New Twists in the Ukraine Saga

Summary

The Commentary Magazine Podcast: "New Twists in the Ukraine Saga"

Release Date: May 1, 2025
Host: John Podhoretz
Guests: Matthew Continetti, Christine Rosen, Abe Greenwald

---

1. Introduction

The episode begins with John Podhoretz welcoming listeners and introducing the panel: executive editor Abe Greenwald, Commentary columnist John Washington, Matthew Continetti from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and Social Commentary columnist Christine Rosen. The discussion swiftly moves to the latest developments in the Ukraine saga, particularly the recently signed U.S.-Ukraine minerals and rare earths agreement.

---

2. U.S.-Ukraine Minerals and Rare Earths Deal

Matthew Continetti opens the discussion by highlighting the significance of the deal between the United States and Ukraine concerning minerals and rare earths. Initially slated for signing in February, the agreement was delayed due to tensions following a contentious Oval Office meeting between Trump and Zelensky.

Continetti [02:02]: "The deal is not reparations. Earlier versions required Ukraine to use some resources to repay the U.S. for aid, but now it's a shared account where both America and Ukraine profit."

John Podhoretz interprets the deal as a potential Rorschach test of U.S. political factions:

Podhoretz [01:17]: "Hawks see this as possible backdoor funding for Ukraine's war effort through mineral deals, while others view it as straightforward repayment for aid provided."

Continetti emphasizes that the new agreement signifies a move towards a forward-looking partnership rather than reparations, suggesting a positive step for American supporters of Ukraine.

---

3. Russia-Ukraine War Dynamics

The conversation delves into the broader implications of the minerals deal on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. John Podhoretz references insights from Tar General Keith Kellogg, who outlined Ukraine's realistic conditions for a ceasefire and underscored the immense human cost of the war.

Podhoretz [04:50]: "Kellogg stated that more than 1.2 million have died over the last three years, making this an unsustainable conflict for Russia."

Christine Rosen agrees, noting that both nations have suffered devastating losses, leaving neither side with a clear victory.

Rosen [07:00]: "If this were our war, we wouldn't see it as a victory. It's a historical disaster for both Ukraine and Russia."

Continetti points out that Ukraine's military strength has grown, posing a significant challenge to Putin. He also discusses the expansion of NATO with Sweden and Finland joining, and anticipates that Putin is unlikely to seek peace, prompting suggestions for further sanctions.

Continetti [09:42]: "Ukraine now has the largest army in Europe, and an independent Ukraine will continue to bolster its defense capabilities."

---

4. U.S. Internal Policy on Immigration and National Security

The discussion shifts to internal U.S. policies under the Trump administration, focusing on student visas, green cards, and the legal status of foreign nationals in the United States. The panel examines the case of Mohsen Madawi, a green card holder facing deportation despite controversial statements and legal challenges.

Podhoretz [21:12]: "Madawi was allowing to contest his arrest, treated as a hero by some on social media for standing up against Trump, but the judge highlighted his inflammatory rhetoric."

Abe Greenwald critiques the administration's approach, arguing that the real issue is national security rather than free speech.

Greenwald [24:12]: "The Secretary of State has the right to deport individuals who incite violence and pose a threat, beyond just free speech concerns."

Rosen draws parallels to post-9/11 policies, emphasizing the necessity of differentiating between free speech and actions that threaten national security.

Rosen [28:48]: "Tolerance is essential, but when it crosses into threats and violence, protection must begin."

---

5. Notable Case: Mohsen Madawi

The panel delves deeper into Madawi's case, discussing the legal intricacies and the broader implications for immigration policy. Podhoretz highlights the judge's dismissal of allegations against Madawi due to a lack of sufficient evidence and questions the thoroughness of the FBI's investigation.

Podhoretz [31:59]: "The judge indicated that the FBI found no basis to act on Madawi's alleged threats, raising concerns about procedural integrity."

Continetti reinforces the need for stringent measures against individuals who pose security threats, regardless of their citizenship status.

Continetti [34:47]: "Every major attack has involved individuals who were already on the FBI's radar. We need robust systems to prevent such threats."

---

6. Political Analysis of Democratic Party Strategies

The conversation transitions to a critique of the Democratic Party's strategies, particularly regarding their stance on immigration and voter inclusivity.

Podhoretz [44:31]: "Democratic initiatives to allow non-citizens to vote in municipal elections are unconstitutional and threaten the fabric of American democracy."

Continetti expresses concern over the party's alignment with the far left, citing Vice President Kamala Harris's recent speeches and endorsements of progressive figures.

Continetti [48:25]: "Kamala Harris's alignment with the far left undermines the Democratic Party's national viability and disconnects it from working-class voters."

Greenwald echoes the sentiment, emphasizing the need for the party to address antisemitism without conflating it with unfounded claims of Islamophobia.

Greenwald [37:26]: "Tolerance should not come at the expense of ignoring genuine threats. Antisemitism and incitement to violence must be addressed distinctly."

---

7. Conclusion and Insights

In closing, the panel reflects on the current geopolitical and domestic challenges facing the United States. The U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal represents a strategic pivot in supporting Ukraine while navigating complex international relations with Russia. Domestically, the administration's immigration policies and the Democratic Party's strategies underscore the ongoing debates about national security, citizenship, and party identity.

Podhoretz [42:15]: "If Democrats continue down this path, they risk becoming unelectable on a national scale, undermining the two-party system."

