Gaetz Tulsi RFK: An Infernal Golden Braid

Summary

Summary of "Gaetz Tulsi RFK: An Infernal Golden Braid" – The Commentary Magazine Podcast

Release Date: November 14, 2024
Host: John Podhoretz, Editor of Commentary Magazine
Participants: Christine Rosen, Matthew Continetti, Seth Mandel, Abe Greenwald

---

Introduction

The episode titled "Gaetz Tulsi RFK: An Infernal Golden Braid" delves into the intricate and controversial landscape of recent political nominations, notably focusing on Matt Gaetz’s potential appointment as Attorney General and Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination for Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Hosted by John Podhoretz, the discussion features Commentary Magazine’s prominent columnists and editors, including Christine Rosen, Matthew Continetti, Seth Mandel, and Abe Greenwald.

Notable Quotes:

• John Podhoretz [00:52]: "Hope for the best. Welcome to the Commentary Magazine daily podcast."
• Christine Rosen [01:56]: "If you know what painting that is."

Matt Gaetz’s Nomination for Attorney General

Overview: Matthew Continetti initiates the discussion by highlighting the contentious nature of Matt Gaetz’s nomination for Attorney General. Continetti references online commentary, noting critiques from figures like Mickey Kaus and Senator John Fetterman, who describes Gaetz as "God tier level trolling of the United States Senate by President Trump" ([03:20]). He underscores the political maneuvering involved, particularly the Senate’s potential to block the nomination through a vice-presidential tie-breaker if up to three senators oppose it ([04:50]).

Senate Dynamics: Continetti elaborates on the Senate’s reaction, pointing out John Thune’s election as Senate leader, which signals a more establishment-friendly approach that might not uniformly support Gaetz. He also references likability and internal Senate politics, mentioning Rick Scott’s lack of support despite his MAGA alignment ([05:33]).

John Podhoretz’s Insights: Podhoretz discusses personal attacks against Gaetz, citing comments from Senator Mark Wayne Mullins about Gaetz’s behavior and character ([07:44]). He argues that Gaetz’s polarizing nature extends beyond MAGA support, affecting his standing in broader Republican circles.

Seth Mandel’s Critique: Seth Mandel criticizes Gaetz’s capability to manage the vast Department of Justice (DOJ), labeling him a "rodeo clown" who lacks strategic experience and comparing his performative attitudes to those of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ([08:55]). Mandel doubts Gaetz’s ability to effectively lead such a critical department, emphasizing his abrasive nature and lack of management skills ([09:20]).

Abe Greenwald’s Perspective: Abe Greenwald reflects on Trump’s integration of performative aspects with policy, suggesting that Trump’s nomination of Gaetz represents a fusion of theatrics and governance rather than a strategic appointment ([10:24]).

Notable Quotes:

• Matthew Continetti [03:20]: "Vote for Gates. So let's just go down the whip count."
• Seth Mandel [08:55]: "He brought down a speaker, but then when it was time to find someone to replace him, he's like, eh."

Tulsi Gabbard’s Nomination for Director of National Intelligence

Overview: The discussion shifts to Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination for DNI. Continetti describes her as "the most dovish national security pick" and critiques her past positions, including her perceived apologism for the Assad regime and perceived sympathies towards Russia ([40:07]). He acknowledges her communication skills but questions her suitability for the role given her controversial statements and lack of traditional intelligence background.

Role and Power of DNI: John Podhoretz provides an analysis of the DNI’s role, emphasizing its coordinating function among various intelligence agencies without significant enforcement powers. He suggests that Gabbard’s position, while symbolically significant, may lack substantive influence due to the bureaucratic limitations inherent in the role ([43:40]).

Christine Rosen’s Concerns: Christine Rosen raises alarms about Gabbard’s stance on antisemitism, particularly her opposition to the IHRA definition of antisemitism. She fears that Gabbard may undermine civil rights protections for Jews on campuses, aligning her with figures like Candace Owens who dismiss such definitions as threats to free speech ([24:07]).

Seth Mandel’s Doubts: Mandel questions Gabbard’s qualifications and security clearance eligibility, citing her past claims of being on the no-fly list and her controversial visits to Syria. He doubts her capability to perform the duties required by the DNI role effectively ([46:41]).

Matthew Continetti’s Final Thoughts: Continetti underscores the multifaceted responsibilities of the DOJ, highlighting that Gabbard will need to address a wide array of issues beyond her polarizing foreign policy views. He emphasizes the importance of her upcoming confirmation hearings to address these competencies ([25:08]).

Notable Quotes:

• Christine Rosen [16:19]: "I need to hear from him that he is committed to fighting antisemitism on American campuses."
• Seth Mandel [44:15]: "This is not someone with the management or strategic experience to clean house in a department."

Trump’s Confirmation Strategy and Political Maneuvering

Trump’s Historical Context: Podhoretz and Continetti discuss Trump’s historical patterns in handling nominations, comparing Matt Gaetz’s potential confirmation battle to previous appointments like Brett Kavanaugh. They debate whether Trump will actively defend Gaetz or distance himself based on past behaviors, such as his reluctance to back former Attorney General Bill Barr vehemently ([36:15]).

Potential Outcomes: The hosts consider various scenarios, including the possibility that Gaetz or Gabbard might not contend effectively in confirmation hearings, especially if they fail to adequately address senators' concerns. Podhoretz speculates that Trump might withdraw the nomination if negative information surfaces during the hearings ([32:16]).

Internal MAGA Dynamics: Mandel and Continetti reflect on internal MAGA politics, noting that certain loyalists like Mitch McConnell may not support all of Trump’s controversial nominees. This internal dissent could play a significant role in the confirmation outcomes ([34:19]).

Notable Quotes:

• John Podhoretz [16:19]: "I do hope that when Gates comes before the Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearing that one of the senators brings this question up."
• Matthew Continetti [22:18]: "Please, get Matt Gaetz, Tulsi Gabbard, these nominations are not going to be easy lifts."

Policy Issues and Antisemitism Concerns

IHRA Definition of Antisemitism: A significant portion of the discussion centers on the IHRA definition of antisemitism and Gaetz’s potential opposition to it. Rosen explains how opposing such definitions could signal a broader neglect of civil rights protections for Jewish Americans and critique Gabbard’s stances as reflections of Trump’s distrust towards bureaucratic institutions ([22:22]; [28:30]).

Implications for Civil Rights: Christine Rosen emphasizes the broader implications of Gaetz’s opposition, suggesting that it may lead to the DOJ undermining existing civil rights frameworks designed to protect minority groups ([26:01]).

Notable Quotes:

• John Podhoretz [28:20]: "That’s a very radical thing to say. It is a very radical."
• Christine Rosen [28:31]: "He’s intended to be nominated to replace Merrick Garland."

Final Thoughts and Broader Political Reflections

Cultural Commentary: The latter part of the episode transitions into broader cultural reflections, including a discussion on the "Sopranos" documentary. The hosts draw parallels between the show's themes and contemporary political climates, particularly in relation to leadership and moral ambiguity.

Predictions and Recommendations: Continetti recommends the documentary “Difficult Men” by Brett Martin, which explores the rise of complex, often flawed male protagonists in late 90s television and their cultural implications, drawing connections to current political figures and sentiments ([60:11]).

Closure: The episode wraps up with reflections on Trump's influence on Washington, the unpredictable nature of his nominations, and the ongoing cultural and political shifts shaping the current landscape.

