B (6:07)

Yeah, I think we're gonna have an interesting conversation here because I'm very, very sympathetic to Joe Biden's position as a father. And I know that you've expressed that you try to imagine if your only son was in this situation, what you would be willing to do for him. And that was my initial reaction. I'll be honest about that. But the more I think about it, the more you look at the long term state of play and this is a long game, I think that this was a mistake and I think the blowback is justifiable in a lot of ways. I think that that pardon was worse than it looks. And we can talk about that how? Well, I think it's worse than it looked because first of all, I mean, look, we expect more from a president than from just your average parent. And as a father, I understand his position as president of the United States and as a defender of certain constitutional norms, the rule of law, his own Department of Justice, he had other responsibilities and this was a sweeping pardon. I also would have understood perhaps if he would have simply commuted the sentence. I think that would have been controversial or even simply pardoned him for what he had been charged and convicted for. But he did not. This is one of the most sweeping, if not the most sweeping pardon in history. It basically immunizes his son for an 11 year period. The only comparable presidential pardon that historians can come up with is the Nixon pardon. And I'm not sure that right now at the moment, and you asked about the state of play. So at the moment, we're about to have a president come into office with a campaign of retribution, a wrecking ball to the institutions like the rule of law and the Department of Justice. Unfortunately, what I think Joe Biden has done is he has weakened those institutions and their credibility at the very moment when they are most vulnerable. And I think that's what kind of makes my heart sink when I think about this.

A (8:16)

The mistake is his justification that this was prosecutorial overreach that I think is what put into competition or started tipping the scales the way you're suggesting, him saying, I needed to do this because this was brought up just for political persecution instead of legitimate prosecution. Now, that could arguably open a door to that being a real thing. Lawfare is real. Biden just admitted it. And therefore everything that Trump does in pursuit of that should not be seen as aberrant.

B (8:59)

Yes, I think that's part of the problem there. If he would have said, you know, he is my son, I wanna protect him, that's one thing. But the reality is that, look, this prosecution was. I mean, by the way, I wanna agree with you on that, that I think that what he did was, in some ways his justification echoed and therefore validated some of the Trumpian complaints, which I don't necessarily think are always valid. But he basically did say, yeah, there are political prosecutions. Yes, the Department of Justice cannot be trusted. Even my own Department of Justice cannot be trusted to do the right thing. But I mean, we need to remember some things. One, it was his own Department of Justice that brought the charges. Initially, Hunter Biden pled guilty. When that plea bargain fell apart, he was convicted by a jury of his peers. His argument of selective prosecution has been rejected by several judges, numerous judges. The legal system, you know, is still working. And Joe Biden spent most of the year saying he trusted that legal system. This was fundamental, that we trusted the rule of law, that no one was above the law, that he was going to respect the outcome of the legal system. And then this week he basically said, nevermind. And look, I don't think this emboldens Trump to do something he wouldn't otherwise do. Trump is going to do what he was going to do. But this is a long game and there are principles and this does set a precedent and it does open the door for that argument that you just mentioned.

A (10:33)

Who says that Biden is better?

B (10:36)

Better than.

A (10:38)

Than anyone? Since when is the Biden word something that you bank on? Since he entered politics lying about his academic record. Since he got chased out of a presidential race for plagiarism that he denied. I mean, you know, I get the sweetness of Joe Biden. I am not looking to just openly disrespect him as a man or as a politician. That's not productive. But where does this come from? The premise of the Republicans saying, well, he Said it was his word. And his word is supposed to be the Biden promise. Where the f. Where is that coming from?

B (11:14)

Well, okay, Democrats are saying the same thing. I mean, I know a lot of Democrats that actually did believe him. And as you point out, yeah, the.

A (11:20)

Same ones that said that he was 100% and that he was sharp as attack and that he hadn't lost a step and that they didn't need a primary, those Democrats.

B (11:30)

So, yeah, unfortunately. And that's why this is such a devastating blow to his legacy, because it is requiring everyone to reevaluate this. And I think that part of. Look, I think one of the great rules in journalism and politics is, you know, fawn, not on the mighty. Do not put your faith in princes. Politicians are who they are. Joe Biden has been who he is for a very, very long time. But because he was not Trump, I think that people projected on him certain virtues that perhaps were not warranted. Because right now, people are looking back and saying, all right, so they did. They were not honest with the American people about his condition. They were not honest about what their plans were. And many of the, you know, professions of support for the rule of law turn out to be paper thin. That's what's so dangerous, is that if you are supposed to be the protector of these constitutional norms, you can't at the last minute expose yourself, boast to somebody who did not tell the truth and is a hypocrite. That's what's so damaging. And I think it really does hurt his legacy.

A (12:40)

The simple distinction is who's willing to be better, Charlie, That's. That's all it is. And the Democrats made a fundamental error in judgment, which is saying that the other guy is worse is enough. And it was not enough because grievance was on the side of the other guy. So the what's bad, what's worse, who's pissed? That was all working against Democrats as the stewards of the status quo because they were in office and the way that they beat Trump was, we can be better than this guy. And Biden got a pass on his own personal analysis because he wasn't Trump. That election was a referendum on Trump. This one was a referendum on the Democrats and the status quo. And it just happened to be that Trump was the guy in the slot. I think they would have lost any of them, to be honest.

B (13:36)

Well, I think they would have lost to any other Republican. But, I mean, look, I want to make it clear, and I don't think this will come as A surprise to you. Trump is worse. Everything they said about Trump is true. But you're right, that was necessary, but it was not sufficient in order to convince the electorate. And part of the problem is now we have this ratcheting down of expectations, the redefining of deviancy. And by the way, if you are going to run against someone like Trump and what Trump represents, you really ought to really try to be better. And I think people will judge you by things like this. And I think that's where Joe Biden comes up so short right now.

A (14:23)

I think it's bigger than Biden. I can't. Look, maybe I'm just some conniving Sicilian and I just can't see past my own lineage. But there's zero chance that Trump's guys don't come after Biden any way they can for being corrupt. And for a very simple reason. I do not believe it's about law and order. I do not believe it's about accountability. I think that's all bullshit. I think it's a very simple political calculus of let's take away from them what they have on us, which is that Trump is dirty. And the only reason we know anything about Hunter Biden, the only reason we know anything about Burisma, is that it was all reaction formation to how the Democrats went after Trump, which I believe was extremely and in many cases gratuitous. But that's what's gonna happen right now. They're signaling it every way they can. I see it as grossly hypocritical by the Republicans to be what they say they oppose. But Biden would have been really brain dead to not insulate himself if he doesn't pardon his brother. He's a fool. The reason I think he pardoned Hunter now, instead of, you know, when you usually do it there in the, you know, in the, in the Christmas gloaming, is because he's got to do his brother.

B (15:43)

Okay? So, you know, look, I want to concede that he's a good father. You're also right. There's. Look, I don't know what Trump is gonna do on a lot of different things, but this you can be confident of. He is coming after them and there's nothing you can do. You know, and I wrote this after.

A (16:05)

Can pardon the guys that they need in order to kill you.