Continetti concludes with a call for the Democratic Party to realign its strategies to better resonate with the working class and restore democratic integrity.

Continetti [51:37]: "The working class sees the Democrats as out of touch. The party must rebuild its connection to these voters to ensure future viability."

---

Notable Quotes

• John Podhoretz [01:17]: "Hawks see this as possible backdoor funding for Ukraine's war effort through mineral deals, while others view it as straightforward repayment for aid provided."
• Matthew Continetti [02:02]: "The deal is not reparations. Earlier versions required Ukraine to use some resources to repay the U.S. for aid, but now it's a shared account where both America and Ukraine profit."
• Keith Kellogg [04:50]: "More than 1.2 million have died over the last three years, making this an unsustainable conflict for Russia."
• Christine Rosen [07:00]: "If this were our war, we wouldn't see it as a victory. It's a historical disaster for both Ukraine and Russia."
• Abe Greenwald [24:12]: "The Secretary of State has the right to deport individuals who incite violence and pose a threat, beyond just free speech concerns."
• John Podhoretz [44:31]: "Democratic initiatives to allow non-citizens to vote in municipal elections are unconstitutional and threaten the fabric of American democracy."

---

This comprehensive summary encapsulates the key discussions, insights, and conclusions from "New Twists in the Ukraine Saga," providing listeners with a detailed overview of the episode's primary themes and arguments.

Transcript

[Matthew Continetti]

Hope for the best, expect the worst.

[John Podhoretz]

Some preach and pain Some die of.

[Matthew Continetti]

Thirst the way of knowing which way.

[John Podhoretz]

It'S going Hope for the best Expect.

[Matthew Continetti]

The worst, hope for the best.

[John Podhoretz]

Welcome to the Commentary Magazine daily podcast. Today is Thursday, May 1, 2025. I am Jon Podhoriz, the editor of Commentary magazine. With me, as always, executive editor Abe Greenwald. Hi, Abe.

[Christine Rosen]

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]

And Matt's colleague at aei, our Social Commentary columnist, Christine Rosen. Hi, Christine.

[Abe Greenwald]

Hi, John.

[John Podhoretz]

So, Matt, Matt's choice wants to talk about the deal between the United States and Ukraine on minerals and stuff.

[Matthew Continetti]

Well, it's in the news.

[John Podhoretz]

It's in the news.

[Matthew Continetti]

I figure this is a current affairs podcast. We're talking about what's going on.

[John Podhoretz]

You're absolutely right. So we have this deal and it's like a Rorschach test, as far as I can tell, because hawks are looking at this and thinking, huh, maybe there's a new relationship developing between Trump and Zelensky and Ukraine after Putin's behavior over the last couple of weeks, where we're going to do some form of backdoor funding for Ukraine and its war effort through the vehicle of making a deal on buying its minerals. And then you have the other side, which says, basically, no, we're just getting what we pay. We're getting what we paid for. They're going to pay us back with all of these minerals for all the money that we've thrown and shoveled in their direction. I have literally no idea which of these two is correct, or maybe they're both correct, or maybe neither one is correct and maybe this deal will never happen.

[Matthew Continetti]

Well, as it, I mean, it was signed, it was supposed to be signed in February after the disastrous Oval Office meeting. But of course, when the circus happened in the Oval Office, Zelensky went home, the Ukraine US Relationship nosedived. Trump briefly suspended US Military and intelligence aid to Ukraine before putting it back on. And so I think the signing of this deal, this U.S. ukraine minerals, rare earths agreement, is very important. One thing about it is it is not reparations. So earlier versions of the deal did include the provision that Ukraine would have to use some of these resources to repay the United States for aid that we have provided over the past now three years of the conflict. That is not the case anymore. Now it's going into a shared account. America will profit. Ukraine will profit. So you can say if you're an opponent of Aid to Ukraine. Well, they're paying us back. It's more conceptual and more forward looking than it is any type of reparations with which the Ukrainians opposed. It also includes a very, you know, ambiguous security guarantee. Right. The language is not as specific as many people would like, certainly not as specific as Zelensky would like. But as Treasury Secretary Bessant said yesterday when they signed the deal, this shows that America is involved in maintaining a free and independent Ukraine. We're going to be involved. And that, I think is a cheering sign for American supporters of Ukraine. So I think what happened with this deal is where we are where we should have been in February. Right. The deal assigned Trump and Zelensky seem to have lowered tensions. Right. Trump's rhetoric has moved toward slightly more critical or more critical of Putin than it's been certainly since he was inaugurated. And so we're kind of reclaiming lost ground and going back to the starting line. And the next step, of course, is the final realization that Putin is not interested in peace. And then I hope Trump imposes some sort of secondary sanctions on Russia to show him that, to show Putin that we're serious.