Notable Quotes:

• Matthew Continetti [62:25]: "I was reassured by that. And finally, there was a great SNL clip in this documentary..."
• John Podhoretz [58:56]: "If you think that Trump is going to institute a fascist regime. Why aren't you getting in your car and driving to Canada?"

---

Conclusions and Insights

The episode "Gaetz Tulsi RFK: An Infernal Golden Braid" offers a comprehensive exploration of the complexities surrounding recent high-profile political nominations. Through incisive commentary and robust debate, the hosts dissect the potential ramifications of appointing figures like Matt Gaetz and Tulsi Gabbard to pivotal government roles. Key takeaways include:

1. Polarization and Confirmation Challenges: Gaetz’s and Gabbard’s nominations are emblematic of the broader polarization within the Senate and government, highlighting the significant hurdles they face in securing confirmation.

2. Impact of Leadership Styles: The contrasting leadership styles and capabilities of nominees are scrutinized, with concerns raised about their ability to effectively manage and oversee critical departments like the DOJ and DNI.

3. Policy Implications: The discussion underscores the potential policy shifts that could arise from these nominations, particularly regarding civil rights protections and national security strategies.

4. Cultural and Political Parallels: The hosts draw meaningful parallels between cultural productions like "The Sopranos" and current political dynamics, suggesting that media and politics are increasingly intertwined in shaping public perception and policy.

5. Future Political Landscape: Predictions indicate continued turbulence and uncertainty in the political arena, driven by contentious nominations and shifting power structures within the Senate and broader government institutions.

Overall, the episode provides listeners with a nuanced understanding of the intricate web of political maneuvers, ideological battles, and personal dynamics that define the current state of American governance.

Final Notable Quote:

• John Podhoretz [55:38]: "The look on Biden's face. I don't think that you can question now that this was a coup..."

---

End of Summary

Transcript

[John Podhoretz]

This episode is brought to you by Lifelock. The holidays mean more travel, more shopping, more time online and more personal info in places that could expose you to identity theft. That's why LifeLock monitors millions of data points every second. If your identity is stolen, their US based restoration specialist will fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Get more holiday fun and less holiday worry with Lifelock. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast terms apply.

No way of knowing which way it's going. Hope for the best.

[Christine Rosen]

Expect the worst.

[John Podhoretz]

Hope for the best. Welcome to the Commentary Magazine daily podcast. Today is Thursday, November 14, 2024. I'm John Bodhortz, the editor of Commentary, reminding you that we are now available. This podcast is now available for video viewing on YouTube. So if you just go to YouTube and search commentary Podcast, you will find us there. You will be able to examine our ponums close up. You will be able to decide whether or not we sound the way we look or we look the way we sound. You will be able to examine my bookcase to see if there's anything there that is of interest to you. Or Seth's bookcase, which has some interesting stuff behind him. Matt, Christine. Very, very, very, I would say stark backgrounds. Extremely stark. Sometimes Matt has a bookcase behind him when he's home, but very stark. Abe has a pretty crazy painting behind him, if you could discern it. So there's a little visual interest there.

[Christine Rosen]

If you know what painting that is.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah. So anyway, I'm just saying. I'm just saying there's some video, there's some visual interest. If you get a little bored at the YouTube commentary channel every day, please go. Please, like, please subscribe. The more likes and subscribes we get, the more visible we are through the algorithm of YouTube to others. And you can spread the joy of the Commentary Podcast to people near and far around the world so that they can hear Executive Editor Abe Greenwald. Hi, Abe.

[Matthew Continetti]

Hi.

[John Podhoretz]

John Washington, Commentary columnist and Director of Domestic Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, Matthew Continetti. Hi, Matt.

[Matthew Continetti]

Hi, John.

[John Podhoretz]

Matt's colleague at aei, our wash. Excuse me. Our media Commentary columnist, Christine Rosen. Hi, Christine.

[Seth Mandel]

Hi, John.

[John Podhoretz]

And our senior editor, Seth Mandel. Hi, Seth.

[Christine Rosen]

Hi, John.

[John Podhoretz]

Matt Gates as the nominee for Attorney General, go ahead.

[Matthew Continetti]

Well, there's a lot to say here.

[John Podhoretz]

That's why I wanted you to talk because I'll start introducing and then I'll be done at 8:40. So you please.

[Matthew Continetti]

All right, let me get my. Let me get my points in quick. First, this would be a very good.

[Christine Rosen]

Time for Matt's classic unfrozen caveman pundit who speaks in short words and short sentences. We can get it.

[Matthew Continetti]

I can do it. First, my favorite comment online came from Mickey Kaus. He said that the Gates pick for Attorney General made Pete Hegseth look like Eisenhower. Another great comment about the mate, a Matt Gaetz pick for Attorney General came from one of my favorite senators, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, the Democrat calling the pick God tier level trolling of the United States Senate by President Trump. And of course, Fetterman then subsequently came out against Gates's nomination. He said, but Fetterman, he's great. He said, nothing I say matters. I'm just more interested in the excuses my Republican colleagues come up with. Vote for Gates. So let's just go down the whip count. I think that's the most important thing for the controversial nominees. And so we've had this process come out where the national security team is pretty. I mean, it's respectable, you know, I mean, Marco Rubio was also announced as Secretary of State yesterday. That's official. Now, Rubio, I think will sail through the Senate. There's no doubt about that. Mike Waltz at the National Security Council, of course not Senate confirmed, but people are very excited. Hegseth more controversial, but as Michael Smirkonish pointed out, you know, the Hegseth pick make Nome at DHS look respectable. And then the Gabbard pick, Tulsi Gabbard, the former congresswoman from Hawaii, former Democrat turned Republican for the Director of National Intelligence made Hagseth look more respectable. And the Gates pick made Gabbard look slightly more respectable. And so who knows what will come next. So it's a process of evolution. All of them need to win Senate confirmation. And you can lose three senators. Well, you can lose three and still have Vice President J.D. vance break a tie. If you lose four, you won't get through the Senate.

[John Podhoretz]

Right.

[Matthew Continetti]

And that's why I think one of the more important things that happened today, in addition to the announcements of Gabbard and Gates, is that John Thune won the Senate leadership election. And Thune, he is more of an establishment guy. He did come out and say that he wants to get Trump's picks through. This was in the run up to the election. But what it says to me is this is not a rubber stamp. Just two more points on Gates. The first is likability matters. You think about that Senate leadership election. I just mentioned one reason. Rick Scott, who was also the MAGA choice And MAGA was very excited about Rick Scott of Florida. And Elon Musk was behind Rick Scott and Tucker Carlson. Well, he was out in the first ballot. The truth is, many of his colleagues don't really like Rick Scott and they don't think that he's been good for the conference. Think about Matt Gaetz. Got a lot of enemies. A lot of people in the House Republican Conference don't like him. I think that carries over to the Senate. So that's something that he's going to have to deal with.

[John Podhoretz]

Remember that there are senators who served with him in the House. One of them, Mark Wayne Mullins, was quoted in October of 2023 saying, you know what this guy used to do? Used to walk around the gym showing pictures of him, like making out with or having sex or something like that with, you know, with hot chicks and talk about how he was drinking energy drinks in order to have the stamina to party the way he was that last night. So I take it that there's one vote against him. But I'm saying there are a couple of other people who know Gates personally from the House conference, and there is nobody outside of MAGA in the House conference who people hated him for what he did.