B (16:09)

So, I mean, you know, this is part of the irony when Jack Smith and Merrick Garland dropped all the charges against Trump, you know, in order to avoid, you know, a Saturday night massacre on January 20th, whatever that's going to be, it's going to happen. There's going to be a January 20th massacre anyway. Right? We're going to see that. So the question is, you know, can you possibly insulate yourself without burning yourself down? It's sort of like, you know, it's the last days of Rome. The barbarians are there and they're going to destroy all the icons. So what do you do? You run around, you destroy the icons before them. You know, there's the flip side. There's the, I think the most dangerous thing is obeying in. Obeying in advance, capitulation in advance. But there's also the self destruction in advance. Let's put out blanket pardons. I mean, I'm seeing on social media he should pardon Liz Cheney, he should pardon Adam Kinzinger. Well, no, because they haven't committed any crimes. And so at some point it feels like premature capitulation by doing that. But look, I certainly understand the realism of the point you're making that people should have no illusions about what Trump is planning to do. The question is then, should Biden pardon all sorts of people who committed no crimes whatsoever in order to insulate themselves?

A (17:31)

No, because I think that would be a step down the road that you're afraid he's paving. I think this is a no brainer, Charlie. If it were you, you would not only pardon your son, you'd pardon your brother and try to figure out what they were going to do. And I'm telling you, I think the best move, the only way to insulate himself politically from his own people killing him, which is the ultimate weakness of the Democrats. They think it makes them better. It does nothing but make them less competitive in a binary. They don't get that that's on them, you know, and I'll watch it. I'll watch it play out. He should pardon Trump.

B (18:08)

Oh, boy.

A (18:10)

And here's why. Here's why. Because, Charlie, you already admitted it. You just said that your son was a function of prosecutorial overreach for political reasons on your own. Watch your own doj. And you just admitted it. And only somebody who's completely blind with partisanship can believe that everything that happened to Trump was 100% legit and would have happened to anybody else. That is no more true about him than it is about Hunter Biden. These are some bullshit cases against Hunter, okay? Lying on a form the way he did where there's nothing that happens afterwards as a function of that application. Go find me those cases and see how they usually get Disposed this tax case. Go find me cases where people don't get a fine. It's not on the civil side. There isn't some kind of dockage. And it goes this way. It's very, very rare. This was selective. Same thing with those New York cases against Trump. So pardon Trump. Say this has to end, this has to end. We have to be better than this. I'm part of this.

B (19:24)

Is what you want Biden to say. You want Biden to basically acknowledge that all of his complaints were correct.

A (19:30)

No, not all of it.

B (19:31)

That in fact his own Department of Justice's actions were illegitimate. I don't think, by the way. See, I think you're making my point indirectly because in effect, Biden is suggesting a certain plausible argument along that way. But it leads to the absurd conclusion that Joe Biden should basically wipe away all of Donald Trump's sins.

A (19:56)

Not all of that.

B (19:57)

Joe Biden should confer a kind of immunity on Donald Trump's criminality that not even the Supreme Court was willing to confer. I don't think that Joe Biden should do that. I don't think he's going to do it. But this is, I guess my point is that he's opened the door for that kind of thinking and logic, by the way that he's done and by the way, he did not just pardon Hunter for the gun case and the tax case. It's kind of bullshitty, right? Or the tax case. He gave him an 11 year window of complete immunity for things that we don't even know. No one has ever granted that kind of a blanket immunity in a presidential pardon. The only one is Gerald Ford with Richard Nixon for the term of his presidency. What Joe Biden has done is he's pardoned his own son, by the way, the first president ever to pardon his own son. And he's done it for a longer period of time than ever before. Right, in presidential pardon history. So, I mean, this is pretty amazing what he has done, but it's what.

A (21:02)

He had to do. Well, nothing else would have made sense, Charlie, because he would have left him vulnerable to what's coming. You know what they want to do? They want to say that the Bidens were on the take from Ukraine and some Russian oligarchs. And you know, they want to do it because they say that's what's on the laptop when they know it's not what's on the laptop. Because they would have, they have the laptop, they would have acted on the laptop. Obviously, they weren't afraid of Acting on Hunter. So they're making that up. But it's a boogeyman that lives because they want it to. And if you were to pardon Trump, you're forgetting who we're dealing with. Charlie. You're forgetting who we're dealing with. And we're not dealing with Charlie Sykes. We're not dealing with Chris. Even Chris Cuomo, who's a very lower form of the same mammal as Charlie Sykes. You're dealing with Donald Trump. And if you say, I'm doing something good by you, Trump, he would say to his guys, you know what, enough of this shit. Let me pick on something else. I'm going to get comprehensive immigration.

B (22:06)

Okay, this is not actually, though, a mafia transaction, Chris. This is actually the two presidents of the United States dealing with constitutional issues involving the rule of law.

A (22:19)

What's the difference, Charlie? What is the difference in where our politics are today between a mob transaction and what we're watching?

B (22:29)

Okay, well, that's what's interesting, because I want to be the person saying, let's not make it into a mob transaction. Let's actually have a little bit higher. Have we defined dv?

A (22:39)

What do you call what the Democrats did with Kamala Harris? That wasn't a mob transaction.

B (22:45)

That was politics.

A (22:46)

Oh, what's the difference?

B (22:48)

Okay, well, wait, let's, let's, let's, let's stick with this.

A (22:51)

Yeah, yeah.

B (22:51)

Say now. I mean, Donald Trump has been a serial, you know, you know, has been a one man crime syndicate for a long time. And I guess the question becomes whether or not because he was president, he is literally above the law. And we're very close to that moment. We're close to the moment where the President is, the state, rewards his friends, punishes his enemies, you know, opens the door to any sort of lawlessness, tries to overthrow the government, all of these things. And the question is, do you wipe that away? Because he is also an incredibly vengeful person who will bend and twist the powers of government to get his opponents. Now, again, conceding that point sets precedents. But even leaving aside the precedent, I mean, seriously, is that really where we've come? I mean, do you really think that the system, that our political culture is so thoroughly corrupted already, that that would be an acceptable outcome is.

A (24:04)

I don't, I want proof to the contrary. I believe that what the Democrats did to Donald Trump, which I covered, which was the job, to impeach a guy when you know you have no chance of getting him removed. Okay, Zero chance. That was a political indulgence. To do nothing but distract from the interests of the people. And you were creating an impression of a standard that you never had any intention of holding up yourself. And the Democrats have proven the problem with their actions. Those New York cases, Charlie, were crap. And they only brought them to try to slow down Trump. We both know it. And what they did with Kamala Harris is proof that they don't give a shit about any higher standard. They didn't even allow for democratic process in their own stupid little club where they can do whatever they want.

B (25:06)

Well, sad. I don't want to go past this. You know, look, I thought it was unfortunate that the New York case you're talking about, the criminal case, both of them was the first, okay?

A (25:16)

The podcast, the AG case, and Bragg's case. You just don't find cases like it, Charlie. Why?

B (25:22)

Because you don't have figures like Donald Trump. You don't have people whose entire career is built on a mountain.

A (25:29)

Commercial real estate guys do stupid, funny money. This. This is what it's worth if I'm borrowing against it. This is what it's worth if I'm paying taxes. They play with it as an industry standard. Cases get made, okay, but not where nobody likes money.