[John Podhoretz]

A couple of interesting details. Our actual envoy to Ukraine is not Steve Witkoff, who we should maybe talk about a little more a little later. Keith Kellogg, tar general, said a couple of interesting things yesterday, I think on, on Fox. He said the Ukrainians have agreed to 22 specific conditions regarding ceasefire cessation of hostilities and that they are not ludicrously idealistic. They understand that there will be a de facto Russian holding of territory should there be a permanent ceasefire, because they don't occupy that land and Russia does, or the government of Ukraine doesn't occupy that land and Russia does. And so this is a sort of concession to reality. He also says that Russia will never win the war in Ukraine, by which he means that the cost to Russia of the war in Ukraine has been so astoundingly high that maybe they can try to claim face saving, but that in the end he calculates that more than a million, I think he says 1.2 million people have died in the course of this conflict over the last three years. That is a total for two countries. Like, Russia has 145 million people in it. Ukraine has 44. So about 200 million people, 1.2 million are dead. A lot of these are Russian soldiers, conscripts, people who've been sort of like, like shoved onto the front lines. That this is, this will be seen in the long run not as a victory for Russia, even if everything freezes in place as it is now, that it was a. Implicitly, that it was a foolish and deranged misadventure. Do you think that's. Do you think that's face saving? Do you think there's a deeper truth that Kellogg is. Is who.

[Christine Rosen]

Is.

[John Podhoretz]

Who is thought of as a hawk, by the way, in the, in the, in the, in the universe of Republican hawks on Ukraine, Kellogg is one of them. So.

[Christine Rosen]

Well, I mean, it's. If it were the US and this were our war and these were the results, after three years, we would. And, you know, in a free country that could oppose such things, and that was getting some semblance of the accurate news from the front, we would certainly not consider it anything resembling a victory. Right. We'd be saying, what the hell's going on here? Lost million people for what? But, I mean, if everything were to freeze in place, I think you're looking at one of those wars where there's no clear winner or loser. It was just a historical disaster. Ukraine is worse off for it, and Russia may or may not be better off for it.

[Matthew Continetti]

Well, I would just say Ukraine is worse off in the sense that if we do achieve a ceasefire, about 20% of the country, a little bit over 20% of the country, is occupied by Russian forces. But Ukraine now also has the largest army in Europe. That's not good for Putin. And an independent Ukraine will continue to increase its defense capacity. That's why one of the demands right now from the Russian side is the demilitarization of Ukraine. And in fact, Russian control of how large Ukraine's army and defense establishment becomes. And that's a red line. And the Americans have not conceded that point, I should say. As of this broadcast. What else happened? We have Sweden and Finland joining Naito. We have NATO partners increasing their defense spending. Not as much as Trump would like. We have a new government. The deal was just signed. So we should have a new German chancellor Merits, who seems to take this whole kind of the Vita vendor. I forget what they call it. You know, this overturning that. Schultz, the previous chancellor, talked about when the Russo Ukrainian war began, about how Germany was going to take seriously its defense. Mertz, the incoming CDU chancellor, seems a little bit more serious about that. So. So if we get a ceasefire and Putin has the ground that he occupied now, he has Ukraine still there, he has NATO larger and spending more on defense, and he has the potential German revival, which, you know, I personally am skeptical of. But. But it's a Not a phrase.

[John Podhoretz]

Not a phrase that a lot of people.

[Matthew Continetti]

Germany's fallen pretty. Pretty precipitously over the past decade.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah.

[Matthew Continetti]

So a revival, you know, in some ways, we don't have to worry about it right now. I don't know. I think he.

[John Podhoretz]

I think he'd worry.

[Matthew Continetti]

I think he'd worry, and I think that's exactly why he is holding out. The big change that happened, it seems to me, is Zelensky realized he's not dealing with the people that he's dealt with since 2021. He finally realized that he has to deal with Trump. And dealing with Trump is different than dealing with the Biden crowd. And everything that's happened since the Vatican meeting and the signing of this deal, even the person you notice that Besant didn't sign it with, the ambassador to the United States, the Ukrainian ambassador, who is very big in blue America. Right. He signed it with, I believe, the Ukrainian foreign minister, who looks like she could appear on Fox News. Right. Subtle. Things like that. Now, this deal, I am personally very happy at the direction we're going in, though, of course, there's always disappointment hanging around the corner.

[Christine Rosen]

I just want to say, I don't. I don't. I don't think Putin would worry, to be honest. I. It's not what he wants, but I don't think he's. I don't think he's worried about the future. He's. He spent a decade repurposing the whole economy to prepare for war and then militarizing the country. I mean, he would. Which is why he was able to withstand the huge losses, the sanctions and whatever else.

[Matthew Continetti]

He was also able to withstand the price of oil, which, because of Biden and the environmental policies, was over $60 a barrel. And yesterday, I don't know where it landed, but I was monitoring throughout the day. It was. It was as low as $58 a barrel. If it sinks below $60 a barrel, doesn't matter how many sanctions we put on Russia, the Russian economy starts freezing. So, yeah, there's. There are a lot of things that work here, but Putin will, of course, act like it's a victory no matter what happens. And the Russia, Russian propaganda will spin it as a victory no matter what happens. And Russia's allies in the west will say that it's a victory, but if we get a cease fire as we're heading toward it, seems to me it's not. It's not all roses for the Russian dictator.

