Loading summary
Transcript167 lines
- [00:04]
Abe Greenwald
Hope for the best, expect the worst.
- [00:11]
Jon Hor
Some preach and pain Some die of.
- [00:14]
Abe Greenwald
Thirst the way of knowing which way.
- [00:18]
Jon Hor
It'S going Hope for the best Expect.
- [00:21]
Matthew Continenti
The worst, hope for the best.
- [00:25]
Jon Hor
Welcome to the Commentary magazine daily podcast. Today is Wednesday, March 19, 2025. I am Jon Hor, editor of Commentary magazine. With me, as always, executive editor Abe Greenwald. Hi, Abe.
- [00:37]
Matthew Continenti
Hi, John.
- [00:38]
Jon Hor
Washington Commentary columnist Matthew Continenti. Hi, Matt.
- [00:40]
Abe Greenwald
Hi, John.
- [00:41]
Jon Hor
And senior editor Seth Mandel. Hi, Seth.
- [00:43]
Seth Mandel
Hi, John.
- [00:46]
Jon Hor
Israel is now pounding Gaza in a way that it has not really pounded Gaza since the early weeks of the war in 2023, because it's not going in the ground. It is doing everything that it's doing from the air and indicating a severity in its handling of what is going on in Gaza that is kind of new. I suppose we're going to hear that they're using knock knock bombs to get people to leave buildings and that they're trying to be very careful about whom they're hitting when they're not hitting. But patience in the in the Netanyahu government is at an end. The 57 days of ceasefire came to an end after literally 57 days of negotiations with Hamas led to almost nothing. I mean, four or five hostages getting out. And it is the clear opinion of the Netanyahu government that it, or Netanyahu himself, that that Hamas is not going to give anybody else up and that there is and that there's evidence that Hamas was regaining a certain amount of possible economic strength. Peace in the Jerusalem Post claims that Hamas has been getting non cash assets in the form of oil barrels and things like that brought to it through by the sea that will give it essentially forms of money to keep going in whatever form they can go. So this is the situation we're in. And in Israel, the opposition is saying that he's only doing this to forestall his own inevitable collapse and his conviction in the corruption trials. And there's now a new claim that people in the Israeli government were getting paid off by gutter. Nobody is saying that he was being paid off by gutter. And there's another controversy in Israel about the firing of the director of the security services. You will be interested to know if you live in America and we are having, of course, all this stuff, stuff about what rights the president has to fire staffers, you know, low level staffers of the administration and who's doing it, which we can get to. But you'll be interested to know that there seems to be some controversy over whether or not the prime minister of the country has the right to choose the head of the security services that he would want. There is no process by which in Israel, people who are in senior positions in the government are confirmed by anybody. There is no written constitution, and courts are literally saying, according to Israel, the Attorney General, Excuse me, who also doesn't quite seem to work for the Prime Minister, is saying, no, you're not allowed to fire him unless you can show a good reason to fire him. So Israel has an eccentric political system, as people may know, and so this eccentricity is now showing itself. So it may well be that the foremost supporter of Bibi's effort to go into Gaza and finish things off is not the Israeli public, but rather the White House, which seems, I think, based on some of the things that Steve Wyckoff, the negotiator, was saying and things that Trump hasn't said is basically like, okay, we're done with this too. We've had it. You know, we get. We gave it two months. You know, we said nice things about Hamas, which got us a lot of trouble. And look what they have. They won't even. They won't even let the American out. Like, we're. We're. We're. We're now killing Houthis, and maybe Israel should go kill Hamas next, the way we're killing Houthis.
- [04:25]
Abe Greenwald
My only correction to your summary is Adam Bowler said nice things about Hamas, not the. Not the entire administration.
- [04:34]
Jon Hor
Fair enough.
- [04:35]
Abe Greenwald
And then his, of course, his nomination was pulled, and he'll be doing things kind of, you know, in the basement there with Milton from Office Space with the hostage negotiations.
- [04:46]
Seth Mandel
Yeah, keep a hand on your stick.
- [04:47]
Jon Hor
He better not take it.
- [04:48]
Seth Mandel
He turned it up.
- [04:49]
Jon Hor
He turned up.
- [04:51]
Seth Mandel
He called a conference, by the way, and I saw a headline that he was calling a conference of envoys in Big Sky, Montana, which is the. I think, the. The envoy version of. We sent him to live on a farm.
- [05:05]
Jon Hor
Yeah. Oh, yes, yes. The puppy was sent to the farm upstairs.
- [05:09]
Abe Greenwald
I mean, I think. I think the key here is that Hamas was benefiting from the ceasefire, especially the period at which the hostage releases ended and we end the resumption of the war 24 hours ago. That limbo helped Hamas. Hamas was rearming. Hamas was recruiting. Hamas was selling the aid it steals, feeding off of it. And that status quo benefited Hamas. And then Hamas used that limbo in order to split America from Israel. And that was the direct negotiation attempt. That was Hamas's false claim that they would release Adan Alexander, the remaining American living hostage. But that failed. And first we saw the Trump administration begin the attacks on the Houthis, and we heard Steve Witkoff say that Hamas should pay attention to what's happening with the Houthis. And then within a day, Israel had this, I think, extremely effective surprise strike on Hamas leadership and the war has begun again. So Hamas was milking this interregnum for all it was worth. And that doesn't solve anything. For Hamas to be stronger, for Hamas to keep the remaining living hostages, for Hamas to benefit from the political situation in Israel, that does not make the world a safer place. And just final point, I'd say you're right, John, to suggest that the Trump administration is looking at this like, well, we have a lot else to talk to, deal with. Let Israel take care of Hamas, because of course, and I'm sure we'll talk about this today, later. But Trump is dead set, it seems, on ending this war in Ukraine and exerting a lot of political capital in what I believe to be futile negotiations with Vladimir Putin. But that's what's occupying his attention, not the Israel Hamas conflict, on which he is certainly on Israel's side.