B (25:48)

Remember when Bill O'Reilly asked Donald Trump, well, you know, I mean, you know, your good friend Vladimir Putin murders people. And Donald Trump's answer was, well, lots of people murder people. We murder lots of people. That argument that a lot of people do, it doesn't change the fact that Donald Trump has been one of the most thoroughly corrupt figures we've ever had. And there was an attempt to hold him accountable for it. And I regret that they didn't move faster on the January 6th case. Now, you mentioned the impeachment. The second impeachment was not a foregone conclusion after he incited a mob to violently attack the Capitol, which we ought not, to memory hold. We ought not try to say that that was. And the reality is that if Mitch McConnell would have gone this way instead of this way, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. There were 10 Republicans in the House that voted to impeach. There were seven Republican United States Senators who voted to convict. This was remarkable. I don't think that was a distraction, that impeachment.

A (26:56)

No, the first one was. I mean, the first one was Charlie. And the first one led to the second one. That's my argument. And my other argument, and then I'll give it back to you, is if a fat guy is telling you that an obese guy needs to lose weight and is disgusting. The reasonable person says, all right, I get it. The obese guy, that's pretty unhealthy. But you, chubby, should not be pointing at him. Worry about yourself. That is how people process Democrats and now their new allies like Charlie Sykes, saying what you're saying about Trump. They say, we know what Trump is. You're not telling us anything we don't know. But you guys are lesser versions of him, and you get away with it all the time. And now you want to pretend that we need to have a standard. You guys have been doing nothing but abusing the standard, and I want to burn it down. And this guy, as flawed as he is, he's willing to do that, and that's all need for him.

B (28:02)

Well, they've been making this argument, though, for the last decade. This is nothing new. I mean, I live through the, you know, the rise of what about ism, you know, which is that whatever crime you could point out that Donald Trump was committing. Well, what about Hillary? What about. So the what about ism is making a comeback here. But again, going back to the original, you know, conversation about the Joe Biden pardon, everything, that's why I am so disillusioned by it, because it brings us back to that point, saying, well, you've been lecturing us all this time. Look at what you have been doing, by the way, just the first impeachment, which never had any chance of going anywhere. Let's remember it was Donald Trump using the power of the presidency to try to coerce Volodymyr Zelensky into giving him dirt on Joe Biden and his sons. So in many ways, we have this complete circle. Now. That whole incident can't be separated from what Joe Biden just did, which was to immunize him. But there's the President of the United States telling the president of Ukraine suggesting that the shipment of weapons might be dependent on whether he digs up dirt on a political opponent. Again, we memory hold so much about Donald Trump because the zone is so flooded with his shit. There are so many lies we could.

A (29:27)

We had.

B (29:27)

There's just so much that even I do this for a living. I have to, like, keep notes. Yeah. Remember this? Remember when he did this? You remember the people who, you know, who died because he mishandled Covid. Do you remember? Et cetera, et cetera. So this is why it is important that if you want to say, you know, democracy's on the ballot. And I'm, you know, democracy's on the ballot, the rule of law is on the ballot. You don't do what Joe Biden has just done. I get it.

A (29:56)

I totally agree with you.

B (29:57)

Guys like me are going, what the fuck?

A (29:59)

I totally agree. I totally agree. The problem is you're wrong, Charlie. They are not better, they're just not as bad. And that is not enough for the American people anymore. Now you can say, well, hold on a second, hold on. You're saying that the Democrats are in the hole because they are not as bad as Trump, but that's not enough anymore. But then why would people vote for Trump? Wouldn't they vote for what they perceive as better? They are, they're voting for disrupting all of it. Yeah, but why would they pick him as a change agent? Because that is the psychology at play when you are desperate for an outsider, someone who is removed from the dynamic. The only other choice they had on that level was Ramaswamy and Kennedy. And Kennedy was a mixed bag, cuz he's like insider, you know, what is more inside than the name Kennedy? And he was really a Democrat and then he's got all this other kooky shit. So this was the only pragmatic choice for people who just wanna burn it all down?

B (31:14)

Well, yes, I mean, but your sentence there, you know, burning it all down is not always pragmatic. I mean, you know, pragmatic people who want change and get things done had options.

A (31:24)

Look, they don't believe that there'll be change. There's never been any change, Charlie.

B (31:31)

Well, I. His history would disagree.

A (31:34)

Point it out to me. Chris, in the last 20 years, what has changed in a way that would give people hope that there is better available within the process and the culture? Well, we.

B (31:48)

Could we go down a rabbit hole there?

A (31:50)

But you don't like any of my suggestions. You call them all rabbit holes.

B (31:54)

Well, no, I've only used the term rabbit hole once.

A (31:57)

Yeah, but you use memory hole. Memory hole, rabbit hole. I'm seeing the same thing.

B (32:01)

Yeah, same thing. No, go ahead. I make a distinction there. No, I mean the world, you know, whether you're talking about, you know, medicine or technology or prosperity. Yes, the world has gotten better. Now, are we about to become retrograde? It is certainly possible that we have. Look, Republican voters, Republicans head agency, Republican leaders head agency. There were off ramps to Donald Trump, but clearly he won the election. But let me. Can I just pull back? Because one of the things that frustrates me about modern punditry, and I'm not talking about you, is that somehow the election is vox populi. Is the voice of God? Well, no, at some point, and I'm more comfortable about doing this as a never Trumper, which means I'm used to losing and being irrelevant is to saying, I don't care if 70% of the voters think X. If it is fundamentally wrong, if it is immoral, if it is dishonest, then we ought to speak out against it. There are things that at the moment, in the heat of the moment, you're willing to accept that later you can look back on and go, you know, that was a mistake. We were wrong. We got caught up in the emotion of the moment and the divisions of the moment. But it was wrong. Donald Trump represents something off the normal scale. Now, I am not. I've been doing this a long time. You've been doing this a long time. I don't have any illusions about the character of politicians or anything, but, you know, look, but normally it's like this, right? There's the range of good and bad. Donald Trump is off the that chart. And I think that that's something that we need to acknowledge and it says something about our political culture that the voters did ultimately decide that that was the only alternative because they had to buy, you know, adjust their standards dramatically. You and I both know that almost on a daily basis, Donald Trump said or did something that 20 years ago, 30 years ago, would have been instantly disqualifying. And so in many ways, we've gotten better. In many ways, we have back. There's been some backsliding.

A (34:23)

Support for the Chris Cuomo project comes from Shopify. Listen, my friends, success in selling comes from a business and how often that business behind the business gets it done for that business. What does that mean? It means that you need people to help you get your wares where you need them to be. They work with untuckit. They work with Death Wish coffee. So when you think about a business that sells through the roof, like aloe Allbirds skim. Yeah. Yeah. They must have a great team.

B (35:03)

Yeah.