[Matthew Continetti]

Weirdly, AOC kind of likes Gates. And that leads me to my second point, which is, you know, for all of his polarizing tendencies, and if you're not on his side, he comes across as very abrasive. And clearly there's this whole question of whether he's qualified to lead the Department of Justice, which is a huge organization which covers multitude of things. It's not just about him cleaning out the upper echelons of the bureaucracy that went after both Trump and him. There's a lot going on there. So that's the qualification question. But there's also this question of his capacity, his capability. And the truth is, for all of the controversy, for all of that dislike that I just mentioned, he is the only person to bring down a sitting speaker of the House. And so his political aptitude is pretty high. And that's why I don't count him out right now as we speak, at 8:11am on Thursday, November 14th.

[Seth Mandel]

So I agree with Matt that that's something that shouldn't be underestimated about him in the same way that I think many people always underestimated the cunning of, of Trump. But he. But Gates is a special sort of rodeo clown in the House, right? He brought. He brought down a speaker, but then when it was time to find someone to replace him, he's like, eh. And he walks away. And I'm not surprised at all that AOC has some sort of similarities. They both. She wants to be the world's greatest Instagram influencer, and he wants to be the greatest guy on cable news. They have no interest in governing. And in that sense, that setting aside all of his personal ethical issues, which sound vast, and his just. I'm sorry, but he just sounds like a really horrible guy. As his colleagues will also attest, he has to manage an incredibly vast enterprise. He probably can't even pass the drug test that FBI agents themselves are submitted to every few weeks. I mean, this is not someone with the management or strategic experience to clean house in a department that MAGA claims it once cleaned. What he is very good at doing is stamping his feet, performing in the same way that AOC is good at stamping her feet and performing from the other side of the aisle. And so with Trump picking him, it does satisfy the sort of performative base of MAGA that wants to see someone like Gates yell and scream on cable news. There's no way he can run that department or clean it up, which I think even people like us who aren't mired in conspiracy theories about the Department of Justice feel needs to happen.

[Abe Greenwald]

But, you know, I just want to say, to Christine's point, it goes to show that Trump really sees no separation between the performative aspects of MAGA and the policy aspects of maga, where you would think that maybe there is a sort of game going on where they have a sort of a chorus and a sort of operative crew. It's not the case. Unless there is the theory that Trump is sort of offering up Gates to get knocked down so he can get others through, which I tend not to think is the case, mostly because I just don't think that's the way Trump thinks. I think Trump doesn't want any losses. He's not someone who's willing to sacrifice anything. He doesn't have to. So when he says he wants to push something through or someone through, that I think that's exactly what he wants.

[John Podhoretz]

You know, I'm not entirely sure about that because there were dozens of radical appointments in the first term. That summit didn't really get out of the gate. Including, by the way, Pete Hegseth for va, who was announced as a, you know, sort of the intention to nominate was. Was a public announcement for Pete Hegseth. And when they did the whip count and discovered that it was not possible he was not formally nominated, there were There were many other cases like this, or Trump saying, we're going to get so and so in the administration, and then somehow it just. It didn't happen. I likened it yesterday to real estate vaporware. There is a whole tradition of saying, I am going to build a building in the middle of Central park. And you get a headline and you get this and you get that, and then there, there is. There is no plot of land in Central park that is available for purchase, and the building is never built, but you get the headline. So there is an aspect to Trump's personality. And then he'll often say things like when somebody gets into trouble. Actually, I never really knew that guy. I hear he's nice, but I never really met him. Now, he can't really do that with Matt Gaetz. But his capacity to separate himself very easily from somebody who gets into bad odor and not to sort of like, fight to the last dog to get someone in who's going to lose unless it's him personally. The one case that I can think of is Brett Kavanaugh. I mean, I actually can't think of a case during the first administration where he went to the mattresses for someone he thought was being ill treated by the political system.

[Seth Mandel]

But a lot of pressure on him to do that with Kavanaugh because actually, everyone's assumption, exactly what you're describing, that he would abandon him on the field and find someone who.

[John Podhoretz]

I thought. So I, I think everybody, the morning of the Christine Blasi Ford testimony, you know, and then Kavanaugh came out, what, right after lunch, to counter her. I think everybody, she finished the testimony. We were like, well, that's it. You know, you're going to. Trump's going to say, I never really knew him and, you know, I can't really afford this, or, you know, it's not going to happen or something like that. So I don't know.

[Matthew Continetti]

With all the of Trump's history, even at the Kavanaugh nomination, I mean, the morning did not go well for Kavanaugh with her testimony. But I think there wasn't ever any question that Trump's posture is always to fight back. And accusations are usually just dismissed and you just go, you barrel through them. Right? And with all of that he's been through since, especially the four years of the Biden presidency, I think his instinct is going to be to defend Gates right up to the moment the Senate votes. I mean, barring some kind of huge bombshell that sinks the nomination before January. But that's why I'm Just looking at this whip count, you know, Mark Wayne Mullen, who you mentioned, John, he made those comments last December, but when he was on the Tapper show just yesterday, he kind of backed off a little bit. Right. And the Susan Collins of Maine, she's up in 26. She said she was shocked by the nomination, as I think basically everyone in Washington was, but she didn't completely dismiss it. Now, I do see a way in which this nomination can be defeated. You think about senators, Republican senators who don't care anymore about Trump. And I can think of one in particular. He just retired from the leadership, but he's still in office for two years and it's unlikely he's going to run again. And that Senator Mitch McConnell, I don't see him supporting any of the four controversial ones so far, from Gabbard to Hegseth to Nome to Gates. So that's one vote. And then it's a question of, do you build up more? And I do think it has to be 5, because the marginal voter against these nominations will be one who will have the full brunt of Trump and maga. So you need to have somehow an additional senator or more say, we just can't do this for various reasons. That's going to be hard. It's going to be hard. But I do see, I don't think that the Gates or Gabbard nominations are going to be easy lifts at all.

[John Podhoretz]

Okay. I just want to. You're right that Trump may. May decide that he wants to stage and run and fight a confirmation battle on Gates's behalf. I'm saying I don't think that you can look at his own political history and see him fighting to the last dog or fighting to the last man for anyone besides himself in his own fights for himself. He was ruthless and relentless and said everything that no one has ever said before in the history of politics about his enemies and what they're like and who they are and all of that. But think back with me to the first administration. Did he fight for anybody? Did he really fight for anybody who needed to be fought for? I don't think he did. What I'm saying is this is a different. Maybe that wasn't a thing that he had to do.

[Matthew Continetti]

I just think this is a different administration. It's a different Trump, it's a different maga. You know, we talked all through the campaign about Trump saying to the voters, I am your retribution. Gates is Trump's retribution. Gates is the blunt force instrument to go into the DOJ and do what he does, which is tear things up. Right. That's the aim here.

[Christine Rosen]

Part of the nomination so far, right. Which is that Trump has. The picks that everybody's sort of sweating over are the ones that Trump is putting in charge of agencies or departments that he really doesn't trust. Right. He doesn't feel like the State Department is spying on him. He's not too worried about whether he needs a super loyalist or Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, but the Director of National Intelligence. And he's talked about the CIA, you know, names that have been floated for the CIA and FBI. And then of course, there's.

[Matthew Continetti]

He nominated CIA director.

[John Podhoretz]

He already nominated John Ratcliffe.