- [07:26]
Jon Hor
Right. So why don't we move there, we move on to Ukraine and then we can move to the domestic controversies. Two hour phone call with Putin. Unusual in that Trump did not follow that to our phone call with a three hour press conference in the Oval Office in which he just said anything that came to his head. Clearly, because it was a perfect call. It's a perfect call. But he's perfect close to his. He's keeping, he's keeping his cards. He's very interested in cards in Ukraine and Russia. He's keeping his cards close to the vest. They're supposed to, he and Zelensky. You're supposed to have a phone call today for the Lenski to find out what Trump and Putin talked about on the phone call yesterday that he doesn't want to talk about, interestingly enough, and I don't want to go too far with this because it just indicates that the American people aren't that engaged is my guess. But the polling on the American attitude toward Russia, Ukraine, Trump and the war is not in Trump's favor. And I'm struck by this, like, I'm actually legitimately surprised because I would have assumed after all this time and Trump pushing and the idea that whenever you ask people, do you want a war to stop, they would say they want the war to stop, it remains that two thirds of the American people, close, 2/3, sympathize with Ukraine and Do not sympathize with Russia. The mood, the immediate polling, and the aftermath of the yelling at Zelensky meeting in the White House that suggested that Trump had benefited from that has flipped. Three different polls show that people think that Trump was disrespectful to Zelensky, not that Zelensky was disrespectful to Trump. And the American people still seem to be emotionally in sympathy with Ukraine. That doesn't mean that they care that much about whether the war goes on or doesn't go on. But Trump throwing in his now notorious cards with Putin against the supposed dictatorial Zelensky has not benefited him politically at the very least. And it's possible that his effort to come out and say, I am the peacemaker, I stopped this terrible war from happening, that, that will help him in the United States, when in fact, people in the United States are supportive of the country that is trying to save itself from the Russian bear. I don't know, it's interesting. I just. I don't have a larger perspective on it. I just think that there was pretty.
- [10:04]
Abe Greenwald
Striking numbers that came out just yesterday. One question asked, would you rather have the war end with a ceasefire or with Ukraine regaining its lost territory? And a slight majority favored or plurality? I should say Ukraine regaining lost territory. So that, that's the. That's definitely the Ukraine.
- [10:26]
Jon Hor
This is a war aim. That would be. It would mean that they support two more years of war. You know, that. That's what's interesting is if you were to translate that into what policy would be. Ceasefire is a policy, but Ukraine regaining lost territory means the war is on hot and heavy and we give Ukraine weapons and we help them regain their lost territory, which is, you know, something that I think we've all kind of regrettably conceded is unlikely to happen, given. Given the order of battle, the nature.
- [10:58]
Abe Greenwald
Of the war there, and the attitude.
- [11:00]
Jon Hor
Of the American administration, so. And the administration before it, which is what led to Ukraine losing its territory. But whatever. Okay.
- [11:07]
Matthew Continenti
You know, I think in part that polling reflects something. Among the many intelligent things Zelenskyy has done throughout the course of this is when he makes his appeals and his speeches of appreciation for American aid and support. He always, very specifically says, the American people, the Ukrainian people thank the American people. I thank the American people. He tries to sort of put the cause in the hearts of Americans as opposed to, you know, just appealing to the leadership. And I think it's been effective.
- [11:54]
Jon Hor
Sorry.
- [11:55]
Seth Mandel
I also think that the American people understand the difference between war that America is fighting with its own service members and a war that America is supporting an ally in. Right? There's the argument from a segment of the right from, you know, from the MAGA right, has been, it's not our war, it's not our fight, who cares what happens, etc. But we, but also we can stop it, right? When you, when you say Ukraine should be allowed to fight on, what you. The response you get from a lot of MAGA right people is why do you want the war to go on? Why do you want more people to die? Why do you want Ukrainians to die? And so I think what the Americans on a larger sense understand, though, is that it's the fact that we're not the main party in the war, in the ground war itself means that we can't actually just stop all these wars. We can only stop supporting a certain side.
- [13:06]
Jon Hor
Right?
- [13:06]
Seth Mandel
I think the American people get that this is not a war, a ground war between the United States or NATO and Russia. And therefore, if the United States pulls out of the war, the two combatants are still in the war. And it's like that in the Middle east, too, right? There's this idea that, you know, the same commentators have come out and said, look, Trump should pressure Israel because all, all this death and devastation has to stop, and we can stop it. But the truth is that we can't stop war from happening in the Middle east between Hamas and the nation that Hamas is forever trying to destroy. We can only stop supporting our ally. And I think that's reflected in the polls that the American people understand that, no, we can't just snap our fingers and make everybody stop dying and bring peace on earth. It's not in our control.
- [13:57]
Abe Greenwald
That is not in our control to build on that. I think what you're saying is that the American people have more moral clarity about the situation that's lacking in many places, especially on parts of the MAGA media sphere, that there's a lot of just muscle memory in America about Russia. We don't like Russia. We don't like Putin. Putin's a bad guy. Russia's. The Russian government has this tendency to invade people and, and to kill people and to oppress people. That's. That's just the way it's been in Russia, with very small exceptions, for centuries. And Americans know that. And so the polling reflects that. And so I think what you see with this division is just Americans have a instinctual skepticism or opposition to, to Russia, and I think that's justified. And on Hamas, it's The same way. I mean, we have seen, of course, the shift among Democrats on the Palestinian issue. But by and large, the American people still see that Israel has a right to exist and that the terrorist forces that are trying to destroy the state of Israel are not only wrong, they're evil. And so I think that amidst a lot of, shall we say, you know, unsettling headlines or disturbing headlines or headlines that come out of the blue, and you're like, oh, okay, that's interesting. The basic sense of the American electorate is quite reassuring, I find.