[John Podhoretz]

I'm looking@understanding war.org that is the website, of course, of the Institute for the Study of War, run by Kim Kagan and collaboration of her husband, Fred Kagan, your colleague at AI. And I see here that their latest report from yesterday is that Russia is continuing to work very hard on gaining new conscripts to go fight in Ukraine, that they're leveraging a new law extending the validity of conscription notices to detain military aged men, pay money for people to, to enlist, and that the, the problem here is that, is that they are again running out of manpower. This is part and parcel of the difficulties that they face. And the whole question, I guess, that's raised by this is, during the Biden term, the rhetoric was incredibly friendly and the aid was incompetent to some extent or insufficient, so that there was a lot of hearty handshakes and back slapping. And yet, you know, the capacity to let Ukraine win through the application of Western power was simply lacking, or there was no will to do that, or not much will to do that in the Biden administration, which talked a good game and didn't play a good game. And now we have a circumstance in which we're maybe almost entirely the opposite, where the game is to talk as though we are the peacemakers, but that, I guess your, your hope here is that this is a much harder pull for Russia and that the Russian economy can't afford it. Russian society is suffering from it, and the gains that have been made by Russia are not particularly useful, I mean, except in a propaganda sense. It's not entirely clear what Russia has, has gotten for these astonishing losses, particularly if they have to go, you know, like in overtime to propagandize this stalemate as a victory, which of course is an opportunity cost, because it means that that's the propaganda that they're spending all their time on, as opposed to other propaganda that might make Russians feel better about other things.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned Fred Kagan. Course. My colleague, Christine's colleague and the master of all things military. He gave a recent interview to one of the AI podcasts that Danielle Pletka and Mark Thiessen produce. And he said, really, you know, of course, we would prefer that America continues its weapons packages to Ukraine until this war is won, in the sense that, you know, not only does Ukraine begin to regain lost ground, but also Putin. Putin feels threatened enough that he starts really pulling back his demands, which he has not done, let's be clear eyed. But what is, what does Ukraine really need from the United States? And Fred says it needs three things. It needs air defense for the cities, it needs missile defense and it needs intelligence support. So when you ask me what am I most concerned about, I don't want Ukraine to lose those three things. Right. And where we're at right now is we haven't. We had that terrible blip where intelligence support was vacant and that contributed, I think to more civilian deaths and I think Russian gains in Kursk, that part of Russia that you Ukraine invaded last year. But it's back on. And so for me, the question is, can we get to a place we have, you know, we're probably not going to get a ceasefire because Putin doesn't want one. He's obsessed with this. Right. But can we still maintain the intelligence sharing, the air defense support and the missile defense support? If we can do that, Kagan says, you know, Ukraine won't. It's not about to collapse. It has built itself up incredibly. And that's a resource for us and for and for the West. So that's what I'm looking at right now.

[John Podhoretz]

Hey, it's John here. I'm happy today to talk to you about our new advertiser Shopify, because we have been using Shopify here at Commentary to help distribute, sell and manage our merch for the Commentary podcast for a couple of years now. And they are now here and want us to tell you about how you can use them to get right, get things the way you need them to make your business work with your podcast or whatever business you may have. Because Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e commerce in the US from household names like Mattel and Gymshark to brands just getting started. You can get started with your own design studio inside Shopify. With hundreds of ready to use templates, Shopify helps you build a beautiful online store to match your brand style, accelerate your content creation. Shopify is packed with helpful AI tools that write product descriptions, page headlines and even enhance your product photography. You can get your word out like you have a marketing team behind you. Easily create email and social media campaigns wherever your customers are scrolling or strolling. And best yet, Shopify is your commerce expert. With world class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns and beyond. If you're ready to sell, you're ready for Shopify. So turn your big business idea into Kaching. With Shopify on your side, sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling [e-mail] commentary. That's shopify.com commentary shopify.com commentary hey, it's John here and you guys know how much I love quints. You know that I wear Quint sweaters. I got a Quint winter jacket. And now here it is, it's time for summer and I have picked up a few new pieces from Quint. First things I reach for in my closet or in my dresser. Lightweight, comfortable and always on point. The ones I just got are polo shirts, you know, button down, short sleeve, incredibly comfortable, organic cotton, silk. They got European linen beach shorts. They got comfortable pants that work for everything from backyard hangs to nice dinners for the summer. And the best part, as ever, everything with quints is priced 50 to 80% less than what you'd find at similar brands. By working directly with top artisans and cutting out the middleman, Quince gives you luxury pieces without the crazy markups. And Quince only works with factories that use safe, ethical and responsible manufacturing practices and premium fabrics and finishes. So elevate your closet with Quince. Go to quints.com commentary for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q U I N C E.com Quince SL commentary to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quint.com commentary let's shift gears. I want to talk about the cases here in the United States regarding the Trump administration's efforts to impose a new order on student visas green cards. Who is in the United States legally and illegally. Because there's a much misunderstood thing that happened yesterday in the case of this Columbia student green card holder whose name I am trying to sum up here. I'm sorry, I've been, I'm sloppy. I've been up, I'm an apology all night.

[Matthew Continetti]

Mohsin. Mohsen Madawi.

[John Podhoretz]

Mohsen Madawi. Thank you very much. So Mohsen Madawi was in a courtroom yesterday, I think, in Vermont, where it was decided that his detention, his arrest during his citizenship interview, he should be allowed out of jail to contest his arrest and his, his efforts to become a citizen and not remain in custody as that is going on. This was treated in the propaganda war that is now going on against Trump's hard line or the administration's hard line about what the Secretary of State can do to limit the presence in the United States of foreign nationals who are, who, who are propounding ideas inimical to our national security. As though he had won some huge victory over Trump and the government. He stood there in a keffiyeh at a press conference saying, I'm not Afraid of you, Donald Trump, blah, blah, blah. You know, people were like, I can't remember. Various people on Twitter were like, he's a hero. Look at him. He's standing up against Trump.