[Christine Rosen]

I'm saying he. I'm saying Tulsi Getward was rumored for CIA, FBI, and DNI before he made the decision. He was essentially naming agencies that he thinks are spying. That's. That's sort of the way that Trump looks at this, the ones that he's really paranoid about. And so I think that's another way to look at this, which is. Which is just that he, first of all, as somebody mentioned online, you got to look good in a suit to work for Donald Trump. But that, you know, that includes people like RFK Jr and others. I think he's just filling positions where he has a sort of Nixonian reflexive distrust of the entire bureaucracy. And the other ones, he's happy to just have normies and people who may help his prospects of getting policies passed and stuff like that.

[John Podhoretz]

I would only caution that we don't know what happened here, but, you know, there are little bits and pieces of floated information that he made the decision late, meaning he talked to Gates about this only yesterday morning and then announced him in the afternoon because he, he. There were names being floated to him. I've been told by somebody who was involved in the selection process that Don Jr. Was very much involved in this specific process, obviously in the foreign policy jobs. Don Jr. Did not get his way based on what we understand about how he thinks about these things, except maybe with Gabbard, we can talk about in a minute. And that Gates, according to Mark Caputo, an advisor who is the sort of dean of Florida political writers, in a piece in the Bulwark, said that an advisor, a MAGA person advisor, said Gates got on the plane and said, I am going to blow that effing place up. And that he was the only one of the people who said. Everybody else came in and was like, they sounded like they were trying to angle for a judicial appointment. They didn't understand the need for nuclear war at the Justice Department. And Gates was the only one who talked in a way that Trump really wanted to hear. And if this is true and that Trump sort of then said, I'm picking Matt, it's going to happen. The negatives may not be all that known to him. Remember, he's a very focused person and he may think, oh, they're so unfair to Matt Gaetz. And they did all this. He'd been so loyal to me. Did he know that? On Friday, the House Ethics Committee was set to vote on a full investigation with a. To release a report that had been done on Gates's misbehavior. Gates then resigns immediately from the House, thus escaping the release of this report, which might have happened just tomorrow. So does anybody really think that that report isn't going to be leaked and made public? I don't imagine that people in the Senate at least, who are going to have to go through the confirmation process.

[Matthew Continetti]

Our FBI has to do a background check. And the FBI investigated him, eventually dropped the investigation, but that's going to be part of the background check.

[John Podhoretz]

But that's a mark in his favor, by which I mean, I mean this sort of literally that Gates was pursued pretty relentlessly for about two years and no. And there were a lot of bad leaks about him and why they were suing him. And then he was never charged. So there was a use of the leak in lawfare system against him that I think was highly questionable. And, you know, it's one of the.

[Christine Rosen]

Reasons Trump saw with him in Russia. Gate also.

[Seth Mandel]

But his colleagues.

[Christine Rosen]

It feels the same way about Adam Schiff.

[Seth Mandel]

Yes, I know his colleagues in the House still wanted him investigated for ethics stuff. That's.

[John Podhoretz]

I am not, I am not questioning that he, that the h. The rules of whether or not internally at the House you should be investigated by the. Are different from whether or not you criminalize an investigation. Give it to the FBI in hopes that he would. The, you know, this meddlesome priest would be. Would be dealt with and gotten rid of. That's why he went to war against Kevin McCarthy. This was not ideological on Gates part about McCarthy. He knew that McCarthy was his great enemy and wanted to take him down and wanted him eliminated by any means possible. And he decided to go back out at McCarthy. And the incredibly narrow House majority in 2023 made that possible for him. And he. A sign of what Matt's saying about maybe he's cleverer than we give him credit for being politically is that he Used the you need to be purer and better than you are against Kevin McCarthy when his beef was entirely personal and not ideological. He wanted to get a scalp from the guy who was tormenting him. And so a person who is able to pull that off.

[Seth Mandel]

No, that I don't think that's a bomb thrower. A true strategist has a plan once he's removed his enemy to put himself or someone who he can control.

[Matthew Continetti]

Not if his whole point was just to get rid of McCarthy.

[John Podhoretz]

He didn't care.

He didn't care who came after Job after you. This was a governance thing. I'm saying this was you come at me, I'm going to come at you. You try to kill you. You come at me with a knife, I come at you with a gun. That's the Chicago way.

[Matthew Continetti]

I do have one concern about this. Couple concerns. Only one that we haven't talked about yet, and that is the question of combating antisemitism. And when the ara, the antisemitism bill was up for a vote for the House, it did pass the House. Chuck Schumer sat on it in the Senate. Matt Gaetz opposed the bill on the basis that it was a anti free speech bill. And that is a mischaracterization of this bill which would codify certain regulations that Trump himself put in place at the Department of Education that would enforce anti Jewish harassment and conduct on campus, not speech. And so I do hope that when Gates comes before the Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearing that one of the senators brings this question up, because I need to hear from him that he is committed to fighting antisemitism on American campuses.

[John Podhoretz]

And there is a dark to Matt's.

[Christine Rosen]

Point, which is that the complaint has been all along, one of the complaints has been that Merrick Garland has sat on his hands while all this stuff has been going on. And Gates is intended to be nominated to replace Merrick Garland. So, you know, if he opposes this particular, if he opposes the civil rights, the application of these civil rights protections to Jews on campus because he thinks it means you can't say so and so killed Jesus or whatever, or you can't read the Gospels out loud in the town square, whatever it was that Gates wants to do and now thinks has been criminalized, you're going to see the same policies, you know, forget the reason. He's. He's sort of signaling that he's a Merrick Garland sit on your hands tape on this specific issue.

[John Podhoretz]

Right. Well, you alluded to the point that is the most disturbing in this respect. So I think there is. It is not. It is worth having a discussion about whether the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which is a global definition of antisemitism, is a slightly more problematic thing for the US Government to adopt because it does say that there are forms of speech that are out of bounds or should trigger the idea that X is antisemitism. If somebody says X, then that Y means that they there. That there's antisemitism as the motivating factor and that actions can be taken as a result of that. And to the extent that that is only speech, we're in a different place on those sorts of things than other countries. What he said, and maybe it's a misunderstanding and I didn't read the whole letter or whatever it was when he announced that he was voting against this provision, was that it would criminalize or potentially whatever liabilize Christian belief. Because in the IHRA, it says one of the ways in which you can see the possible, the contours of antisemitism is if somebody argues that the Jews killed Christ. Now the argument is present day. That is to say, if you adduce the idea that Jews living today bear the stain of the murder of Christ 2,000 years ago, that you are participating in classic antisemitism that the Catholic Church famously in the 1960s removed, the idea that Jews born after the death of Christ bore any personal. Bore any responsibility for what happened to Christ in his lifetime. Gates said this thing that is in the IHRA definition is contrary to the biblical understanding of what happened to Jesus. And therefore I must not. I have to vote it down. That's a very radical thing to say. It is a very radical.

[Christine Rosen]

I just want to make.

[Seth Mandel]

He was speaking to the Christ is King Candace Owen types when he did that. That's exactly who he was talking to.

[John Podhoretz]

Yes, right.

[Christine Rosen]

But there's also, there's a detail here that is important, which is that a whole. This is, this is very similar to hate crimes, which is that the definition is to be applied to situations in which you're trying to understand the motivation behind somebody doing something they're already not allowed to do.

[Abe Greenwald]

It's.

