, plummeting Iran war vote, not firing the parliamentarian, growing opposition to the henchmen bailout. Thom Tillis this morning called that Thug Fund tyranny and stupid on stilts. At some level, his revenge tour is potentially causing some limitations on, you know, his, his autocratic aspirations.
- [15:38]
A
Yeah, I have no illusions that the Republicans on their own would do anything to confront or stop Trump from pursuing these items. But if it becomes so politically toxic and the Democrats, the media, voters don't allow them to escape the issue, I actually think there's a chance. I mean there's too much coming down upon them. Donald Trump's polling is in the basement right now. They all know this. And I do think the back to back endorsement of Ken Paxton over John Cornyn and then the ballroom or excuse me, and then the Thug fund details coming out that had a weird back to back dynamic that I do think caused more anger on the Hill than usual. I mean the fact that I think they thought he was going to stay out of the Texas race, but then endorsing Ken Paxton and sending a member potentially to the Senate, so clearly ethically flawed over someone who has been there. How long has John cornyn Been there?
- [16:42]
B
18 years.
- [16:43]
A
I think a number of members took more, more personally in a way that, you know, the defeat of like a Thom Tillis or Bill Cassidy didn't have.
- [16:51]
B
Yeah, I think it was a mistake. Paxton was going to win. Like a poll came out yesterday or two days ago that was in the field before the Trump endorsement. It came out after the Trump endorsement. But like the actual discussion of voters was before and Paxton was up 8. Like Paxton was going to win. Trump did not have to do this and he was going to get what the result he wanted anyway. And it was something. This is again the megalomania and the narcissism and how that can backfire sometimes. It's like he wanted his endorsement record to continue to be 100% I think is the reason why he did this. And it's like, he didn't have to do it. And he caused. You know, I think he's created potentially a wild card in Cornyn himself, adding him to Tillis and Cassidy and Murkowski and Collins and McConnell at various different times. People that could oppose him, but maybe even some others who are just pissed about the Corn treatment.
- [17:40]
A
Yeah, I think there's a potential for this group of disaffected Republican senators to actually do something on the way out. And let's put Tom Massie in that category. Right? I mean, in his concession speech, he essentially said, I have seven more months left. Now, you can like Tom Massie or hate him, but he's got some fight in him. And he's the reason the Epstein files got released ultimately. But I don't know. I think the Massie defeat is so interesting because we've gone through this where the media keeps wanting to, like, put this fight between MAGA and the moderates or MAGA and never Trump. That's like, that was never quite it. And Tom Massey's Law shows that, because he was trying to chart out this America first course, right, where he was with Trump on everything, did a lot of, like, kind of nasty stuff, but broke with Trump on two issues, Epstein and the Iran war. You could put MTG in that category, probably Lauren Boebert, and they were dismissed as treasonous. Massie's race became the most expensive House primary in history because they just rained down dollars on him in support of this MAGA kind of stooge candidate who says nothing. But, I'm with Trump. I'm with Trump. I'm with Trump. The idea that there's any kind of principled difference between Trump is just a farce. He doesn't want anyone except for lackeys and people like Ken Paxton who are so ethically flawed and will do anything for him. Like, that's the ideal candidate. That's always been what he wanted. And so I think this sort of proves that the America first tightrope that people were trying to walk is a failure, and you just have to oppose them. And that's what I'm hoping Massie will do on a couple key issues on his way out.
- [19:24]
B
Yeah, same. All right. I want to close with just a protect democracy. I mean, all of this is in the protect democracy hat, but particularly in the narrow conversation about voting, obviously. We had Justin Jones on the pod yesterday and talked a lot about the gutting of vra, and it's really pretty bleak, the state of Democratic affairs and Tennessee and other places in the Deep South. And I do think that that move reopened the possibility that Republicans could take the House, though I think it's still a long shot. What is your kind of updated view on the midterms and concerns around elections?