- [15:39]
Jon Hor
We talk in broad brush about what the American people know and don't know, and we have all this horrible evidence of how our educational system has failed us over the past 40 years. Nobody can find anything on a MA. Know anything is. It's like the old Jay Leno asking people outside the Jay Leno Theater, you know, what is the capital of New York City? And they say, New York State. You know, that kind of the American people are stupid, right? Or that the American people don't know anything, and they certainly don't know anything about foreign policy. They don't know where Ukraine is. They don't know where Israel is. They don't know anything. Okay? So there, there's that layer on top of understanding these kinds of numbers which everybody can default to. In other words, when you, when you don't like where the polling goes on some of this stuff, you can say, well, everybody's stupid and they don't really understand the issue. But let's be fair to the American people. Dumb or not, Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago. It's not like this happened 20 years ago. It's not like it happened 40 years ago. Russia rolled tanks into its neighbor without a casus belli three years ago. And the entire American political system, with the exception of maga, was like, this is terrible. They're not allowed to do this. And the entire west said, this is terrible. They're not allowed to do this. And memory holing that it's a little too soon to memory hold that. It's three. It's. It's literally three years and a month. It's not like it, you know, it's not like you can start having arguments about whether or not we should have gone into Afghanistan or into Iraq or. Or whatever like that this just happened. And Russia has no. There is no argument outside of psychotic Russian arguments that Zelensky is a Nazi or that Ukraine is actually really Russia, or that, you know what, all the pretexts that he. And he needs to denazify it and protect the Russians who live in Ukraine and that kind of thing. Nobody buys that. Outside of Tucker Carlson's mouth breathing, drooling, anti Semitic, psychotic audiences, nobody. So when you ask the question, I guess it makes perfect sense that the American people writ large say, well, I mean, if you're not asking me how involved we should be, all things being equal, Ukraine should get its territory back. Why should Russia have it? Because it just, in historical terms, it just happened and nothing has changed. It's not like, oh my God, The Ukrainians massacred 10 million Russians and therefore we're changing sides in this war. That's, you know, like get. We can give them a little credit for being the ones who are not going through the reality distortion field, according to which this is really all NATO's fault. Because in 1990, because NATO said maybe we would let Ukraine into NATO. How about in 1993 when we said to Ukraine, throw away all your nuclear weapons and we'll make sure that Russia doesn't swallow you whole? You know, why don't we go back to that John Mearsheimer? Let's go back to that time. Hey everybody, look who doesn't love the good things in life. Even though I enjoy a little luxury, doesn't mean I can always afford it. Not with three private school and college tuitions. Then I discovered Quince. Quince is my go to for luxury essentials at affordable prices. People know this, by the way, because they come up to me on the street if they recognize me from the podcast and say, is that a Quint sweater? And I'm like, yeah, it is. And I'm also wearing a Quints puffer jacket. I'm wearing a Quince shirt. I'm wearing all kinds of quince materials. Ever since Quince started advertising, I have become a fanatical quince customer. It offers a range of high quality items at prices within reach, like 100% Mongolian cashmere sweaters from 50 bucks, washable silk tops and dresses, organic cotton sweaters, and 14 karat gold jewelry. The best part, all Quince Items are priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. By partnering directly with top factories, Quince cuts out the cost of the middleman and passes the savings on to us. And Quince only works with factories that use safe, ethical and responsible manufacturing practices and premium fabrics and finishes. So give yourself the luxury you deserve with quince. Go to quince.com commentary for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Quincom commentary to get free shipping and 365 day returns quints.com commentary I can say to my new Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra, hey, find a keto friendly restaurant nearby and text it to Beth and Steve. And it does without me lifting a finger so I can get in more.
- [20:42]
Abe Greenwald
Squats anywhere I can.
- [20:44]
Seth Mandel
1, 2, 3.
- [20:47]
Jon Hor
Will that be cash or credit?
- [20:49]
Abe Greenwald
Credit.
- [20:50]
Seth Mandel
4 Galaxy S25 Ultra the AI companion.
- [20:53]
Abe Greenwald
That does the heavy lifting.
- [20:55]
Seth Mandel
So you can do you get yours@samsung.com compatible select apps requires Google Gemini account Results may vary based on input. Check responses for accuracy There is an important question just about that 94 agreement, the Budapest memorandum, which is this. I wish people would ask them, you know, this is me asking them, what are Americans obligations because of that? You may, you may think that we shouldn't have signed it, but we did. We also knew exactly what we were doing when we said, like, we understood that the reason we had to sign an agreement where we said we would support the integrity, the territorial integrity of Ukraine is because we knew that Russia would try to swallow it up as soon as it could. So I understand that there are limits, right? Maybe our obligations on that is not. They're not limitless and they're not about American troops. But there has to be something, right? The agreement we signed to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity, there has to be something specific that it requires us to do. And I have not heard anybody on the other side willing to admit that we are required to do anything at all based on this treatment.
- [22:10]
Jon Hor
Okay, so this is a good segue into talking about everything else that's going on domestically.
- [22:17]
Abe Greenwald
Well, can I just, can we just.
- [22:18]
Matthew Continenti
Yeah, I had a point.
- [22:20]
Jon Hor
I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Jay.
- [22:21]
Abe Greenwald
You make your point. But then I want to talk about what the readout of the call was.