[Christine Rosen]

There's some sort of action right. Involved. And so if you, if you lock somebody out of a public building on a public campus because the Jews killed Christ, that is seen as antisemitism. And it's also something that I think is fairly obviously antisemitism. In other words, the things that he and Candace Owens. I mean, Christine is right. There was this whole thing online about it, the things that they're pointing out are these are not, they're not into the, it's just anti Zionism. I can't criticize Bibi Netanyahu without being thrown in jail or something like that. It's much more straightforward antisemitism that they are trying to, I don't protect is the right word, but trying to not destigmatize maybe is the better word.

[Matthew Continetti]

And my point is not only that this is a top issue for me, but DOJ does a lot of things. And we know Trump wants to have Gates in there, to be a fighter, to be a loyalist and to go after this lawfare and corruption. But he also would be overseeing all these law enforcement agencies. He also has to oversee the Office of Civil Rights. He also has to oversee the Office of Legal Legal Counsel. He has to oversee potential judicial selections or at least work with the White House counsel, who's also named a man named Bill McGuinley in formulating those positions. So I can see why MAGA World is so excited about this appointment. But Gates, as he prepares for his confirmation hearing, must understand that senators are not just going to be asking him about his background, they're going to be or his qualifications, they're going to be asking him about a host of issues. I mean, just think about all the issues that the Justice Department touches on, from affirmative action to drugs to the death penalty, the federal death penalty. All of these things are going to come up and he needs to have answers at the ready.

[John Podhoretz]

This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. The holidays mean more travel, more shopping, more time online, and more personal info in places that could expose you to identity theft. That's why LifeLock monitors millions of data points every second. If your identity is stolen, their US based restoration specialist will fix it, guaranteed. Or your money back. Get more holiday fun and less holiday worry with LifeLock. Save up to 40% in your first year. Visit LifeLock.com podcast terms apply.

I would just like to say that in my estimation, he will either get through or there will be no confirmation hearing. So I'm not even sure that it gets to the point that you're going to Matt which is to say that classically what happens in the course of a confirmation, particularly for one of these major offices, is that Gates will visit, have private sessions with every single one of these senators, including.

[Seth Mandel]

He doesn't even do that. Why would he do that? Because that's traditionally what they do. But I mean, I could very well imagine him not Doing that.

[John Podhoretz]

Well, but then that makes Thune's life very easy.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yeah. And he's just not going to say.

[John Podhoretz]

I'm not bringing him up for a vote. We need to advise and consent. I'm not bringing him up for a vote if he refuses to meet with the Senate. So, President Trump, you better make him. I mean, that would really. That's not even a breach. I mean, that's like he has private meetings as part of the constitutional process of advising and consenting.

[Seth Mandel]

He has the meeting, but then goes in front of a camera right afterwards and sort of blows up the. That process has generally been very civil, even for controversial.

[John Podhoretz]

Right, right. So I'm saying by the rules.

[Seth Mandel]

He doesn't play by the rules.

[John Podhoretz]

I know he doesn't, but he also wants to. He also will want to be confirmed, presumably. So I'm just saying that in my scenario, he has these meetings, and if at those meetings with four or five different people, he says to each of them in different ways, things that they find completely unsupportable, word will get back to the White House that he's going down and that nomination will be withdrawn. If he does not blow himself up in those meetings, he will go into confirmation with an assurance that he will be confirmed. Now, you can't really assure it because Democrats get to participate in the hearing and there will be quite. And who knows if he'll visit the.

[Matthew Continetti]

Democrats, No Democrat will vote for him.

[John Podhoretz]

Right, we understand that, but. No, but the question you say and.

[Matthew Continetti]

McConnell are unlikely to vote for him.

[John Podhoretz]

So that's two I don't know you're missing. I'm saying that Democrats get to ask him questions at the hearing and they can spring things on him.

[Matthew Continetti]

Oh, yeah.

[John Podhoretz]

And they can come at him from a side.

[Matthew Continetti]

Remember how impressive.

[John Podhoretz]

Say something and then everybody will say, well, we can't confirm it.

[Matthew Continetti]

Remember how impressive Bill Barr was at his hearings? Yeah, right. I mean, he just knew all the answers. He had been in the job before. He just kind of swatted down the Democratic senators.

[John Podhoretz]

And this is interesting, right? This is an interesting aspect of where I think MAGA people are stupid. And I say that advisedly. I don't mean that if you voted for Trump. I mean, the MAGA world can be. So Trump has decided that Bill Barr was disloyal because after the fact, he wrote about. He said, no, your argument, these were these ideas that they're pitching about how to block the, you know, the electoral count or whatever are bs. And he literally said it to Trump. But in the two years that Bill Barr was Attorney general. He did what Trump wanted from his attorney general, as we understand it. He actually did. He protected him from the depredations of Mueller by coming out and saying, before Mueller got to do his briefing, saying, I've read the report and the president is clear, because he understood, and he was, by the way, and he understood that this was a political fight and that he was going to be the one to take the flack, that that was his job as Attorney general. He ran the department with an eye toward making sure that Trump's enemies within the department were either contained or pushed to one side or something like that. He was a loyal Attorney general to a Republican president in the course of a highly controversial term. That's actually the kind of person that Trump should want. Somebody who is stolid and like, unemotional and can go at the state in some fashion, but do it phlegmatically as opposed to China bullshot breaking. But he went another way.

[Abe Greenwald]

But this goes directly to my point that the theater and the politics are one and the same for Trump, because this is a perfect example of it. You want someone you're willing to go with the theater to sacrifice an effective hand in politics or policy, so he.

[John Podhoretz]

Leaves the deep state in place. I mean, that's the funny part, is you could get somebody who could actually roust out the deep state.

[Seth Mandel]

Some of them will resign if Gates becomes ag. So maybe there's that silver lining for the MAGA people, right? He'll get nothing done once he's installed, but people will flee that division, right?

[John Podhoretz]

Well, I mean, look, Trump came into the presidency in 2017, and there was an acting Attorney general who, along with the sitting FBI director, literally tried to get him impeached. Like the person who was running the Justice Department was playing an inside game against him, as was Jim Comey. So he has reason. Even paranoids have enemies. And he had enemies at Justice. And I do not for one second think that he should not be pursuing an attorney general who would understand, as a good Secretary of State does as well, or as a defense Secretary of state.

[Matthew Continetti]

And I just want to say I think that's why the Gates pick was such a surprise to many people, because there were names being circulated, people like Mark Paoletta, Mike Davis, even Mark Whitaker, who was acting Attorney General, who were clearly going to be loyal to Trump, who were part of the MAGA movement but also had more experience. I mean, case of Paoletta, he's been a well connected Washington lawyer for three decades. Right. Instead went With Gates, who, you know, he is a lawyer. He does have a law degree and he practiced law for two years before going into the Florida state legislature and then, of course, coming to Congress. Not quite the breadth of experience or depth of experience that some of us were hoping a Trump's nominee would bring to the position of Attorney general.

[John Podhoretz]

Anyway, this is an interesting wrinkle in the, you know, in the never a dull day with the Dodgers school of Trump. Do people know this phrase, the Dodgers, the Brooklyn Dodgers were a, were a very up and down team, incredibly roller coastery. Like they would be in first place in June, they would be in last place in August, they would come back to being third place in September. You know, it was like, and the phrase among their fans was it's never a dull day with the Dodgers. And this is, we're back to a world in which there's just never a dull day.