A (35:04)

What they have is the business behind them known as Shopify. My brothers and sisters, upgrade your business and get the same checkout that Untuck it uses. Sign up for your $1 a month trial period@shopify.com Chris C. All lowercase, if you please. Chrissy, go to shopify.com Chriscan upgrades you're selling today. Where shopify.com Chris C support for the Chris Cuomo project comes from select quote look so much in life is uncertain and the older I get, the more comfortable I am with my Decision to have life insurance in place to take care of my family. All right. Now, the problem is it's complicated. You know, there's so many sales pitches. There's so much pricing, there's so much variability. That's why I am so happy to partner with Selectquote. It's one of America's leading insurance brokers. 40 years of experience. They've helped over 2 million people find over $700 billion in coverage since 1985. Head to selectquote.com and a licensed insurance agent will call you right away. With the right policy for your life and your budget, select quote they shop, you save, get the right life insurance for you for less@SelectQuote.com Chris C. Go to SelectQuote.com Chris C. Today and you get started. SelectQuote.com Chrissie Hard times make strong people. Strong people make good times. Good times make weak people. Weak people make hard times. We are in the weak people make hard times phase of our cultural development, I would suggest, and I see signs of it all over the place, not just in the embodiment of Trump. And I think that you have to zero in on this kind of meta effect of why Joe Rogan has an audience beyond the idea that he has a big platform for whatever reason that he does. And he gets great guests because they want the reach so they can sell whatever they're doing. That makes sense. But why does Rogan get defended? Why does Trump get mitigated? Why do people now just default? Look at how we're vetting Hegseth, Cash Patel, obviously Gates and anybody else that the insiders don't like. It's all exclusively in the negative. And that is what knits it all together for me. Charlie, is that what we're seeing is this is where a zero sum binary battle to the bottom takes you, where you have people now listening to Joe Rogan, who does, is not a thought leader, okay? He's authentic. He's a conversationalist. He doesn't know a lot of things that he's talking about when it comes to politics and policy. He will admit that. He's admitting it less and less now. But why? Because they want something that is outside the norm and they have been weaned onto nothing but negative assessments. Pete Hegseth, I have no idea why they see a positive in him because nobody has explained it to me. Same thing with Cash Patel.

B (38:43)

I wasn't sure where you were going there.

A (38:44)

Well, it's all negative all the time. And this is where it gets you, that the Idea of, well, they're worse. People are exhausted by it. Here's how I know I have to be right, Charlie. The Democrats lost the election not because Trump built a new coalition. That's not what happened. He had some demographic shifts in his favor. Yes. And the Democrats did not. The Democrats lost because they stayed home. There were. This is. I can't remember the last presidential election we had where there were fewer votes than the one before it. Yes, we had a lot of juiced voting during the pandemic period. We were trying to get people to vote, you know, much more because of the restrictions. But why do you think the Democrats stayed home, Charlie? Because in that answer, I believe is your overall answer.

B (39:32)

Yeah. I mean, at some point you have to say, this is how I'm making your life better. This is what I am doing for you. And I think it always comes down to, are you on my side? Do you understand people like me? Can we just go back, though? Because I want to just clarify where we're going on some of those appointments. I mean, the Pete Hegseth, you know, Cash Patel, Matt Gaetz, I mean, these are fucking absurd appointments, right? I mean, these are big middle fingers to, I think, all the institutions. They are beyond the pale. I actually was on doing one of the cable shows yesterday and, you know, reading the latest story about Pete Hegseth drinking and everything, and it's like, wow. Just wow. What? The notion that we're thinking about putting this man in charge of the 3 million men and women of the Department of Defense in charge of the most power military is just so obscenely stupid. And I think that just sort of take a deep breath here. Have we reached a point, I mean, have we reached a point where America thinks that's acceptable, that this is a good idea? It's such a complete insult to the military, it's an insult to the people in law enforcement, the first responders, to do this sort of thing. So there is something breathtaking and I do wonder whether or not, and we'll find out whether or not Donald Trump is misreading his non mandate here. He did win the election. But whether he's misreading, because you and I both know people who say, I wanna burn it all down. But then when you get specific, do you wanna cut this? Do you wanna cut this? Do you wanna eliminate this? Do you really wanna do this? They go, no. And I do wonder whether there's just an obscene overreach going on right now. And that's another reason why I think the Democrats should stop Doing stupid things. Well, you know, somebody's gotta be better.

A (41:25)

Somebody's gotta be better. And that was not the tack that the Democrats took because of the measuring stick that people like me are only too willing to apply, which is, can I find some shit on Charlie that will embarrass him, that will hurt him personally? That's the only vetting we do. I mean, listen to the conversation. Charlie Hegseth, his drinking, his. Here's my very crude feeling about it. I don't give a fuck about what somebody does in their personal life unless it affects their performance, okay? Now, if the guy is a raging. If the guy is a raging addict, okay, now we're talking. But that is not.

B (42:16)

He's a raging asshole and an incompetent one.

A (42:18)

But then everybody's disqualified, Charlie.

B (42:20)

Okay? So. Well, it does affect his.

A (42:23)

Nobody survives the scrutiny is what I'm saying. Nobody survives the scrutiny anymore. That's why all these great people in our society won't get involved, because they're gonna find something on you.

B (42:35)

Cash Patel, Pete Hagseth, Matt Gaetz are not the great people in our society. The fact that you point out that Pete Hegseth is a guy who, by the way, it has affected his performance. He was removed from his position running the only organizations he's ever run because his misconduct was so egregious. This is a guy who's so awful, his own mom is saying he's a skeevy chode. I mean, come on. So we do need to have, I think legitimate, and I mean legitimate vetting. And I do also think, and I'm a deep believer in this, that we can't have a standard of absolute purity. Human beings are complex. They are a mixture of good and bad or weak and strong. All you do is dig for the bad stuff.

A (43:19)

Charlie, I've never heard of balancing. Every article that is about everybody has a headline that kills you. Then you have two, three paragraphs of why they're killing you, which is not as good as the headline, but it's bad. And then five graphs down, there'll be a balancing statement just so that you don't get sued. That's where we are. That's why you get Cash Patel. You get Cash Patel because you're asking for people to pick people who. Yeah, they have tons of marks all over them because that's all you're looking for. So let me make it easy for you. And I'm gonna pick them anyway because they have an offsetting virtue that matters more to me than all the Stuff that you say about everybody because everybody gets torn down, okay? But that's the explanation.

B (44:05)

There's no one that they could have picked who would have been more plausible than Cash Patel. I mean, you look through I noticed, like lots of qualified people out there, people who in fact have survived scrutiny because they are smart, they are decent, they are honorable, they are effective, and our government has been filled with them. Now, have they also been filled with a lot of idiots? Yeah, people who haven't passed it. But this is one of the things, look, when you put forth absurd appointments, obscenely absurd appointments like Gates and in Cash Patel and Peter Hegseth, you ought to expect negativity because that's what the record is. That's what we, first of all, that's what the media is supposed to do, is to hold people accountable. Especially if you're not going to have an actual legitimate vetting like by the FBI or something, you're going to get this sort of thing. But I am afraid that because you have people who are so grotesquely disqualified from office, that what's happening is the defining of deviancy down, that we no longer expect competence and virtue in the people that we name as you keep lowering, lowering, lowering. I mean, the fact that Matt Gaetz was a ridiculous appointment for Attorney General, so, you know, he's eliminated. And then what does Trump do? He puts in somebody who is marginally less absurdly disqualified, Pam Bondi. And so what happens is we keep lowering and lowering our expectations. And I think that gets you to the kind of point where you're talking about where people have lost all faith. Because if you think that everybody, everybody is awful, everybody's a crook, then frankly, how does democracy move forward? Right? Because what is the point then? We have no trust in our institutions. We have no trust in anything we, we hear, we don't care whether it's true or whether it's false or whether it's virtuous or it's not. We don't care about character anymore. Well, you know, if your point is that we're already there, that's one of my great fears, because that's the road we're on.