- [22:24]
Matthew Continenti
Oh, well, my point is about this, too. So, yeah, I'm just, I'm concerned about what happens in the immediate future here because clearly Putin is playing for time, is trying to stay in Trump's good graces, trying to pretend that he's somewhere on that road to a ceasefire when he's not. And Trump is going to have to go to the Ukrainians and say, putin says he won't strike your energy production. He thinks this is all a good idea. Don't be an obstacle here, don't be an obstacle to peace. And I fear we're going to jump back onto that timeline. That's all I want to say.
- [23:07]
Abe Greenwald
Right. The readout of the call yesterday was that Putin and Trump had agreed to a ceasefire on attacks on oil, energy and infrastructure. But then they would begin a process of negotiations in Saudi Arabia for a maritime ceasefire. So in the Black Sea. And then they would talk about an actual cease fire between the ground forces and the drones and the artillery that is doing most of the killing and the destruction on the front lines. And then they would talk about peace. So this was a very long road that they laid out. And my worry is that this initial peace, even if it's observed, and both combatants attacked one another's energy infrastructure within hours of this call. So it's unclear whether the ceasefire is going to be observed even at this level of the energy infrastructure. But if it is, we should note that it's denying Ukraine one of its main weapons in this war, which is, you know, Ukraine, as we hear from Vice President Vance all the time, does have a manpower shortage. The issue on the front lines, it's basically a very difficult war to maneuver because of the technology where these, these Dragon drones essentially immobilize forces. So what's the leverage that Ukraine had? Well, Ukraine had been conducting these long range strikes into Russia to destroy the refinery capacity, and that has hurt the Russian economy. Denying Ukraine that may well protect its own energy infrastructure, but it also helps the Russian economy recover. So I think that's why Putin went to this place at first. That's, that's he wanted to do it because it helps his position domestically. You know, to quote our president, Russia, Russia, Russia. We hear a lot of things about how Russia's strong Russia survived these sanctions. But the truth of the matter is, is that Putin has been having to deal with problems in the economy, in particular these attacks on the energy infrastructure. So my eye immediately went to that first part because I certainly want the war to end as much as anyone. But removing that tool from Ukraine is just another piece of leverage that Ukraine does not have in these negotiations.
- [25:45]
Jon Hor
I mean, I want the war to end, too. I want the war to end with Ukraine getting all its territory back and Russia being humiliated and destroyed on the national stage. I'm not going to get what I want right very clearly. But I mean, saying that you want that, saying that one wants the war to end is itself. This is the problem for Trump, which is that saying you want the war to end now with everything sort of frozen in place, is to say Russia didn't win because it didn't overtake and overrun Kyiv and take Ukraine yet. But it is to say that Russia.
- [26:21]
Abe Greenwald
Effectively, I believe that if the war were to end today on the current lines with Ukrainian security guarantees, that would be a defeat for Russia. Even on the current lines, Putin would not be able to explain that. But I don't think that's going to happen as much as your scenario is going to happen.
- [26:37]
Jon Hor
Yeah. Okay. Well, it's an interesting question about what it is that is best for food. And it may well be good for Putin to say I won and then to sort of be able to demilitarize a little bit so that he isn't, he isn't putting domestic pressure on his own population to, you know, if the.
- [26:57]
Abe Greenwald
War ended today, John, on the current lines, he would not have won by his own standards because let's not forget, he has not moved at all his current standards. He wants Ukraine. He wants Zelensky gone. He, he wants the Ukrainians will believe.
- [27:12]
Jon Hor
That it is a defeat of them.
- [27:13]
Matthew Continenti
Yeah.
- [27:14]
Jon Hor
So then both, they're both defeated according, according to that scenario. And maybe that maybe you're right. I mean, maybe in some large understanding. So the Ukrainian nation has now had to, will have to agree to have settled to being a smaller country with two giant bites taken out of it before this war started and then some small amount of territory seized by Russia after the war started with no concomitant gains of its own, including and losing the support of, of its great.
- [27:44]
Abe Greenwald
Well, again, words to speculating here, but you know, it's Wednesday morning, so why not. Yeah, if, if that's the case. But Ukraine has your EU membership. If Ukraine has the support of the United Kingdom and France and Australia and other countries that have been pledging that they would put troops in Ukraine as a security guarantee, NATO will have expanded.
- [28:11]
Jon Hor
Yeah.
- [28:12]
Abe Greenwald
So I just think that again, it's.
- [28:15]
Jon Hor
There is you're.
- [28:17]
Abe Greenwald
And did South Korea think they lost when their country was partitioned? And I'm not arguing for a full partition of Ukraine. I'm just saying if that's what we get. In my view, that's the best scenario at this point.
- [28:29]
Jon Hor
Right. But it's the best scenario at this point because of our, because of basically.
- [28:33]
Abe Greenwald
It'S very hard for Ukraine to retake its territory.
- [28:37]
Jon Hor
And I agree with that. And I'm not, I'm not.
- [28:40]
Abe Greenwald
Absent American intervention, the only way America, the only way Ukraine would get its territory back is if we went into the war. And I don't think we should go into the war.
- [28:48]
Jon Hor
Right. Okay. I am not. Look, we were willing to live with Crimea and the Donbas in Russian hands before the war started. Right? I mean, effectively we didn't, we didn't really, we didn't recognize the Annexation of Donbas?
- [29:05]
Abe Greenwald
No. And we shouldn't and we should not. That would be a terrible concession if.