[Matthew Continetti]

And the judge said that this is the McCarthy era all over again. And, you know, we're. We're for Mohsin Madawi promoting free and open debate. That's what this is really about. It's open debate, like we have on this podcast over Ukraine. That's what all those people in the tents were doing at Columbia. They were. It was a debating club. I mean, it's so divorced from reality.

[John Podhoretz]

And not just that, but let's talk about what, what appeared in the case test testimony that people who have spoken to Mohsin Mandawi over the course of the last three or four years report him saying, said he wants to kill Jews, for example. There is a. There is a, you know, sworn affidavit that he has said that he wanted to kill Jews. That. A couple of other things. I'm sort of looking for the specific quotes here. Very frightening stuff. And so that's enough for me. Right.

[Matthew Continetti]

That's not free and open debate.

[John Podhoretz]

No, but let's just say. Let's just say for the sake of argument that, yes, he's a green card holder, he's expressing repulsive opinions, but he's a green card holder, he has some rights of free speech. And, and maybe the Secretary of State should not be deporting people just because they say disgusting things. But the fact that he's saying disgusting things is being largely ignored by the people who are celebrating him.

[Abe Greenwald]

Well, this is a strategy that they've been deploying in a number of these cases because the public is not with them on this. The public wants a secure border. The public wants anyone who commits a crime in this country to be deported if they are not here, as if they're not here legally. The public also doesn't like terrorist supporters in general. This is. And so anyone who's here, even with a green card, even with a valid visa, who is inciting hatred attacks against any minority group. But in this case, in almost all of these cases against Jews, but also attacking our government, I mean, that's actually where I think a lot of the rhetoric. They don't want to point out how much these people hate the United States. The average American loves his or her country. And so I think the free speech argument becomes a nice little invisibility cloak to what they really don't want to engage in, which is that these People are fomenting terrorism on our homeland, in our homeland. And you know what? The Secretary of State has the right to boot them if they do that. It's pretty simple to, I think, the average American voter. But the intel, the intellectuals are all trying to intellectualize this as a free speech question when it really, at heart is about terrorism and inciting violence.

[John Podhoretz]

I just, I just think we find ourselves in a very weird place, which is. I keep, I keep. Or a very revealing place because I keep thinking, okay, the Abrego Garcia case is a case about whether or not the Trump administration violated procedures that it itself had respected by deporting him and claim and admit. And someone acknowledged in the courtroom that he had been mistakenly deported to El Salvador, the one country, because of justified fear of persecution. An immigration judge had said in 2019 he could not be deported to.

[Abe Greenwald]

And by the way, I don't. Sorry to interrupt, but there are a lot of people on the left who are now arguing that he shouldn't, he shouldn't have been deported anywhere at all. This is actually another misinterpretation of the actual legal status he had.

[Matthew Continetti]

And the leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives, Hakeem Jeffries, reportedly told his, his caucus yesterday, no more trips to El Salvador. Why? Because. Well, among other things, new legal documents show that there were multiple accusations of domestic abuse earlier in his residency here, his illegal residency here, and at one point, a relative of his wife told a judge under oath that he was a gang member. So, yes, just to put that out there, you know that. But you're right, John, the legal issue at work is why was he deported to Set Cottage, the terrorist prison in El Salvador when there had been a legal order preventing him from being deported to El Salvador? And then, of course, the court cases where we have one, the judge ruling that the Trump administration must effectuate his return to the United States, and the Supreme Court of the United States saying that the Trump administration must facilitate his return to the United States. And as of today, of course, he is not in the United States.

[John Podhoretz]

I just think we find ourselves in a very weird place because, as I say, if Democrats, civil libertarians and others want to say that these are matters involving speech and that they are matters involving a proper administrative procedure and the rule of law, that is fine. The fact that it tips over into celebrations of Mohsen Madawi's rhetoric and behavior and comportment, and that we're supposed to cry tears over Mahmoud Khalil's inability to be in the delivery room with his wife upon the birth of his child. Just like to point out that, you know, my dad wasn't in the delivery room when I was born because dads weren't in the delivery room in 1961. And somehow, you know, women managed to get through deliveries. I was in the living room with my wife. But, you know, this is not like a civil, you have a, this is the destruction of all family relationships and an act of totalitarian tyranny that a husband is not in the delivery room with his wife. Nonetheless, this, the sentimentalization of these cases is a very, could be a very serious slow acting poison.

[Christine Rosen]

It's not slow acting. It's, it's instant. I mean, they're, they're, you know, to Christine's point about what all these people are really up to, imagine that after 9 11, campuses were overtaken with people here on visas and they were echoing and promoting Al Qaeda propaganda and bin Laden talking points. Would everyone be saying, oh, this is free speech. This is a free speech debate? As a matter of fact, not only would no one be making that case, but it didn't happen because it was so clearly understood what that would have meant. I just want to say one more point about this. I remember that they've long since come back, but pre 911 there used to be in Times Square and wherever else the extremist, cultish black Israelites. Right. They're not, it's not connected to Islam. They sort of echo some Nation of Islam stuff. But they're a weird, extreme group that would yell about the Jews on street corners. They disappeared after 9 11. They had nothing to do with it. Right. But they went underground for years. You didn't see them on the corner. So there's just been such a change in the culture and in our politics that now we like sit back and stroke our chins and go, oh, well, this is free speech and this is what this country is about. And you're allowed to criticize the government and blah, blah, blah.