A (46:12)

I think that's exactly where we are. And I think that that's what this election was about. And I think that the Democrats stayed home because they were embarrassed by their own party and the perfidy that was completely on display. A woman who no Democrat had anything good to say about. And you know I'm right, Charlie. Nobody, when Biden said he was going to run for a second term, which was ludicrous. Said, no, no, no, no, no. We got Harris, nobody. And then all of a sudden, just because you got to beat Trump, she's black, female. Jesus. And then when I say that, I get called a racist. I mean, this is where we are, and that's why Trump won. And I'm telling you, you're missing something on this, Charlie. You're right on the principle, but you have to look at it through the lens of what is beating you, and you can't just dismiss it as irrational. Cash Patel is all of these questionable things. He is also ride or die for Donald Trump. And that is the offsetting virtue that matters to their voters because they believe they are in an us versus them war. And their warriors are imperfect. Yeah, they get it, but they are.

B (47:37)

First of all, I don't believe that the voters think that about federal law enforcement necessarily. But you are right. The overriding virtue of Cash Patel is loyalty. Not to the Constitution, not to the rule of law, not to the institution or its traditions. His loyalty is to the man, is to Donald Trump. And whatever Donald Trump wants to do. And that is not a virtue. That is the threat that Donald Trump has taken the word loyalty and he's made it all about himself. He is not looking for people who are, again, loyal to the idea of America, to the United States. I mean, I say this as somebody that knows people in the military, knows people in the Department of Justice, flawed people, but have this long, this deep sense of loyalty, not to an individual. And this is what bothers me about him, because he's surrounding himself with people who he knows will never say no to him. We'll never say, Mr. President, that would violate the law. Mr. President, you cannot do that. And Trump made, you know, you can imagine the conversation, Mr. President, if you did that, it would violate the law. And the president would say, fuck that. I will just pardon myself. I will pardon you. There is no law. So to put people who don't care about the law, who have personal loyalty in charge of these vastly powerful organizations, this is dangerous. And this is a uniquely dangerous situation.

A (49:12)

Unless you flip the supposition, which is the danger is the institutions, that they have been corrupted by culture, but also a binary system of advantage. And that's how we've gotten here. And they want people who are going to go in there and change them and everything that you're pointing to as virtues they see as part of the vice structure. They don't think that about federal law enforcement. Yeah, they do. That's exactly what they think about federal law enforcement.

B (49:45)

Well, MAGA loyalists do.

A (49:47)

MAGA loyalists just won the popular vote in this country.

B (49:52)

No, Donald Trump did. See, I think this is the misinterpretation. It's to assume that the people who came out and voted, because I think your earlier analysis was correct, that this is a change election. People were taking out their frustrations. They were upset about inflation. They don't think that there's change. They vote. Yeah, we want to try something different. Does that mean that they have now internalized all of the agenda of Project 2025? Does that mean that they want the Department of. Do you think that the people really want to spend the next six months doing what you've predicted they're going to be doing, which is a campaign of political retribution?

A (50:33)

No.

B (50:33)

Did they sign?

A (50:34)

I think it'll backfire.

B (50:35)

Okay. Okay. Well, see, so they didn't say that they wanted. Basically. I mean, you can see that Donald Trump is sitting down there. Who will be my instruments of revenge? Because that is what I am going to prioritize. Did voters vote for that?

A (50:50)

I probably think that the majority did not. Now, look, and Charlie, you're not on the list. I am. So if he's gonna go after people, I guarantee you I'll be one of the people that they go after. And I'm okay with that because that's what I signed up for. I am spoiling for that kind of fight. And we'll see where it goes, and we'll see how he wants to play it. And I do believe that's why his people reach out to me as often as they do right now. They're trying to get a feel for where they're gonna have to target and how they're gonna target. And I'm an easy target because the media loves to eat its own, the left loves to eat its own, and the right only protects its own. So I used to feel bad for guys like you because I'd be like, well, this guy's like a real conservative, and now he's got nowhere to go. Because if you're a conservative and you don't like Trump, you're not a conservative anymore. That sucks. But. But I feel even worse for guys like me because I refuse to give a nod to the bullshit that either of these sides are trying to convince themselves of, because I know what the salvation for the process is. I know it. I'm just watching it develop. And it's just happening too slowly for me and for all of us. And it is the rejection of the parties and the birth of the independent voter movement. This is the first election where more people said I'm an independent than said they were a Democrat when they voted in the presidential election. Now, a lot of them were probably people who left the Democratic Party in a fit of pique. They were equal to the number of people who said they were Republican. The more people leave the parties, leave the idea of group loyalty, and become just straight up critical thinkers like George Carlin was begging people to for a generation. That is the salvation. Because nothing changes if nobody's willing to be better, Charlie. And Biden was never better. Biden was never better. Okay? He was just better. He was just not as bad as Trump. But that doesn't give you the right to say that you're good. The fact that you're not as bad as me doesn't mean that you're good. And that's what Democrats need to be. Or whoever. Whoever wants to beat what is out there right now needs to be demonstrably better and probably not from the system right now.

B (53:20)

Okay? So I very much agree with this. So let me give you two unpopular opinions here, though. Number one, because you brought up Kamala Harris several times, as you know, I burned all the boats and supported Kamala Harris. I was one of those who was a Kamala Harris skeptic. I was one of those who probably bought the idea that there was no plan B. So, I mean, I'm in that. Which is why when Joe Biden came out and did that debate, I felt really misled about all of this, because clearly, you know, the original sin is his notion that he could run for reelection. Having said that, I actually. And this is gonna be a very unpopular opinion. I think she was a much better candidate than I expected. I think she ran a close to flawless campaign. But given the nature of the Democratic Party, given her association with a toxically unpopular regime, you know, regime. I wasn't gonna say regime incumbent. There was no way that she was gonna be able to pull this off in retrospect. But having said that, this is why I think we have to break from this binary world. And I guess because I have kind of a foot in both worlds, these alternative reality silos that both the left and the right have are just incredible. So you go over to Twitter, and it's one cesspool of cancel culture. I worry about Blue sky becoming the different version of all of that and the sort of the moral relativism that people inevitably buy into when it's all about the team. Because if it's all about the team and party loyalty. Then you're going to eat a shit sandwich all the time. And then when you go out to people and say, hey, look, the other guy is serving you shit sandwiches, people are going to go, whatever. So, I mean, I don't know how to get there, though. I don't know how to break people, because, as you have undoubtedly noticed, people want to hear what they want to hear people. And so much of the media has now become about audience service, right? There's that audience capture. And people in their bubbles insist on having all of their prior prejudices and ideas validated all the time. They don't want to hear. They don't want to hear bad news. They don't want to hear their opinions challenged. And so this is why what I've seen happening since, say, 2015, especially accelerating, has been this just sort of hermetically sealing off of people from other points of view. And unfortunately. And so, for example, I'm getting into speaking of rabbit holes. So I think one of the things that killed Kamala Harris in this campaign, and a lot of Democrats recognize it, but a lot of progressives don't, the whole transgender issue. I live here in Wisconsin. You could not turn on any television without pounding, pounding, pounding. Trump is for us. She is for they and them and transgender surgeries and prisons. And they never answered that. And in part, they couldn't answer it because they were afraid of their activist base turning on them if they deviated from the transgender agenda. And on places like, as you know, I'm a contributor at msnbc. I don't even remember having it come up as a conversation that, hey, this is something the Democrats need to talk about. The Democrats need to come up with a response for. So in some ways, the Democrats are trapped by their own interest groups, and Kamala Harris just was not able to.