- [29:08]
Jon Hor
We didn't recognize the, we didn't recognize the subjugation of the, of the Baltic states. And, but we didn't do anything about it until the, until the wall fell. We don't have to recognize it. And that would be the moral, that would be our flying the moral flag. That. But I just don't know if Trump is going to fly any moral flags. And that's why I want to get to this other question here, which is, which is the sort of the domestic war on Trump and Trump's role in the domestic war on Trump. So Seth said, what are our obligations to a piece of paper that we signed 30 years ago? And I think increasingly the problem that Trump is facing in a conservative country and America is a conservative country, and I don't mean politically conservatives, right wing or I mean that it is a conservative country in that it does not like rapid change, as we are now seeing with the revolt against the gender stuff and some other things. Trump has come into this administration as though not saying he's Robespierre, but as though it is year zero and all precedents are null and void. If he didn't sign it, if it's not his idea, if he didn't approve it in the first place, he is going to run roughshod over all kinds of American traditions. And some of that we obviously like, because some of those traditions are actually relatively new and totally untested and ridiculous. Like the thing that says that the president isn't allowed to fire his US Attorneys or get rid of federal employees or whatever, all that stuff, that he isn't allowed to shrink the government, that he isn't allowed to play a role in figuring out where things go budgetarily. However, I am increasingly convinced by the arguments largely made by Andy McCarthy, but by other and I cite Andy McCarthy, the former the writer for National Review, writes for us to, you know, prosecutor of the blind shake, you know, very important and serious legal thinker who says that what has been going on since the weekend with the Trenda Aragua case and the relations between the administration and Judge Boasberg are a constitutional calamity. And that not it is not the case that people can just be loaded onto a plane and flown to a third country and let off the plane from American territory when we don't know who they are and when they have not been identified, either by law enforcement in some formal fashion or by courts as actually having been Members of this, of this horrible gang, all of whose members should leave the country. We don't know who they are. They, we are not told who they are. And the administration says it doesn't have the, it doesn't have the. It is not required to tell the judge who they are or to provide the judge with any visibility into the decision making process, how it worked or how it happened. Because this is a national security issue. And I wanted to take the administration's side. And I think politically, by the way, this could be a winner for the administration just in naked raw terms that he can say, look, the Democrats are supporting Venezuelan, this Venezuelan murder gang instead of, you know, the security and safety of the American people.
- [32:52]
Matthew Continenti
Yeah. Because by the way, the people who are protesting this, had the administration done it correctly, would still be protesting.
- [33:00]
Jon Hor
You're absolutely right. And they protest everything. Right. So now we have judges saying Trump isn't allowed to make rules about, about trans in the military and he's not allowed, you know, Elon Musk, a judge says that all the firings in the federal government have to be because Elon Musk doesn't have statutory authority to fire anybody when there's literally no evidence that in statutory terms, Elon Musk has fired anybody. Elon Musk hasn't signed a piece of paper that says, I'm firing everybody. There may be an issue with Carrie Lake who seems to have somehow shut down the Voice of America without having been confirmed as head of anything by the, by the Senate. So she's enacting something rather and may not have statutory authority to do that. There are people in this administration who are doing things that they may not have statutory authority to do. But Elon Musk is an advisor to the President, acting. The president's dead and that one judge says he's not allowed to. And everybody that has been laid off as a result of Doge has to be rehired. That's not this, that's not what I'm talking about. A specific action was taken where people on American soil were flown out of the United States without any review, without any documents being produced to explain that it was proved that they were members of Trendaragua, that they had no, you know, or what, or, or even that they're all illegals because there are a couple hundred of them. What if somebody was swept up in a dragnet and is, you know, they're under fault and is an American citizen or whatever? We don't even know that. So I am. There is about the, the recklessness with which the Trump administration is pursuing this. We gotta run 1,000 miles an hour because we only have two years to do this may have real serious blowback consequences here. And I also wonder whether it really is past time, even though we're only, whatever this is eight or nine weeks into this administration, the Supreme Court is going to have to make up its mind whether or not it is legitimate for a district court to issue, to issue a stay that controls the entirety of the federal government.
- [35:20]
Abe Greenwald
Well, I think you just hit on why the events of last weekend happened. I think that's what the administration wants. They want to force this decision over national injunctions by district court judges. And it's a problem that affected the Trump administration. The first go around nationwide injunctions did affect the Biden administration, but at a much lower rate. But now we've seen in the first.
- [35:49]
Jon Hor
Well, and the Obama administration, to be fair, nationwide injunctions were put in place on Obama's pen and phone actions. Right. I mean a single district court judge in Texas ended the daca, the legalization of the, of the, of the illegal that, that, of the illegals that, that Trump attempt, that Obama attempted.
- [36:11]
Abe Greenwald
I think he appealed and then went.
- [36:13]
Jon Hor
Did appeal it and, and, and lost the appeal.
- [36:16]
Abe Greenwald
By the way, the interesting thing to me was Roberts's comments yesterday because amidst.
- [36:24]
Jon Hor
The Chief Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts.
- [36:26]
Abe Greenwald
Because amidst this argument between the administration and the district court judge, it's Boseberger.
- [36:34]
Jon Hor
Is that Boseberg? Boseberg.
- [36:36]
Abe Greenwald
Jed Boseberg, yeah. Between, you know, the administration is not being very forthcoming with the judge, even.
- [36:44]
Jon Hor
If opposite like is deliberately being unforthcoming.
- [36:47]
Abe Greenwald
Right. And then on top of that part, MAGA and President Trump have called for the judge's impeachment. And so Justice Roberts issued this statement yesterday that was very brief and it was, didn't mention Trump, it didn't mention the judge in question. It just said that impeachment is not the appropriate manner to resolve judicial disputes. Appealing is the way to go. The appellate process is the way to go, period. Just two sentences. I think that's Robert saying just appeal the case, get it up to us so we can figure it out. And I think among the issues that need to be figured out, one is whether there was a violation of the court order when the planes did not turn around, as this single judge ordered the President to turn around the planes carrying these alleged criminal migrants to El Salvador. But two, the question of the nationwide injunctions, which, because we know that Justice Thomas, for example, people has wanted to crack down on them for some time, but that's the only way you get any resolution is when it actually does reach the Supreme Court.