[Matthew Continetti]

I mean, I think there's a larger difference. That is, explains this divergence that you said. I mean, it's just a different country than it was in 2001. There are far more international students at our universities today than there were in 2001. I think that if we had another major terrorist attack on this country, I pray that doesn't happen, but I think we would have encampments blaming America. I don't think I actually. And I think because the structure is there and one reason why a lot of these Trump policies are good in My view is that they're attacking the structure that had been built up over time and that was outlined by Daniel Pletka in commentary last year. Some of these executive orders in recent weeks, in particular the transparency executive order, among, among others, goes right to the heart of what Pletka was talking about in that essay about the anti Semitism network that these foreign governments, hello, Qatar, have been building up over time. And the international student. That's the thing. That's why we're having these arguments about Khalil and Madawi. They're not Americans. They're not Americans.

[John Podhoretz]

I think it's important I have in front of me Judge Crawford, the judge who ruled that, as I say, that Madawi presents no danger to his community or to others. There are two key claims that the government made in its effort to maintain custody over him after his arrest at his citizenship interview. One is this affidavit from a gun enthusiast at a gun Club in 2015 where Mandawi said, I like to kill Jews. And then in 2019, he was apparently stopped at a border crossing of some with drugs, which he claimed to be prescription drugs. Here is how the judge deals with that. In his finding, the court has considered the allegations made by the gunsmith in 2015. If true, they are highly damaging to Mr. Madawi's chances of release and of having any future in the United States at all. In 2015, the FBI conducted a thorough investigation of the allegations and found no basis to act. Had the statements attributed to Mr. Mandawi been true, they would have resulted in some official response. In a case of the dog that did not bark, the FBI concluded its investigation without taking action. That decision gives rise to a reasonable inference that the agency charged with the protection of the public from crime found no basis for proceeding against Mr. Madawi in any venue. Ten years have passed since that time without any criminal charge, except for referral to a state run diversion program in 2019 concerning a potential drug offense. The record of that referral and any citation has been expunged in the normal course. Now I'm reading this out because this is the judge saying, look, the FBI looked into this thing where he said, I like to kill Jews and found no basis to act or move. Okay, so that's the 2015 FBI, that's the Obama FBI, that's a dovish immigration FBI whose people might have said, well, you're allowed to say you want to kill Jews, you know, when it is not the policy of the Obama administration. Despite efforts that people are making to say that Obama loved to deport people. They weren't deporting Green Guard holders and they weren't doing stuff like that or hardly at all. He, the judge seems to be implying that the Gunsmiths affidavit is a lie, or failing that, that the FBI looked into it and did a thorough examination and found no basis to act. How does he know that the investigation was thorough? How does you know the FBI. Someone didn't just tell this to the FBI and the FBI said the hell with it, who cares? This is just.

[Abe Greenwald]

How many times have there been attacks that later we find out the person was on the FBI's, you know, watch the radar or whatever? I mean, that is unfortunately, all too frequent.

[Matthew Continetti]

All the time.

[John Podhoretz]

All. Almost every. Almost every time there is an attack, it involves somebody who was on the radar. Right. So in any case, this is a, this is an astonishing thing to say. He has to deal with it in the, in the course of the fight. And by the way, this may in fact be the way that Mandawi is deported from the United States. Remember what we, what, what you were, what you were being led to believe yesterday in the coverage of this court case is somehow that he was found innocent or something like that. That is not what happened yesterday. What happened was that the judge said that he did not have to stay in custody while he was defending himself against the government's efforts to deport him. If the Secretary of State determines that his presence in the United States is inimical to the conduct of our foreign policy, there is almost no recourse that he will have for deportation, because the only way that that case will be resolved is for the Supreme Court eventually to hear this very specific case and deal with the question of whether the law says the Secretary of State has pretty unambiguous power to decide that someone is pursuing something that is inimical to the foreign policy interests of the United States and to act on it. And moreover, Sayma Dawi was the head, one of the two heads of the efforts to promote a foreign policy view on the campus of Columbia University in the wake of October 7th that directly involved the conduct of American foreign policy in the Middle East. They were attempting to influence American foreign policy in the Middle east in ways that I believe are inimical to American foreign policy that Marco Rubio may deem inimical to American foreign policy. And that while he may have the right to say whatever it is that he wants to say, he does not have the right to say it within our borders. He does not we do. He does not. We are born citizens of the United States. He is not.

[Abe Greenwald]

This. This actually, though reminds me a bit of a broader sort of cultural challenge that those of us who would make this argument, I agree with you have. And it struck me when the Harvard antisemitism report came out that at the exact same time they also had to do this moral equivalence and have the additional report on supposed Islamophobia. And this actually post 911 has been a push pull that really conservatives have not quite won this battle, although I think we need to. And it's this. We should be able to show violence, threats, anti Semitism without also having to give this polite nod to Islam being a religion of peace in the case of a lot of these activists. And if you read those two reports, which I did, it's fascinating to see that the complaints of the Jewish students, violence, threats of violence, being blocked from moving around campus, hostility from faculty and administrators. And then you look at the complaints of the Muslim students. They're like, I felt like I couldn't really express myself fully. And that to me, I mean, it's darkly comical, but it's also horrifying. But there is this sense, there's a whole wing of people in this country, not all of whom are liberals, I would say, who like this idea of tolerance. And we saw it post 911 a few months out from, from 9 11. We're seeing it now with regard to these sorts of figures who are, who are matters of controversy. And what I would say to that is, you know what? Tolerance is excellent. But when intolerance rears its head and it's backed up by threats of violence, tolerance has to cease and protection of the people under threat must begin. And I think it's. It's difficult for a lot of Americans to make that distinction because they don't want to be seen as intolerant.