- [20:08]
A
Well, I think the most important thing on my mind right now is the wipeout of any remaining upstanding Republican candidates in Georgia and the implications that may have for 2028. Brad Raffensperger, which is a name that I think most listeners to this podcast would recognize, he was running for governor, got defeated by an election denier named Bert Jones. Raffensperger only got 15 points in the Republican primary, it looks like. There I was reading Laura Egan's wonderful reporting about the potential governor's race shaping up. It could be a case where you have Bert Jones running against Keisha Lance Bottoms. I don't know how that one's going to shake out. And if we lose Georgia to election deniers, that opens up in a huge can of worms. And if you look at the intense focus that the Trump White House, particularly with the Department of Justice, has had on Fulton county, the fight over Fulton county has not ended. You know, they had the FBI raid. We got the ballot boxes. They're fighting constantly, even over poll workers when it came to Election Day today. And I think they Fulton county is a test model for what they want to do. They want to manufacture fraud allegations so that they can take over Democratic counties when it comes to Election Day. You could repeat that in other states. And I think Fulton county is particularly important because if you remember, that's where Donald Trump got arrested. The mugshot that he posts everywhere now, including on the Department of Justice, came from that area of the country. And so I think we just really got to be on our toes, educating everyone about the threats that are coming, raising the standard for people like judges who may be presented with really problematic search warrants and things like that to get information that the Department of Justice shouldn't have. The continued fight that they are waging to get voter data from all 50 states so that they can hand pick people to remove from the roles. Those are the things that I'm really focused on right now, as well as a number of my colleagues at Protect Democracy and in the entire Pro Democracy coalition.
- [22:20]
B
All right. Anything else on your mind or anything people should be doing, you know, who are out there trying to wonder how to engage on this stuff, just staying on it.
- [22:27]
A
I mean, honestly, it's going to be one of these races where it could come down to election boards and poll watchers and things like that. So just stay engaged. But the most important thing is to be talking about these issues so that Republicans who are in positions of influence cannot escape them. Right? Because if they can make this go away, everybody's going to go away from Memorial Weekend. The heat needs to stay on things like the Thug Fund and the ballroom through a weekend because they're all pretending this is going to blow over. It's going to go away. Maybe we'll just get a billion dollars and we'll get an appropriation later. It'll be fine. It cannot be fine. You got to keep the heat on them all through Memorial Day weekend, all through summer, all through the fall.
- [23:12]
B
Appreciate you as always, Amanda. Everybody go check out their work@protectdemocracy.org I'm sure you'll be back again soon. And everyone else, stick around for me. Sarah and Sam Stein live in San Diego. Enjoy it.
- [23:31]
C
I can't believe you guys are listening to that every day. Honestly, it's a lot. Feel free to take a day off.
- [23:40]
B
It's good to be here.
- [23:41]
C
This segment is going to be for the Bulwark podcast tomorrow, so you can give it a second listen if you want to.
- [23:50]
D
So please laugh at our jokes because everyone's going to hear it.
- [23:52]
C
I'm delighted to be here with Sam and Sarah. I don't know if we've had a three way together on the podcast.
- [24:01]
E
I guess not.
- [24:02]
C
All right.
- [24:03]
D
I asked Sam in the dressing room, I was like, did you think there'd be this much gay content at your new news job?
- [24:10]
E
Constant, never ending gay content.
- [24:13]
C
Lot of gay talk. All right. I want to start by talking about we're kind of in a war with Iran, I guess, still maybe ish a little bit.
- [24:22]
B
We're going to do a little.
- [24:23]
C
Yeah, it doesn't seem to be going that well. There was a pretty shocking story from the New York Times that I want to read a little bit to you all because it's a doozy. When we went into the war, we did have a plan, actually, you know, we had a plan, it turned out, for a Del C. Rodriguez type figure to take over Iran. That's what Bibi and Trump's plan was. The person was quite surprising, though, who they had in mind. Mahmoud Ahmadine shot. So for those of you who were around, you know, before 2016, he didn't really love your people, Sam.
- [25:04]
D
I don't think he liked ours that much either.
- [25:06]
C
No. Not a big fan of ours. The audacious plan, according to the New York Times, was developed by the Israelis. Mr. Ahmadinejad had been consulted about this, but it quickly went awry when he was injured on the war's first day by an Israeli strike at his home in Tehran. Feels like a little mistake to kind of bomb the house of the person that you were trying to make the new leader. He was there on house arrest. He survived the strike, he's injured, but he became disillusioned with the regime change
- [25:38]
B
plan
- [25:41]
C
and he's not been seen publicly since then. His current whereabouts and condition are unknown. Feels like a miss. Sam? I don't know.