A (57:09)

That's the binary structure. I think if they had had Shapiro and Wes Moore, they would have run away with the election. Now, of course, it's completely speculative, but I just think they were way stronger candidates. I think that they would have appealed in a way that would have checked boxes. She never could. But that all never happened. So it doesn't really matter. You're 100% right about the trans issue, and when you don't tell your own story, you allow the other side to tell it for you, and they're gonna exaggerate it, and it's gonna end with you dying. And that's what they did with transgender. And the left is held hostage by A flank. But it is bigger than that. And it's something that has to be consistently given voice. And it just sounds so weak. But that's unfortunate. The reason that I believe Jesus had to be crucified was there is such a vulnerability. There is such a demonstrable weakness in being better and virtue. It is way easier to be tough and hard and mean and base. And look, my father, everybody lionizes their own. And I am very careful not to do that. I'm very aware of who my father was, who my brother is, who I am, who my sisters are. I get it, okay? Like you say, I have a foot in both. Also, I know what it's like to be examiner and the examined. I'm telling you, Charlie, I don't know how well you followed my father. You do not have Democrats like him today. And I have these punk ass bitch Democrats telling me that I don't know what their party is and that I don't understand. They're telling Mario Cuomo's son that I don't understand what the Democratic Party is about and why they're better. And they are clueless, as are their friends in the media, okay, who have been given power and platform they do not deserve. And not because of race, but because of pedigree and experience. We have all these people who are professionals, who've never worked around politicians. They've never been around a campaign when there's not a camera on. They don't know any of these people anymore. They're just professional yappers. And it's the negativity, Charlie. You can't look past it. It's everything. Nobody is a slogan deep on positivity. Nobody. It is all why the other side is worse. And that is why Trump is enough for them. Because, you know, it's like McCain used to say, you know what happens when you get in the mud with a pig, right? You get dirty and he likes it.

B (60:11)

And the pig loves it.

A (60:12)

And that's what has to change. Look, Trump is gonna give you guys tons of opportunities to criticize him. The mistake will be, and I will take them attacking what he does, that will be the mistake. The right response will be to say what's better? Constantly make it as much of an echo as the he sucks, okay? Messaging is.

B (60:38)

So this is why, circling back, why I think that what Joe Biden just did is so damaging. Because when Donald Trump comes into office on January 20, what is he going to do? What is the first thing he's going to do? He's, you know, the Oath will have been given, and then he's going to pardon many of the January 6 rioters, the people who attack the cops and everything. And I think that to your point, yes, I think people ought to criticize that, you know, but also you have to say, what is better than that is to have confidence in the criminal justice system to hold people accountable for their behavior. Joe Biden has just undermined that. This is a better approach.

A (61:24)

I agree. I agree. But I don't think that's the right response, because the most of the people don't give a shit about him pardoning the January 6th people. They get what it was. Once again, the Democrats overplayed the situation. The truth is enough, and we keep forgetting that. So they called it an insurrection, not an insurrection. That's why nobody was charged with insurrection. He had some seditious conspiracy, but there's a law called insurrection, and they didn't charge it for a reason. But you guys kept calling it that. That was a mistake, and you lost leverage. And you can say, yeah, but potato, potato, but you were in a battle to the bottom. The right move when he pardons the January 6th people is to say, what about immigration? What are you doing for grocery prices? Oh, I'm gonna do that, too. Yeah, but you didn't. You just came out of the box and did something that doesn't make anything better for the majority.

B (62:21)

I think that they can walk and chew gum at the same time.

A (62:23)

No, they can't.

B (62:24)

They can't.

A (62:25)

They can't, Charlie. And we say that all the time. And anybody who's ever said that to you has not been doing it. Think about it. Anybody who's ever said to you in politics, well, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Show me they never do it. They can barely raise the debt ceiling.

B (62:42)

Okay, see, now here's a question that is going to come off a little bit snarkier than I intended to, but it's a question that I use all the time.

A (62:51)

Well, at least you know that going into it. Right, right, right.

B (62:54)

I do. I understand. So you're saying that, you know, that, you know, the. You know, overplayed the. You know, the we. We. Because I've. I've been a big critic of January 6th and have talked about it a lot. You say that the public doesn't care about it. And I guess one of my questions is. And I think this is one of these philosophical questions that I've learned from the stoics. So what? Sometimes, okay, you know, I am not going to decide how I feel about this based on the poll results. This was an attack on the US Capitol, an attempt to overturn the election.

A (63:31)

Yes, it was.

B (63:32)

This was an inch away from the worst constitutional crisis in our history since the Civil War. So I really don't care if voters in Kansas didn't care.

A (63:45)

I agree.

B (63:45)

I don't care. I'm going to decide what I care about and what I talk about. Dusty. So let's separate out here, because we're talking about what Democrats should say. I am not a Democrat. I am going to be one of the people who is going to be talking about this and writing about this. And I think your point, by the way, is that, and I think this is the big flaw of the Trump presidency, of what's about to happen, is that he will be obsessing about things that do not affect people's lives, that don't solve any problems. For example, what is he doing about the crisis in education in America today? Who's actually doing anything to raise academic performance or close the racial achievement? G. We're not even talking about these things, much less talking about the price of eggs. But I do think that at some point, in order to get to that independent voter you're talking about, we need to sort of tune out the polls and everything and go, what is right? What is wrong? What do I think?

A (64:51)

I agree.

B (64:51)

And if someone says, well, no one cares about what you think, my response is, so what? This is what I think. This is what's going on.

A (64:58)

The Stoics gave you a corollary concern that you haven't stated, and it is more important than the first that you do. So what? Yes. What's the corollary concern? Now, what that is? Okay, that's the couplet that Aurelius got from Zeno. There are only two questions when anything happens to you in life because you have very little control over what actually happens, but you have 100% control over what your ability to react to that thing, what it means to you. That's why they say things that are so hard to penetrate. The weak mind, like mine, like no one can hurt you. What do you mean? I get punched in the face as a hobby. Yeah, but whether you're injured or not is your description. Whether you're offended or not is your description. It's your decision. So, so what, you don't care about January 6th? I'm not saying they don't care. I'm saying it's baked in. And hearing that it's bad, they're more Worried about their own lives.

B (65:57)

Ah, yeah.

A (65:58)

So now. And that's the opportunity space. Whatever Trump does is gonna leave a yawning gap of now what? Because they're gonna be very discreet agendas. What do you do about education? You talk about transgender. That's gonna be unsatisfying for people with kids. Now, they're gonna be somewhat mollified if they were convinced that people are gonna tell their kids that they need to chop off their peepees. Okay, fine. But that's a. That's a subset. If you talk about what matters and you have ideas, you're now in the operative plane of the only thing that gets you out of the situation you're in right now, which is being obsessed with now what?