- [38:06]
Jon Hor
Right, but he hasn't even. That's the point. In all these cases, there aren't even rulings.
- [38:14]
Abe Greenwald
No. Usually it's a shadow document.
- [38:16]
Jon Hor
These are called TROs. These are temporary restraining orders. So the thing that is frozen, the Mahmoud Khalil deport deportation in place as a tro, is a temporary restraining order. Judge Boasberg placed a temporary restraining order on the administration's flights. And then he said, oh, we were supposed to turn it back. The TRO was very clear, said, you should turn the planes around. And the administration said, I think. I mean, it's an interesting Talmudic dispute. It's like, well, you said it in the courtroom, but you didn't say it on the piece of paper. So the piece of paper outweighs what you said in the courtroom.
- [38:53]
Seth Mandel
It was also the time zone.
- [38:55]
Jon Hor
Yeah. There's a time was. So there's a Talmud.
- [38:58]
Seth Mandel
So this is time to David Shacherus on the plane, where the plane is, but not from where you just left.
- [39:04]
Jon Hor
This is literally what the Talmud is like. Right. It's like, what if the plane is in the air? Should it be turned around? Or what if it's on the paper? But it also was said, does the saying outweigh the papering or does the papering outweigh the saying? And Rabbi 1 says that, and Rabbi Tarfon says that, and Rabbi Schmulik says this, and they don't resolve it. That's the thing with the Talmud is the arguments are all laid out, and it's not like there's a ruling. So. So. So the administration and Judge Boasberg are playing. Are. Are playing the Sanhedrin and having a Talmudic or having basically Talmudic arguments here. And at some point he's got a rule, and then they can appeal. But like, even this case where Musk was found yesterday to have overstepped his authority and everybody has to be returned to their jobs isn't a ruling, it is an order that says this needs to go forward. Because there is a. According to the judge, who I think is wrong, there is a high level of possibility that this will win on appeal. So therefore don't even do it.
- [40:16]
Abe Greenwald
That case is a head scratcher. That's the USAID case.
- [40:20]
Jon Hor
Yes.
- [40:20]
Abe Greenwald
This is the judge saying that actually we need to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
- [40:26]
Jon Hor
Yes.
- [40:26]
Abe Greenwald
Because Elon Musk has no official role or power over this agency, even though Elon has never really claimed any Official power over this agency.
- [40:37]
Jon Hor
That's my point.
- [40:38]
Abe Greenwald
Yeah, no, I agree with you. He's the first buddy.
- [40:40]
Jon Hor
And then they named, they named that lady. They named that lady as the person who runs the office. That theoretically, I think Doge.
- [40:49]
Abe Greenwald
I do, I will say that I think DOGE has gotten a little bit better now at working with the agency heads after the pushback from the cabinet secretaries. There was that initial moment and during which of course, USAID was blown apart, where DOGE would just come into an agency and just start ordering things around and people within the agencies would say, hey, you know, you have to go through the actual chain of command here. I think they've begun to learn that a little bit.
- [41:19]
Seth Mandel
All of which we watched them take the letters USAID off the USAID was.
- [41:25]
Abe Greenwald
Definitely targeted for very specific political reasons.
- [41:31]
Jon Hor
Mainly because specific political reasons and because somebody was not dumb. It has a weird status within the government that other agencies don't have.
- [41:43]
Abe Greenwald
Republicans on the Hill have been complaining about USAID for decades.
- [41:46]
Jon Hor
So that's the political matter. But actually, statutorily, USAID does exist in some slightly peculiar Netherlands now.
- [41:54]
Abe Greenwald
Rubio is technically head of it.
- [41:55]
Jon Hor
Right. So they can made it right.
- [41:58]
Abe Greenwald
This decision is just kind of very confusing. And I thought that the New York Times write up of it was kind of funny in a way because at the end the reporter was talking to US aid people and they were like, well, I don't know what we're going to do because basically it's all over. There's nothing.
- [42:14]
Jon Hor
There's nothing left to the counterparty. That's the interesting problem is, I guess you could get some kind of a class action suit from fired usa.
- [42:25]
Abe Greenwald
I think these were, these were some employees. They're represented by Norm Eisen, of course.
- [42:30]
Jon Hor
Norm Eisen, yes, the contrarian.
- [42:32]
Abe Greenwald
And this suit is novel in the sense that it's actually targeting Musk. The other, the other lawsuits don't. But this, I think this here, this particular decision is a head scratcher and unlikely to stand.
- [42:47]
Seth Mandel
But the other thing about the chaos with USAID and similar situations is that people losing jobs are employees of contractors who have had their contracts with USAID cancel. Right. So they are getting a series of notices every time the judge updates this. I don't mean to laugh, but I mean it's. To look at it from their perspective there. These companies are getting a series of notices where it will, you know, will end a contract and then it will get a notice that the. That has been revoked or suspended. And then they've gotten notices that the revocation has been revoked. And so you have to add the number of negatives together in the emails. You got to see whether you still have a contract or not. And so that's that. That is really Humpty Dumpty. I mean, companies that have contracts with USAID have fired people because they lost the contract. Now you're sort three degrees removed from the federal government itself. Those employees, at some point the judges are going to have to and soon going to have to do something that sorts this out and makes it clear because it's far beyond even just the federal government that is affected by the confusion. And those companies won't be hiring people back based on the revocation of the revocation because the second revocation might have been in error and the first revocation was not. You know, this is a kind of insane chaos that goes far beyond people who work for usaid. And the judges have to consider the larger effect on this and figure out some way to come to a decision on do the are these contracts to be enforced? Do these people have jobs? Yes or no?