- [25:54]
E
Well, first of all, I feel like this fully dispels this notion that the Jews are orchestrating everything, because that's the worst plan I've ever heard. I mean, if you think about it, I'm embarrassed that Jews came up with this plan. Just step back and think about it. The idea here was we were going to bomb his complex with such precision that he would escape, that he would escape unscathed and be totally fine with the fact that we nearly killed him with the bomb and then go out somewhere.
- [26:30]
B
It's like a v par guy, big
- [26:31]
E
popular movement behind him, and then that
- [26:33]
B
would win the war.
- [26:34]
E
I mean, I wish I could be in the room where people were talking this through and no one was asking follow up questions like, how does this work? Like, what's step two? Are people going to follow this guy? Do we like this guy? Is this our guy?
- [26:50]
D
Yeah. It feels like you were missing the bigger point here.
- [26:52]
E
No, I think that's the point.
- [26:54]
D
The bigger point is Ahmadinejad.
- [26:57]
E
I mean, that's.
- [26:58]
D
That's who they thought.
- [26:59]
E
That's Iran.
- [26:59]
A
Iran.
- [27:00]
E
That's a point the Jews thought.
- [27:01]
D
I forget, what does he think about the Holocaust? Oh, that it didn't happen. I don't know why I'm yelling at you. It's not your fault.
- [27:08]
B
Do this.
- [27:08]
A
This is, this is.
- [27:09]
D
This is how anti Semitism happens.
- [27:11]
C
Exactly.
- [27:11]
A
Yeah.
- [27:12]
E
I'm not responsible for this. That is a good point, and I think that's a very valid point. But I think even getting to that point, someone had to be in a room being like, okay, look, I've been workshopping this all weekend. I've run through all the ideas and this is the best one we've got. We're gonna bomb his complex and he's just gonna walk out and he's gonna be the new regime.
- [27:34]
C
Do we have an option B? Anything, literally anything option. I guess we didn't have one.
- [27:39]
D
Wait, hold on. I got to go back to the idea of Ahmadinejad as the person, not just the bombing. Him. This is a guy. Okay. So the whole theory rested on the idea that there would be a popular uprising in Iran. Do we remember what Ahmadinejad did to people who rose up in Iran?
- [27:55]
E
Yeah, it wasn't great.
- [27:56]
D
He stoned them to death.
- [27:57]
E
Yeah.
- [27:58]
D
Who's going to popular uprise for Ahmadinejad?
- [28:01]
C
I have a question. I have a thought on that, Sarah. Maybe Donald Trump and Bibi Titten actually care about the well being of the Iranian people. And that, that was.
- [28:10]
D
No, I think you're wrong.
- [28:11]
C
I can't imagine that was maybe a front for their broader idea. Anyway, they're back to the drawing board and here's where we're at now. Trump and Beebe had a conversation this week. Bibi's very upset. According to his stenographer at Axios, his hair was on fire over this. Trump said to Axios, bibi will do whatever I want him to do. And said that the call was fine. The current plan now is for a 30 day letter of intent. That's nice. The US and Iran would sign it and then we'd have a 30 day period of negotiations on issues like Iran's nuclear program and the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, which kind of sounds like where we're currently at.
- [28:57]
E
Yeah.
- [28:58]
C
So I'm not sure what the letter gonna do exactly.
- [29:01]
D
This is for 30 days, not two weeks.
- [29:05]
E
But we are in a ceasefire, right? Technically. So this is just a 30 day extension. And how is this different, the letter of intent different from the Memorandum of Understanding? Like they're just using a thesaurus, Right? That's what they're doing. They're just using different words.
- [29:23]
C
It's like the Operation Sledgehammer. We're going to delay Operation Sledgehammer for Project Freedom.
- [29:29]
A
It's just.
- [29:30]
E
Who's coming up with this stuff?
- [29:32]
D
Pete Hegseth. And it's so weird that it's not well thought out. He's like, I'm going to do a keg stand and then we're going to bomb Ahmadinejad.
- [29:44]
C
It does feel like a fundamental problem at the beginning was.