B (66:41)

Okay, so, Chris, first of all, I would be remiss if I did not give you serious props for the Xeno Aurelius reference. Okay. I mean, I didn't. How many podcasts being recorded today actually talk about Zeno and his influence on Marcus Aurelius? I mean, well done. I feel like we can drop the mic now.

A (67:05)

I'll tell you what. If life were a written test, I would not just get a 100. I would get whatever the bonus points are on the back of the page that I never read as a student because I was just trying to pass the practical exam. Kicks my ass nine times out of ten, Charlie. My frustration is not unlike Neo in the Matrix. All I see is the code. I've lived this my entire life. I understand exactly. I could have made a fortune on this election. I knew that it was Trump's to lose eight, nine months ago, and that was when I just knew that people were lying about Biden. Now, was I wrong not to say that I think Biden is what they say in Italian, Mezza stuna. That he is half dumb? No, I don't. I don't regret not saying that more. Why? I was lying. I was covering. No, I was not lying. I was not covering. I was not sure. And most of my information and observations were confidential. They were coming from sources I didn't have. I don't have direct contact. Contact with Biden. Ever since he went bad on my brother, I haven't heard from him. So it was confidential sources telling me things that I advanced within my own understanding as they came into comparison or contrast with what was reportable. Because also, Charlie, as you and I know, and people don't know enough at home, but they should. People lie to you. Confidential sources lie to you, too. Or people get shit wrong all the time. And they think it's true, but then it's not. So I have seen where we are. I see why we are where we are. I understand it very well. I got a lot of Trump people in my life and I'll tell you what, only one of them is impressed with Trump personally, other than with his resilience and his ability to work the system. Only one of them of well over a dozen people who felt this was the only way they could vote. And I understand what it is. And it's not because they're bigots, Charlie. And if the left and the media don't get off that kick that every time somebody disagrees with what they say or thinks that Trump is onto something, they're a bigot. I think that, I don't even think that we're at maybe close to mid point of how many losses the left is going to take. I think they're going to lose every state house, every one of them. Because if you can't get to a place where you're offering regular people something that sounds better, you're just going to keep loops.

B (70:07)

Politics is in cycles and I certainly. And you've been doing this a long time. And after a defeat like this, it feels like it's going to be forever and it seldom is. But let me go back to this thing about the bigotry, because this is complicated. And as a long time conservative talk show host, I lived through that period where the left accused everyone, everyone of being a racist. George H.W. bush was a racist. Mitt Romney was a racist. John McCain was a racist, I was a racist. Whatever position you disagreed with. And I think that at a certain point people got numbed out about it. Got numb. And I think that it has lost all of that. In fact, I don't know if you probably missed it, but when I actually hosted something with Kamala Harris and the New York Times did a big story about a word I had used 15 years ago once on my radio show, the racially incentive. And it was the really, guys, you're going to keep throwing this out, but here's the problem. Donald Trump did run the most bigoted campaign we have ever seen. The whole Haitians eating dogs and cats, the kinds of great replacement theory. The problem is separating out the really toxic stuff from this. Years and years and years of accusing boy cry rule. You disagree with. Yes. And you know what? This is something that it's a message that I think progressives have a very hard time understanding that if everything is racist, then nothing is racist. So I Mean, I was in the position of making the argument that you're talking about. I mean, we were so sick and tired. Every. If you were in favor of school choice, you were a racist. You were a fascist. Like, seriously, tax cuts. You were a racist. You were a fascist. So when the real racists and quasi fascists came along and people say, well, wait, that is. People are going, yeah, yeah, we've been hearing that for a generation. And I think that's part of the problem. So, you know, Donald Trump engaged in the kind of speech that would have been regarded as breathtakingly awful in the Republican party of, say, 1988, but now Republicans just brush it off. And I. But I worry about how we move the window of acceptability. And I don't know how to separate this out.

A (72:37)

By being better. By being people like Wes Moore and Shapiro, Bismore's great. Who use a different level. Ben Sasse, wherever he went, you know, the guys on the right like that, too. Now, a lot of them have had to make much harder decisions because they'll get killed by Trump. I mean, I just had his guy, Bossy last night say, if you don't vote for all his picks, we'll primary you. And look, that's all of his picks. That's what he should be saying. But, you know, Crenshaw, you know, there are guys who just try to hold a different standard. People get upset at me, why won't you call him a racist? Why won't you say this about her? What? I don't judge people personally when I'm talking about their professional characteristics, unless that characteristic goes directly to what they're being asked to do. If somebody were a racist.

B (73:30)

If Donald Trump is being asked to be President of the United States, and. And he engaged in overtly racist comments and statements and themes in his.

A (73:40)

I understand and appreciate that. That's not what I'm talking about.

B (73:43)

We gotta look very clearly at that point.

A (73:45)

I'm talking about a suit about paying women to be quiet about his affairs. 500 women coming up with accounts that nobody feels must be corroborated. And all of that is done to the exclusion of any other kind of analysis about what might matter to people. This is our own doing. We did this. And.

B (74:13)

Well, what are you specifically talking about?

A (74:15)

I'm saying that if you wanted to go at Trump, okay, yeah, you go at him with a nice broad brush like you do with everybody else, and he gives you plenty to work with because he's a pathological liar. And then you just constantly show that he doesn't know how to do what has to be done, and you can do it better. And his whole life is testament to that.

B (74:38)

Okay, this is my frustration. And I was on another podcast and I made this point. I'm not sure that I got it right, but I think we ought to be those of us who were never Trump in opposition. Everything that could be said about Donald Trump was said. Everything that could be written has been written. Everything that could be exposed, I think has been exposed.

A (75:00)

Right.

B (75:00)

And he was still reelected. It's not as if we would have said it differently. It would be different. And I don't think it's irrelevant. And again, the thing about Donald Trump is there's just so much. I mean, we, you know, I've been in hours, long discussions about Donald Trump, and it's only at the end that somebody will say, and don't forget, we had a federal judge say that his sexual assault on a woman was the equivalent of rape.

A (75:26)

Yes.

B (75:27)

If this happened to you or me, there is no job of trust in the world that we could have actual rape. And yet it's what, item number 568 in all the things that we think about Donald Trump, this is part of the problem, is that. But our standard. See, I don't know about you, but everywhere else in society, I look around and go, you know, parents teach their children about sportsmanship. We look for people who are honest and the people we hire as babysitters, the people that you would name Officers in the U.S. military or coaches of a football team. And our standards for politicians have become so much lower than in any other walk of life in any one of these things would be disqualifying. And I guess that, you know, I know you. Why was negativity? I don't know.

A (76:29)

Something had to matter more, Charlie, because people demand these things in their own lives. People demand these things in their own lives. Why? Why not here? And I think it's because people don't have the expectation of better when it comes to this.

B (76:48)

Well, that's a crisis because basically then it means that in our daily lives, in our businesses, we have these standards, but we no longer have these standards for our democracy. So what does that say about democratic norms? And I have to say that one of the things that I'm going to get into with my progressive friends at some point is, you know, all the references to, you know, defending democracy and everything. I think you take a deep breath and go, you know, the 2024 election, this is what democracy looks like. You have to have Other things simply than democracy. If you don't have this expectation, if you don't have standards, if you don't have character, if you don't have the rule of law, if you don't have the Constitution, you're in a very dangerous situation.

A (77:32)

But who says we don't have it?

B (77:34)

See, I don't know.