- [44:36]
Jon Hor
Your data is like gold to hackers. They're selling your passwords, bank details and private messages. McAfee helps stop them. Secure VPN keeps your online activity private. AI powered text scam detector spots phishing attempts instantly. And with award winning antivirus, you get top tier hacker protection. Plus you'll get up to $2 million in identity theft coverage, all for just $39.99 for your first year. Visit McAfee.com, cancel anytime terms apply. PayPal lets you pay all your pals like your graduation gifters.
- [45:10]
Abe Greenwald
Who's paying for the mattress topper?
- [45:12]
Jon Hor
You mean the bean?
- [45:14]
Abe Greenwald
Aren't we getting a mini fridge? Can we create a pool on PayPal? It lets us collect the money before we buy.
- [45:20]
Jon Hor
Oh yes, that's smart. Glad we can agree on something easily. Pool split and Send money with PayPal. Get started. In the PayPal app, a PayPal account is required to send and receive money. A balance account is required to create a pool. To get back to the sort of the point that I began with, which is the, as I described it, this sort of year zero, Trump year zero. It is Trump's position that every aspect of that which is organized under the executive branch is his fiat. Is, is his by fiat. And the problem is that really isn't true. US government is fiendishly complicated and there are a lot of these weird bodies. The one that is now sort of like in the news that you've never heard of but I've heard of is the US Institute for Peace. It is nominally part of the executive branch, but it reports to Congress. It has a semi independent board. Theoretically, it's overseen by the executive branch. But, but there are these, they're not, they're called quasi independent agencies for a reason, which is to say they can't really be independent. And the Supreme Court did say that these efforts sometimes to set up independent agencies that don't seem to report to anybody are totally, manifestly unconstitutional. That was the problem with the Elizabeth Warren consumer. I can't remember the name of the bureau that she, that she.
- [47:00]
Abe Greenwald
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Thank you.
- [47:03]
Jon Hor
That she, because she could not get confirmed as head of that bureau. She ended up in the Senate. So maybe the Senate should just have confirmed her and then she would.
- [47:11]
Abe Greenwald
That's now closed, too.
- [47:13]
Jon Hor
That is now closed, too.
- [47:14]
Seth Mandel
Right, but, but, and soon the Senate will be closed.
- [47:20]
Jon Hor
Yeah. But anyway, I think my, what I'm saying is they wanted to hit the ground running and Matt said they want to have these, they want to have these fights.
- [47:29]
Abe Greenwald
Yeah.
- [47:31]
Jon Hor
There's a point at which I think that the innate conservatism of the American electorate or the American people and the Trump Year Zero thing are going to come smashing into each other. And I don't know what point that is. And because I like a lot of what he's done and doing, I have been inclined to be defensive of some of it, particularly the Mahmoud Khalil deportation, which I, which I continue to believe, having spent time reading the statutes and reading all sorts of stuff about it, does pass constitutional muster. But I don't think they, I don't think they wanted that fight, by the way. I still think that they made it a mistake. They, they made a category mistake. They thought he was on a student visa and nobody checked to make sure he didn't have a green card in there, too.
- [48:27]
Abe Greenwald
I think they wanted to have the fight about whether they can remove green card holders.
- [48:31]
Matthew Continenti
Right.
- [48:32]
Jon Hor
Okay. I don't think that's more Machiavellian than what happened here because pay attention to Stephen Miller.
- [48:40]
Abe Greenwald
He knows these things and he has an agenda.
- [48:43]
Jon Hor
Okay.
- [48:43]
Abe Greenwald
Yeah.
- [48:43]
Jon Hor
Okay.
- [48:44]
Matthew Continenti
I think, John, considering what Matt said, I think depending on the resolution of these issues, the American people will either say, okay, enough with Trump trying to break everything and do things the wrong way and having a fight over every day, over every new rolled out policy and decision, or they will say, all right, enough with this attempted governance by courts, by federal judges. I mean, they're the ones that are also mucking Everything up here, depending on.
- [49:24]
Jon Hor
How this rolls out, there is precedent for that and there is historical precedent for what you're talking about, Abe, which is that the Supreme Court in the late 60s and early 70s got very radical. People sort of don't know this. The Supreme Court overturned and said, declared unconstitutional the one punishment that is mentioned in the US Constitution, which is the death penalty, which is mentioned as an enforcement mechanism in the Constitution for the act of treason. And the Supreme Court said the death penalty was unconstitutional. And then four years later, the Supreme Court said, oops, I guess we really shouldn't have said that. But, but the supreme court in the 60s and 70s and, and courts then followed them. They were the leading edge, not the, not the, they weren't the backstop for constitutional order. They were the leading edge of pushing the constitutional boundaries of what was understood to be American law. And that became a political issue. That became a huge political issue in the United States. That the courts were on the side of the, of the criminals and not of the victims. That the courts were more interested in helping, you know, in not making sure that ordinary life had order or that the views of people in their communities were respected, but were running roughshod over those views and those people and those communities. And it was part and parcel of the thing that helped create the Reagan revolution. So you're right to say, I think that handled correctly, this could be a political game changer. And some of these judges are behaving crazy, particularly the one who announced that Trump doesn't have, you know, doesn't have the right to say that there are only two genders in the military, which is crazy. And the judge in the, in, in the judge's finding, like said, I've done my own research into this and I know there are more than two genders. No, that's not the way it works.
- [51:40]
Seth Mandel
Google it. Mr. President.
- [51:41]
Jon Hor
Yeah, I believe you look at that judge's search history. I also have opinions and therefore will control the US Military's policies.