[Christine Rosen]

Yeah, the two reports are incredible because the one on antisemitism documents things that actually happened. Right. The one on anti Muslim, anti Arab, anti Palestinian bias is all about people's feelings. And a higher percentage of the Muslim students who were interviewed say they feel afraid to speak up on campus than the Jewish students who were questioned along the same line.

[John Podhoretz]

This was the subject of Abe's excellent newsletter yesterday, so I commend to you Abe Greenwald's daily newsletter. You can sign up at the top of our [e-mail] and you would have been enlightened on this matter at around 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon.

[Abe Greenwald]

Sorry, I should have done the Hat tip to Abe, because that's actually. Yeah, I've been married. I read, went and read everything after his newsletter.

[John Podhoretz]

And you know, tolerance is a wonderful thing, but when somebody walks around saying I want to kill Jews and says that Israel is a genocidal state, why am I supposed to be tolerant of that? Yeah.

[Matthew Continetti]

And they're not a citizen.

[John Podhoretz]

And my sister, my four nieces and nephews and I have four grand nieces and grand nephews all live in Israel. I don't have to be tolerant of that.

[Abe Greenwald]

Well, a citizen. That's right though a citizen. You do have to be tolerant of that.

[John Podhoretz]

The citizen has certain in my own no.

[Matthew Continetti]

First Amendment protection. Exactly that. Democrats and the left have spent a generation now eroding the concept of a citizen. They don't believe in it. Their whole. And I'm, I'm sorry, I'm going, I'm veering off. But their whole electoral strategy, the health of their party down the road relies on not only legalizing the illegal immigrant population in the United States, but meanwhile degrading the distinction between citizen and non citizen. That's why you have this continual effort at the municipal level and I'm sure one day at the state level to have non citizens vote. Right. So what is the Trump administration? The two Trump administrations have both reasserted this distinction. And it cuts to the heart of what the left thinks it's self conception, its agenda, everything. And that's why these arguments are so polarizing and so dramatic. It's, it should be pretty simple. These students do not have a right to be in the United States. Right. And as Secretary Rubio points out, if they come here and they spend all of their time working to make Jewish students, Jewish American citizens feel uncomfortable and attacking the institutions of this country. You know, you read Mahmoud's op ed in the Washington Post a couple weeks ago where he's likening America in 2025 to Nazi Germany. And you say to yourself, what are.

[John Podhoretz]

You doing here then? Why are you here?

[Matthew Continetti]

Well, he's here because he wants to bring it down. So it should be pretty simple. It seems to me to say, see you later, alligator.

[John Podhoretz]

Just so people understand that what you are saying, if you are listening and you are not part of our movement more broadly. No, but why what you are saying is not extremist in any way, shape or form, is that the concept of global citizenry is so prevalent on the left that it was a selling point, a hallmark and a grace note for Barack Obama.

[Matthew Continetti]

Absolutely right.

[John Podhoretz]

That was, he was a Berlin speech, citizen There are global citizen rights and there is global citizenry responsibilities. He called himself a citizen of the world. And I am not a nationalist as understood under the term nationalism. I do not think of myself as an. I don't think America and nationalism. I think we have a different philosophical basis for our citizenry and our citizenship. But I'm not a, I am not a citizen of any other country other than the United States. And in fact the notion that I'm a citizen of any other country besides the United States and I believe in dual citizen. I believe that it's fine for people to be dual citizens. I'm not a citizen of Malawi. I am not a citizen of the countries of Europe. And yes, I think not only also to defend your analysis of the Democratic Party's Machiavellian interest in this matter. New York City attempted to create a voting right for non citizens in municipal elections that was passed by the city council.

[Abe Greenwald]

Lots of city councils have done that.

[John Podhoretz]

And was overturned by a judge. It was found unconstitutional as it is by definition unconstitutional. The whole. It's an oxymoron to have a noncitizen vote in an election in a country in which we live in. And it is a central precept and a very dangerous one not only to our health as a society and our understanding of what it means to be Americans. It is dangerous. It is very dangerous for our two party system in this sense, which is, it's just like this is, this is not a road the Democratic Party should be going down. It is incredibly unhealthy. We have a two party system. The notion that one of the two parties is actually going to seriously attempt and I think Matt's right that they are going to seriously attempt, assuming that the, the vibe shift doesn't hold and that, and that somehow, you know, they can go back to being what they were before, you know, 2020, when suddenly, you know, everyone is sort of foreclosing the border. Now, oddly, I, I hear very few voices that are, that are.

[Matthew Continetti]

The argument is over the deportations, not the entries anymore.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, exactly. Okay, so, but you know, if the Democratic Party wants to turn itself into an unelectable party except in 10 areas of the United States, that is not good for our democracy. It needs to be more responsible as a steward of our two party system. People like Sam Tannehouse and others started saying some of this Argyl Bargle about Republic Republican Party was very important as long as it remained a check against Democratic over excessive Democratic ambitions. But it shouldn't really be arguing on Behalf of conservative causes, that sort of thing. But so I'm now going to flip this on the other. I'm going to flip the, the, the game here and say I really want the Democratic Party to cut this out because it needs to be a responsible player on the national stage. It is going to discredit itself in the eyes of many, if not most ordinary people. Just take a look at that map. I constantly mention it, send it to you guys like practically every week. Look at the map of the United States and where people voted red and blue across the counties of the United States. This country is, in territorial terms, 90% Republican. 10. The power of the Democratic Party resides in 10 spots in the United States, all around large cities in the United States. And otherwise, we are a field of red. This is not healthy. You know, this should be much more of a checkerboard country in which Republicans are present in the cities, Democrats are present in, in, in more rural places. And that this cultural divide and the big sort and all of that really is very dangerous to our future. And this argument is going to destroy the Democratic Party because what you're saying is something that even a five year old can understand.