A (77:35)

I was reading from the other day, and the. Look, the reason I love you, Charlie, and I love David, I love guys who are just better thinkers than I am on a lot of these questions, because unlike most people these days, I'm much more fascinated by what I don't know and I'm not sure about than what I do know. And I want to be sure about. Right. I mean, that's part of the issue here, is that everybody's looking for confirmation bias, but we're in a constitutional crisis. I think you guys are going way too fast and way too far and playing into how we got here. We're gonna be in a constitutional crisis. We don't even know what the fuck the guy's gonna do. He's gonna be on a revenge tour. Look at who he's picking. Maybe, maybe not. I think it's just as likely that he's picking these cantaloupes because he wants them to be in positions to protect him, not to attack other people. And if that's what they're doing, then all Cash Patel or Hegseth or whoever it is, all they're doing is increasing the chances he'll be less effective. I don't know that he's gonna go on a jihad.

B (78:39)

But again, just earlier in this discussion, though, you said, and I agreed with you, that he's going to go on a revenge tour. He's gonna go after the Biden family. And you're absolutely right, he is going to do that. So we do know what he's going to do.

A (78:52)

No, I don't think it's going to be him. I think he's going to have Congress do. I don't think it's gonna be Cash Patel or any of these guys, because frankly, and this is my same feeling about Trump as a despot, he's not smart enough. He's not strategic enough. He doesn't understand the ambition enough. He's too lazy to want to be what it takes to be that kind of autocrat. And the people he's putting in positions of power have never achieved any kind of ambition that would be suggestive of their ability to be as diabolical as that. They may wanna be, but that doesn't mean you know how to be. That's the genius of McConnell. Right.

B (79:33)

He knows better in 2.0 than he did in 1.0, and he's surrounding himself with people who will not say no to his instincts. I hope you're right about this, by the way. And I do think there's a real possibility that you surround yourself with incompetent folks like this, and that is not the way you establish an autocracy. I do, however, worry about in the number two and the number three positions and the fact that they do have a blueprint. I think the fact that he came out and named his entire Cabinet by now is a sign that they're ready to go, they want to run. I think that, by the way, there's some real downsides to naming everybody this early because now we have two months of vetting. And trust me, Hegseth is not going to look better with the more vetting. But I do think that he's got a plan and he's got a ruthlessness and he's got nothing to lose. Plus, he knows that he has, or at least he thinks he has a Congress that will be a rubber stamp for him. I think he may be wrong about the United States Senate, and I think he may be wrong about the judiciary. One of the things we're talking, we keep talking about the rule of law and these pardons. It's as if we don't have any confidence that the judiciary can handle any of these issues. You know, the federal judges are watching all of this. The Supreme Court is watching all of this. You know, let's not assume that they have greenlit everything that Donald Trump is thinking of doing right now. But look, he lost his first battle.

A (81:03)

He lost his first battle with Senator Scott. I mean, the guy, he wanted to be the head of the Senate. He got it wrong. He didn't know how unpopular the guy was.

B (81:12)

And that was the day he named Matt Gaetz.

A (81:15)

That's right.

B (81:16)

It was the first of his. And also, you know what else? He lost. I mean, he hasn't done the recess appointments yet. We haven't seen the Congress roll over. And also, he's going to push very, very, very hard to abolish the filibuster, and they won't do it. So there's several ways in which the Senate Republicans have already said, hey, we are not potted plants here.

A (81:37)

I agree. And I'll leave you on one thought. Okay? And again, you said earlier on you don't care if people don't See why you see things are right. Good. Right, Charlie, that has served you well, and it will serve you well. Because if there's one thing we should all be confident of, when I look around at what people are using as the basis of their judgment, I'm not impressed and I'm not looking to join with any of the combinations that I see out there right now. I'm pretty good. Being alone. And people can say, well, that's because you've been red pilled. That's because you're a closet lefty. That's because you hate Trump. Trump. All I know is I got both sides. I never used to believe the idea that if both sides are coming after you, it means you're doing your job. I used to think that it means that you're getting the mix wrong on how you're telling a story. I now feel differently about it. But I will tell you something. I know about Mr. Trump, okay? And I know I'm right. Trump does not want to be feared. Trump wants to be loved. Trump wants to be adored. Trump. Trump hates that the left and so many people hate him. The initiative he cared about most when he won, surprisingly, in 2015, because he did not think he was going to win. He didn't even want to be at the hotel that night was DJT100. How do we get to 100% popularity? What got him here cannot get him onto Mount Rushmore. It cannot happen. He knows that if the man has an opportunity to get the love he wants, he will not give a shit where it comes from or what it means for everybody else who was with him at the time. So if that means working with the Democrats, if that means throwing his enemies a bone, he'll do it in a nanosecond, just like he met with Joe and Mika. Because he is not burdened by the principles that you so desperately seek. And you have to remember that in your analysis of him, he ain't a hardcore gangster.

B (83:48)

He wants to be loved. He wants to be loved. He's not going to get to 100%, so his default setting will be fear. And the point of a lot of these appointments is fear. And so he would prefer to be loved, but he's going to settle for fear, as all autocrats do. All autocrats want to be adored, but if they are not adored, they're satisfied with having you fear them and crushing them.

A (84:16)

I think he's so afraid of what happened the first time that he's putting guys in that he believes the only thing they'll get Right. Is protecting him from whatever they're in charge of. And he's not gonna ask anything of them beyond that. But here's the good news.

B (84:28)

What does he need to be protected from?

A (84:30)

Protected from the DOJ investigating him, the Department of Defense saying that all of his military plans are no good. Congress coming after him. He doesn't want any of that. He's putting people in position.

B (84:46)

These are known as checks and balances.

A (84:49)

Well, yes, and he believes it was imbalanced. So he wants people now who can't throw up special counsels every five minutes and come after him. That's what he wants.

B (84:58)

He will not have to worry about that. He will definitely not have to worry about that.

A (85:02)

That's the point. Well, Charlie, here's what I'm worried about. I need more Sykes in my life. I need it here. I need it on News Nation. I need it wherever I can get it. Because conversation is the cure. You gotta keep talking about these things and not talking to one another. I mean, you and I, I don't see you in any way as. I see you as better, but I don't see you as at odds with me in any way. We, Bo, both want to see the country get to a better place. And both of us feel that that's very much in doubt right now. So let's keep talking about it. Thank you for being a gift to my audience and all the thought and all the passion that you bring to bear in your work.

B (85:40)

Thank you so much. I've enjoyed it very much. Chris.

A (85:47)

We don't see it the same way, but we have the same goal. How does something get better? Who will be better? What does better even look like? What are your thoughts? Give me the questions, give me the comments, and thank you for subscribing and following. Appreciate it.

B (86:06)

All right.

A (86:06)

You want it ad free? Subscribe at the substack. It's only five bucks a month. And, yes, I think they're going to kick you off after three months. So you do have to re up. I'm not the one kicking you off, okay? I don't know anything about how substack works. The five bucks goes to pay for putting this all together. It goes to help people get long Covid treatment if they can't afford it. With my doctor, Dr. Robin Rose. That's why I'm doing all the COVID stuff on there, the long Covid stuff on there, the longevity stuff. My walk and talks. It's all about helping each other get to a better place. So what do you say? Let's get after it.