[Matthew Continetti]

It's so funny you say that. I had the exact same thought at the end of the day yesterday was I was reflecting that I had forgotten just the volume of news that happens when Donald Trump is the president. And so, yeah, okay, so we opened the day yesterday talking about Pete Hegseth, and by the end of the day we were dealing with Tulsi Gabbard and Matt Gates and who knows what today, Thursday will bring. And that is, I mean, that is kind of the effect, effect Trump has on Washington. It's, it's like you're stepping on the third whale rail of the metro system and you're just kind of, you know, you're, you're all vibrating. And the, the fact is people voted for it this time. The voters were under no illusions about what they were going to get. And it's starting.

[Christine Rosen]

Let's talk about interesting stuff about, we.

[John Podhoretz]

Should talk about television. Why that's, we should talk, we should move on to Tulsi Gabbard. So Tulsi Gabbard, former, as you said, former representative from Hawaii, a veteran though, from the medical corps and turned very recent Republican. Very recent Republican. Although, if you remember, one of the ways that she made her bones as somebody who was going to move in this direction was her really remarkable performances in the democratic debates in 2019, which people, how formidable she was in and particularly, by the way, on matters that we should now talk about relating to war and peace and the behavior of the ideas about the military and all of that, how she is one of the people who destroyed Kamala Harris in the debates. She's smart, she is tough, she is cold as ice. And obviously is very important to Trump Fetching. And so there she is as the Director of National Intelligence, which would be a matter of, and is a matter of total horror to me were it not for the bureaucratic realities of the job that she has been put in by which I mean, she is an apologist for the Assad regime in Syria, which is unlike Israel, is a literally genocidal regime. Half a million people have been killed by that regime in the last 10 years. She is an apologist for Russia, defender of essentially of the war in Ukraine, saying Russia had no choice because of NATO expansion. How could you blame them for it has been called a Russian agent on Russian television approvingly. So it's a terrible, terrible, terrible appointment.

[Matthew Continetti]

Even if.

[John Podhoretz]

She'S a terrible appointment, even if you are, I think, even if you are a sort of neo isolationist, although they're not treating it that way because she's not just like, we don't have interests there. She speaks approvingly of things that should not be spoken approvingly of, particularly if you want to make the argument that America has no interests in, you know, keeping the world stable or something like that. But interestingly, whether through animal cunning or something like that, she is occupying an office that has very little actual power. The Director of National is supposed to be able to coordinate and deal with the famous wall that came down between the FBI and the CIA that was up and that made the ability to retard 911 impossible. So after 9 11, this office was so that somebody should manage the sharing of information between the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the CIA, Homeland Security, the FBI, everybody who does, everybody who is involved in intelligence in the federal government. It's a czarist job. And one thing about the czars is that they have no, unlike the czars of old, they have very little power because everybody else that they have to deal with is a Senate confirmed like has an agency with hundreds and thousands of people working for them. And the Director of National Intelligence is a coordinating body and doesn't really have enforcement powers over the agencies that they're managing. So if you were going to give Tulsi Gabbard a job in foreign policy, which I'm sad he did, this probably is like one of the better ones in terms of the do no harm standard.

[Matthew Continetti]

You do need Senate confirmation.

[John Podhoretz]

Oh, no, I'm not saying it's not a confirmable job. I'm saying that the office is probably 40 people and the Pentagon is.

[Matthew Continetti]

Has very little.

[John Podhoretz]

800 billion people. Right, right. And the FBI is the most important.

[Christine Rosen]

But, John, you hit on why this is, this is such an important pick before when you mentioned casually that she's been mentioned on, you know, Russia today or whatever as a Russian agent. The propaganda value of the way that the, especially the Russian stations are going to go wild with this and have a field day with this is going to be really mess with people. There's going to be, they're going to really lean into this whole perception of her. Just as the other day, some, you know, Russian military adviser said something like, well, Trump knows who got him there. And I'm sure that despite his, despite his rhetoric about us, you know, in the campaign, I think he knows that's just a campaign and he knows he owes people or something like that. Now, this is nobody, I mean, not a nobody in Russia, but nobody on the, on the world scale. These, the Russians love this stuff and they love just going on TV and saying, I think Trump is going to be our, our, our good friend Gabbard is our agent. Stuff like that. The amount of, of nonsense that's going to stir up also just in our daily news intake, that's really going to mess with the, with the conversation throughout the, Trump's set, first, second, first term. And I think he's going to hate it after a while. And that's the only thing that might actually save us from Dni Tulsi or something like that, which is the prospect of the fact that the Russians are going to spend four years teasing him.

[Abe Greenwald]

But, yeah, you don't think Trump, I mean, to me, I would think, I would think that Trump knows that he is essentially in these picks, staffing for a circus. I mean, there's, I don't know how he couldn't know whether he thinks it's justified or not, the controversy that these picks stir up. I don't think he's unaware of the fact that it's going to stir up constant controversy. And I'm not sure he hates that. I think he sort of, that's, that's his kind of milieu. That's, that's the ether in which he operates.

[Seth Mandel]

She also shares the conspiratorial mindset about many things with him. You know, the whole thing about Gabbard is that in recent years, she's claimed she's, and perhaps it's true, but she's claimed that, you know, she was on the no Fly List and that they've been after her. And it's a similar sort of persecution complex that I think really resonates with Trump, the question of whether she would even qualify for security clearance for this job, given her visits to Syria and some of the other things that she said. I mean, I think if she were a mid level person applying for clearance, that would be in jeopardy given some of her past activity.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, but that's, that's an, you know, classification comes from the President. So if the president says that the power to, the power to do security clearances emanates directly from the President's powers in the Constitution. If he says, I don't care, I want her in the job, he gets her in the job.

[Christine Rosen]

And also she was on all the defense. She was on all the foreign policy committees.

[Matthew Continetti]

Sometimes the.

[Christine Rosen]

Probably has passed those.

[Matthew Continetti]

Sometimes you have the home state senators introduce you at these hearings, though.

[John Podhoretz]

That would be funny. Yeah.

[Matthew Continetti]

Oh, my God. I, you know, I've been so happy. I haven't had to think about Maisie Hirono for about four years and oh my, they're all coming back, you know.

[John Podhoretz]

So I don't know now that Biden will pass from the scene and Dianne Feinstein is passing from the scene. Maisie Hirono is the she ranking. No, she's, she is a person with problematic. Oh, incapacities.

[Matthew Continetti]

Oh, maybe that's why. Yeah, well, of course, you know, the new chair of the Intelligence Committee is also the new number three in Senate leadership and that's Tom Cotton.

[John Podhoretz]

And our friend Tom Cotton.

[Matthew Continetti]

I do.

[John Podhoretz]

Somebody said in the drinking, in our drinking game that someone drink a shot.

[Matthew Continetti]

Because you just, you know, I expect Tom Cotton to treat this nominee seriously. You know, Tulsi Gabbard is certainly the most dovish national security pick that I.

[John Podhoretz]

Think anyone, any president has ever made.

[Matthew Continetti]

Not just a team.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah.

[Matthew Continetti]

She's the one element of a team of rivals. This time, last time with, for Trump's first term, they were all rivals with one another. And with Trump. Yeah. This time one thing that stuck out to me is people are pretty much on the same page. Gabbard being a big exception on the foreign policy scene. You know, at the same time, as you point out, John, she is a really good communicator. She has a certain manner of speaking that makes you take whatever she's saying even. It's stuff that I truly disagree with seriously. She's very calm and it will be very fascinating to watch. She's somebody who doesn't quite have the Gates problem of likability. She's someone who can go into these meetings, I think, and she'll come out and she'll talk to the cameras and people will be like, oh, okay, so that's, that's a card she has to play. Despite this baggage of positions and statements that I also find very troubling.