[Matthew Continetti]

Kamala resurfaced. She's given like one or two public appearances since the election. She's given a speech earlier this year after the inauguration, but this speech yesterday was kind of billed as a big intervention, her comeback tour launch. And I have to say, I kind of miss her.

[John Podhoretz]

I kind of miss her.

[Matthew Continetti]

I kind of miss her because she's so bad. I mean, she's just. She's just a bad politician. I mean, really, here's her speech. You know, it's resistance. It's resistance. And it was so revealing to me who she name checked. She name checked Chris Van Hollen, you know, she named Jasmine Crockett. She name checked all of these far left. She name checked AOC and Bernie Sanders. That's her new crowd, right? It's not the guy that she served with as vice president who, when he was compos mentis, you know, understood that Bernie Sanders is exactly the wrong road for the Democratic Party. It's exactly the road that you laid out, which is, I mean, not a national party anymore, right? So the fact that here we have the Democratic nominee for President in 2024 come back and big speech, got some coverage, thinking about maybe running for governor of California next year. Definitely thinking about running for the presidency in 2028. She continues to lead the horse race in early, early polls of 2028. Pretty meaningless polls. But Unless she has that name recognition now and she is completely affiliating with the far left of her party. And again, I just contrast that with what I said earlier in the podcast with Hakeem Jeffries, the man who wants to be the speaker of the house in 2027, a man who's trying to think about how he can eke out that majority. You know, it's still very narrow majority, so he doesn't have many seats to win. But he is telling his frontline members and his whole caucus, don't go to El Salvador, don't affiliate with this guy Abrego Garcia, who this guy, he might not be our type of guy, right it politically, leave the legal issues alone. Politically. It's been kryptonite, and I've thought so from the beginning for the Democrats, but he's beginning to realize it. But here's Kamala ready to lead the resistance. And this, this is exactly the danger for the Democratic Party. What they should be doing finally, is paying attention to this new substack that Mitch Landrieu is putting out, the Working Class Project. And he actually had. Ian Sams is involved, a former Biden alum. They're putting out some great stuff, doing surveys of working class voters. And the data they've released over the past couple weeks just shows proves once again that our colleague Rui Teixeira is absolutely right. The working class in this country think the Democrats are out to lunch. And while they're not totally on board with every aspect of Trump, they think Trump is looking out for them and the Republicans are looking out for them and are much more culturally aligned with them. And until Democrats figure out how to redo that puzzle, they're going to be in big trouble. And every single thing I'm hearing from the Democratic Party and its intelligentsia suggests that they don't have a clue about what their problem is.

[John Podhoretz]

I'm going to make a quick recommendation and then we'll go. My recommendation is I took a brief breather from all of this troubling nonsense and ducked into a movie theater. And I saw the Accountant two with Ben Affleck and, and John Bernthal, sequel to a movie I didn't think was very good in 2016. One of these autism is a superpower movies. Autistic guy who was not only a mob accountant, but also like the world's greatest hitman. Very stupid, I thought. Pretty weird, kind of downbeat, strange movie. This is basically an action buddy comedy involving Affleck as this awkward, very awkward guy somehow sort of kind of they pulled back from the autism stuff to just. He's very awkward and very literal and then he's got this wild, crazy brother and they're both hitmen and they get involved in a completely incomprehensible plot involving human trafficking and FinCEN part of the government and all of this. But the whole movie is just this. John Berntheold, who is one of the great character actors of our time, just like chewing on the scenery in. In. In one of the most amusing performances I've seen in a very long time. So this movie is. Doesn't have an idea in its head. It's ridiculous. It's beautifully shot. Bernthal is fantastic. It's very violent and it is. And it is dumb.

[Abe Greenwald]

Okay, wait, can I just. I'm sorry. I. I did like the first accountant movie and I don't think it was an autism as a superpower movie. I think it was actually a rather humane portrait of someone coping, understanding, you know, his difference and coping with it and trying to find ways to channel it. And I don't even like Ben Affleck. So it was that the only reason I liked the first one was because of Jon Bernthal. Because I'm a huge Bernthal fan and I'm very excited about this, this new movie. But I do the other thing that was great about it is it made kind of nerdery and math nerdery in particular, kind of awesome. I mean, it really. The first movie did this very well when it shows him going through decades of someone's, you know, cooked books and try to find, I don't know, I love that stuff. It was sort of A Beautiful Mind but with a little, you know, gunplay.

[John Podhoretz]

Now we have. So we have recommendations both for the accountant and for the accountant too. Okay, so there you go. You can watch the account right now, I believe on Max. I think I saw it yesterday on Max and. And the Accountant too. In theaters now. So we'll be back tomorrow. So for Christine, Matt and Abe, I'm John Pot. Horace keep the candle.