[John Podhoretz]

I mean, it is, it is. There's a, there's a slightly tragic aspect to her, weirdly enough, which is you imagine a non crazy Tulsi Gabbard and you're imagining a person who, though she has been elevated to a serious position in government as somebody who could really have played a major. She's 44 years old or something like that.

[Matthew Continetti]

Well, John, in the reality where we live, she will still play a major role in American politics.

[John Podhoretz]

You know what I mean? No.

[Matthew Continetti]

I mean, she could easily be the vice presidential nominee for the Republican Party in four years from now.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah. If she's not too crazy. Because even then, like, she's still, she's still a little too crazy. Which gets us to the final question, which is we have remaining a couple of big jobs and we have RFK Jr floating out there. And as somebody said to me, you can't tell me, said to me last night, you can't tell me that he was going to make Matt Gaetz the head of the Justice Department, that he couldn't make RFK Jr. The Secretary of Health and Human Services. We all been looking around thinking, what is he going to do? He's going to put him in a corner, maybe give him some commission on breakfast cereal or something like that. But I don't know. All bets are off. That's the one. Treasury and HHHS are the two remaining big jobs. We don't have names for either of them. You know, what do you mean?

[Matthew Continetti]

Energy, transportation, they're not the same.

[John Podhoretz]

Education, not the same, you know, talking about the line jobs. Right. Like HHS is the department that administers the most money in the federal government. And treasury, of course, is the most important economic job. So that, that's what I mean. Those are, those are a tier above the other.

[Matthew Continetti]

You could hear about it. You know, One option for RFK Jr is something similar to the, to the Doge, you know, but with Musk and Ramos helmet initiative.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah.

[Matthew Continetti]

Some type of panel or Commission that RFK Jr will be put on, making room for another potential HHS pick, Dr. Ben Carson. And you know, and Carson's case, I think, is that he has been a stalwart Trump supporter for going on a deck almost a decade now after Trump basically crushed his chances in the 2016 primary. The only time Trump was behind in the 2016 Republican primary nationwide was when Ben Carson came up from behind and was ahead of him.

[John Podhoretz]

And he was a cabinet secretary for.

[Matthew Continetti]

And he was the cabinet secretary.

[John Podhoretz]

He was the head was. He was the secretary for the.

[Christine Rosen]

That his medical credentials are.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yeah. And he too, you know, I think people like Ben. So anyway, that's what I'm praying for today.

[John Podhoretz]

Well, as I say, I just.

[Matthew Continetti]

Here's what I want to know.

[Christine Rosen]

Here's what I want to know. Once he, once he staffs all these secretaries and cabinets, I want to know who gets to be the designated Survivor each January when they give the State of the Union. I want to know if It's. I want RFK Jr. To be the Gangai just in case a meteor hits, you know, the Capitol.

[Abe Greenwald]

You know what's interesting here is that so if, let's say he picks RFK for this job, which is thinkable now. And it's thinkable. And Gabbard, he picked Gabbard because the truth is Trump doesn't care about. These are extraneous areas for him. These are not things he gets to the extent that he cares about what he's facing as president. He cares about the border, he cares about growing the economy, maybe he cares about these tariffs. And it goes to show why the rhetoric about him being a tyrant and a fascist is so ridiculous. He's not about micromanaging, micro tyrannizing every aspect of our lives. He's got a few things that he's going with for the next five minutes if he's lucky, and then the rest can.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yeah.

[Abe Greenwald]

So, yeah, he wants to get rid of sugar. Well, whatever. I'll still have sugar.

[Matthew Continetti]

And we should also mention, doesn't care, just briefly, that the other real, I think undermining of the idea that Trump is a tyrant came yesterday when he met with the incumbent President, Joe Biden at the White House in the Oval Office and spoke for two hours.

[Seth Mandel]

And it's like a bloody comedy.

[Matthew Continetti]

All smiles and once again, lame Doug Biden.

[John Podhoretz]

Grumpy old men.

[Matthew Continetti]

Who is this person? Grumpy old man emerges from the past two past week or so as like the president I think America thought they were getting last time. And it's amazing to see the photo of the three of them, Trump with President Biden and the first lady and just these beaming smiles on their face. How about calling him Secretary of Health.

[Christine Rosen]

And Human Services, Joe Biden.

[Matthew Continetti]

It just shows it was all rhetoric. It was just all rhetoric. And Abe, you have a strong point there.

[John Podhoretz]

The look on Biden's face. I Don't think that you can question now that this was a coup, by which, I mean, for all we know, they literally put the piece of paper in front of him with the statement and said, either your brains or your signature are going to be on this piece of paper. I mean, he did not want to not be this nominee. And his deepest hope, which is, apres moi, le deluge, has come true. The person who plotted against him and ousted him was not Trump. It was Kamala. And the burden, that which, you know, be unburdened by what has been that. That is Biden's man. I don't know how else to read it. Maybe I'm being too novelistic about this or.

[Matthew Continetti]

Trump won about 7% of the vote in the District of Columbia. And I'm just saying.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, the pre 7% Avenue, the White.

[Christine Rosen]

House, I like to picture. I picture. I picture Phil Hartman doing Reagan. When I think about this Biden stuff, I think about Phil Hartman's great portrayal of Ronald Reagan as a sort of Alzheimer's patient. When people are around, then everybody leaves his office and he sits down and he's the mastermind. That's Joe Biden. Maybe it's all been.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, I mean, I love that analogy because it is one of the greatest sketches, comedy sketches of the last 50 years. But I just think that his looseness and his comfort with himself and all of that is that something happened last week that did not make him unhappy. Obama wandered around for those two months in 2016 moping and looking angry at Israel and having temper tantrums and all of that. That's what you look like when you're unhappy that Donald Trump is taking over the country, even though you weren't on the ticket. And that is not what is the expression on his face. Trump came in and said, look, politics is hard. I want to thank you for your hospitality. And Biden said, you're welcome.

[Matthew Continetti]

And they spoke for two hours. That's incredible.

[John Podhoretz]

So, yeah, it was all an act. I don't really think it's an act in this sense. I don't think that Trump is a fascist. This is the end of democracy was an act. Because why not say it like he's happy to say anything. He's happy to say that Mitt Romney was going to enslave all black people.

[Matthew Continetti]

And there are people who do believe.

[John Podhoretz]

It, and they do believe it and continue to believe it, and they continue to believe it. Although. Although, honest to God, I know this is now a cliche to say it, but if you think that Trump is going to institute a fascist regime. Why aren't you getting in your car and driving to Canada? I mean, people fled Nazi Germany for seven years.

[Seth Mandel]

I said, in Canada they euthanize people with mental illness now. So that might be a dodgy trade off.

[John Podhoretz]

I'm just saying you don't stay and then go to dinner at Cafe Luxembourg and go on MSNBC and talk about how fascism is coming. Like you're the first target. According to you, you're the vanguard and they're going to come after you first. If you're George Conway, you better get the hell out of the. You better move. Eva Longoria, the actress, informed us yesterday that she was no longer living in the United States. She has now moved to Spain and Mexico. And she was somebody who was like, I think she was on the stage at the 2024 convention as one of the welcomers, apparently no longer living. And then when asked why she did it, part of the reason is the taxes are too high in California. Just to let you know how consistent it is. The view that we're, we're a fascist country also takes in the Wesley Snipes view of the irs.

[Christine Rosen]

So are you saying she didn't move to Mexico for the rule of law.

[John Podhoretz]

And she moved there for Claudia Sheinbaum, the first Jewish president of Mexico? All right, Matt, you have a commentary recommends?

[Matthew Continetti]

I do, John. Thank you. I have a partial recommendation today because I've only seen the first half of a two part documentary called Wise David Chase and the Sopranos, which premiered in September on hbo. And the first half of this documentary covers the inception, casting and production and premiere of the pilot and first season of the Sopranos, the landmark HBO show about a New Jersey Mafia boss with a suburban family and deep mother issues. It's a really fascinating documentary. It's made by Alex Gibney, who's a very prolific and I think talented documentary filmmaker, a man of the left. But the politics don't really affect at least what I watched. And Gibney actually created, recreated the set that was Dr. Melfi's office in the Sopranos. So Dr. Melfi, of course, played by Lauren Bracco, was Tony Sopranos psychotherapist. And he would go in and they were just amazing scenes where he would be talking about his life and stuff. So in this case, it's Gibney interviewing David Chase in this set. Now, almost 20 years after the Sopranos ended, a couple things stand out about this. One is you get to see the casting footage part of this documentary. So the screen tests and it is fascinating to watch. You know, he had little Steven, little Stevie, Stephen Van Zant, musician, playing as part of the E Street Band for his entire career. Read for the part of Tony Soprano. And it's not actually that bad. But then after all these other actors, Italian American actors, you get to James Gandolfini, who immediately embodies the role in a way that very few actors ever do. And so that's, that's fascinating to watch.

[Christine Rosen]

Do you get to see that in the documentary? Did you get to see Gandolfini's screen test?

[Matthew Continetti]

Oh, yeah, yeah. No, that's. I mean, that's part of it. You kind of see that. And then you also, you know, Chase, I think, makes a point that I've always thought about. And I was, I was reassured to hear him say this, which was, you know, it started making the show first it was going to kind of a comedy. And then very clearly I recognize that it's a parable of America in the late 20th, early 21st centuries. And you see this kind of broad view of the United States and its position in the world and trends that were beginning to show up when the show premiered in the late. In 1999, I think it premiered through the lens of this kind of mob drama slash comedy and the character of Tony Soprano. So I was reassured by that. And finally there was a great SNL clip in this documentary where this is back, you know, in kind of the SNL glory days of the late 90s. And they did, they ran a commercial parody of the critic critical reception of the Sopranos when it first came out. And it was of course, immediately beloved by critics. And just the over the top statements that they make in this SNL skit were very amusing. And it took, I think a while or it took a couple years before the Sopranos became the cultural phenomenon that it did. Kind of leaping outside critical acclaim to becoming some. Something of, kind of a touchstone in American cultural life. So that is wise guy David Chase in the Sopranos. I'm trying to find the time to finish it up, but the first episode, which is about 90 minutes long, is definitely worth watching.

[John Podhoretz]

You know, it's funny, the first episode of the Sopranos dealing with those, you know, the broad brush issue of America at late turn of the century America. That monologue that Tony delivers in Melfi's office the first time he goes in to see the therapist because he's had a panic attack, which is where he says, I just have this feeling that like all the big things have happened already. And that I'm the aftermath of the greatness. That was the Mafia. The old mafia was so good. And now what do I have left? It's sort of like that general Gen X thing, which is like somehow, you know, there was the greatest generation anxiety. Yeah. Status anxiety.

[Matthew Continetti]

He has this. But it also becomes about the immigrant experience. There's a wonderful monologue there. I don't know if it's in the pilot or later in the first season where he takes the family to one of the churches in North Jersey and he talks about how this stone church had been built by his children's grandparents. And he's saying, can we do stuff like that? In a weird way, Tony anticipates Maga. Right. And that's kind of the thing. And of course, one of my favorite moments in the Sopranos, which occurs, I think, in the. Either the penultimate or the final season, is that Tony and Carmela are in bed, about to go to sleep, and Carmela is reading a book called Rebel in Chief by Fred Barnes, memorialized in the Sopranos.

[John Podhoretz]

Well, there's also that great moment when the. I think either the Homeland Security. Either people from the Department of Homeland Security or the FBI agents who are tailing him or come to Satriales or come to the Bada Bing or whatever it is. And he gets all excited because he thinks maybe he could contribute to the war on terror. Maybe he could serve as some kind of agent.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yeah, this patriot.

[John Podhoretz]

We're all in this together.

[Matthew Continetti]

It's fascinating to go back. And I'm not one of these, like, obsessives in the Sopranos. I've watched the series. I think it's great. I'm a huge Gandolfini fan, but you see these clips of the show and you see, oh, my God, he's kind of a proto Trump. And the idea of an anti hero who you're kind of. You kind of like. And one thing, one final thing about Gandalfinium, what I think makes him so incredible in this part is they're talking about one of the early scenes in the pilot where Christopher Moltisante, his kind of protege.

[John Podhoretz]

And nephew.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yeah, and nephew. Though even that turns out to be kind of a lie. The show's all about lies and how we lie to ourselves. He kills somebody and Tony is outraged. And the script just said that Tony was going to yell at Christopher. But when they played the part, played the scene, Gandolfini, who's of course, this huge bear of a man, grabbed Michael Imperioli by the scruff of his neck and pulled him close. And people were afraid. But that's the character, right, this guy that you were so close to thinking, oh, my gosh, what a. What a funny and kind of almost lovable person. And then in a snap of a finger, you see an animal, right? And that's what I think. That's the secret to the Sopranos success.

[John Podhoretz]

You know, you mentioned one last thing, because there is a book, one of the best books ever written about popular culture. It's called Difficult Men by Brett Martin. And it is a chronicle of the explosion in late 90s TV of, you know, the thing that sort of took the movies out and made TV the central. The central cultural force of our time. And the book is about David Chase and it's about Vince Gilligan who did Breaking Bad, and about David Simon and Ed Burns and David Milch and all these people who made this, made this tv and how all of it is about white men in America who feel that the country is passing them by. And if there is anything culturally that was prophetic of the moment that led to Trump and that maybe led to Trump's revival, it was all written in these shows, all of which, by the way, have heroes who are villains. So it's not as though this is a. This really explains maybe, maybe to, you know, maybe to Ellie Mistel and people like that. It explains it because, of course, they think all Trump male voters or villains, but that there was this cultural reckoning, this portrait of what it. What America feels like to people who think that in the past, people like them hadn't had the upper hand or had an advantage or were going to live lives better than their parents and all of that, and that, that is now going away. And all of these men who made the shows were difficult men. That's why it's called difficulty. They were edgy and nasty and moody and depressed. And David Chase, the single most successful person in television in the 21st century, was a lonely, sad, angry, impossible by his own life.

[Matthew Continetti]

He was a failure. He wanted to be a filmmaker.

[John Podhoretz]

He wanted to be a filmmaker. And he's making this show and he thinks it's not good enough for him. But also he was impossible to work for. He fired people. He was just incredibly unpleasant. And so. And so he was himself a reflection of Tony. Tony was like his deepest, the deepest truth about himself. Anyway, that book also, if this topic is of interest to you, Difficult Men by Brett Martin, is a very revelatory piece of cultural history or criticism or something like that. So there we have it. We will be back tomorrow. For Abe, Matt, Seth and Christine, I'm John Pod Hortz. Keep the candle burning.