- [51:50]
Abe Greenwald
Yeah, I mean, I think politically this is. Works for Trump. Think about FDR and his fight against the nine old men. And it's true. FDR didn't get all that he wanted. He didn't get his court packing scheme, but he was able to pressure the judiciary in a way that paradoxically, to what you were saying earlier, caused the judiciary to extend its own power for much of the middle part of the 20th century. And really trying to create the legal precedents that, that now Trump is trying to push back against. And the Supreme Court has pushed back against, too, in some of its rulings, whether it's on independent agencies or whether it's on Chevron deference. So from the Trump administration's point of view, they're saying Trump is pushing for presidential powers and presidential authorities that other presidents really haven't claimed. And the only break right now is the judiciary. But the District Court judges simply don't have, I think, the legitimacy that the Supreme Court does, or even the D.C. circuit does.
- [52:51]
Jon Hor
Well, by definition. Right, right. Because everybody knows that there are a lot of judges in America, and who the hell are they? And you can go forum shopping, voted.
- [53:02]
Abe Greenwald
For this guy, a plaintiff, as we see in case after case these days. The plaintiffs know, the ACLU knows which judge to go to. Yeah. For the ruling that they want. And so this fight, I think, helps Trump politically. If the question is when? Where will it begin to overstep, and when will you see public opinion turn? Right now, I don't think we're there. You know, Trump's opinion polls have been declining, but only slightly. And I plug my piece in the Free Press today. I have a piece about how one reason that Trump is still, you know, kind of, you know, treading water in the real Clear Politics average is that the electorate continues to be slightly Republican. When you look at the internal composition.
- [53:49]
Jon Hor
Of these polls for the first time in 100 years.
- [53:51]
Abe Greenwald
Right. That was the exit poll, but it's continuing into the polling today. And so when you have just more Republicans in the country, that gives Trump a lot of more room, not just in his job. Approval ratings are going to be elevated compared to where they were certainly this time eight years ago, but also in the type of powers he wants to enact in his office. The real crisis will come if the Supreme Court orders him to do something and he disobeys and we're not there yet. And, in fact, we have never been there in American history.
- [54:27]
Jon Hor
Right. So I think that. That the political argument that you make is sound and that the deliberate decision of the Trump administration to just flood the zone everywhere all at once has definite political advantages. It can also. And we're not there, and I don't know that we're there. And just because the New York Times says we're in a constitutional crisis doesn't mean we're in a constitutional crisis. Temporary restraining orders are not rulings. Appeals courts haven't been heard. The Supreme Court hasn't been heard all of that. We're not in a constitutional crisis. The administration is allowed to attempt to advance policies. People are Allowed to sue it process goes forward. This idea that what Trump is doing isn't legitimate is ridiculous. However, that doesn't mean that the arguments that they're making on behalf of the things that they're doing are correct. And intellectual honesty and consistency over what it means to be a conservative, I think, requires us to say things like, I don't know, you know, if there's one person on the trendy Aragua plane who was, like, caught in a dragnet and thrown in the back of a van and then put on a plane and flown to El Salvador who has no business being there, that kind of invalidates the entire process. Or does it? Maybe it doesn't. Maybe, you know, you got to be. If you're going to break some eggs, if you make an omelet, it's going to help them politically because Democrats are falling into the trap. Right? They're defending Mahmoud Khalil. They're defending Trent. They're defending, you know, Trump saying there are only two genders in the military. You know, people, someone saying, no, Trump doesn't have the right to say there are only two genders. And they're defending federal workers from dismissal. And as we said when this all started, the week after it all started, the American people as a whole have lived through 25 years of layoffs, of companies closing, of people having to find new jobs. The idea that there is supposed to be some exemption and that everybody who works for the federal government has lifetime tenure is not something, if you come face to face with it, that the American people are going to feel comfortable with. Why did they get special privileges to stay in their jobs when I got laid off, or my uncle got laid off off, or my cousin got laid off? That's just not right, you know, and they make a lot of money. I didn't even know how much money they made, which is another thing that gets exposed by this. So the politics are very complicated, but, as I say, intellectual honesty. I wanted to talk about this because my own view on this shifted over the last four or five days as a result of the argumentation. And I think that we have to be. You know, call me a wimp if you want, but I just find that.
- [57:17]
Abe Greenwald
No, I mean, look at you.
- [57:19]
Jon Hor
I'm not saying you're calling me a wimp.
- [57:21]
Abe Greenwald
Why Andy is so important. That's why. Ed. Ed. Wh. Is so important.
- [57:27]
Jon Hor
People, you cannot say that. Ed Whalen, who runs the Ethics of Public Policy center and has been a legal scholar on the right for 30 years, that Ed Whelan is a squish on, on, on court matters, you know.
- [57:41]
Abe Greenwald
Part of the problem. You know, I'm a political, I'm a political analyst. I, I think I know a little bit about politics. I've studied it very closely for two decades. But I'm not a lawyer. I'm a simple caveman pundit. And so I have to rely on lawyers for some of the arguments here. And so, Andy. Ed, I thought it was very interesting that Jonathan Turley said that Trump's claim to have voided Biden's pardons because the auto pen is a non starter. Right. So I, there are a few lawyers that I respect that I turn to. And yeah, if they raise, if they raise qualms or objections, they're worth. Also our friend Hugh Hewitt, you know, he has a legal degree. So I'm looking at him and he doesn't quite agree. Yeah, exactly. So I think it, what makes political analysis more complicated and more difficult in year zero is that it's really legal analysis. You know, you really have to understand the law.
- [58:43]
Jon Hor
Yeah.
- [58:43]
Abe Greenwald
And, and, and some of our brains are just not built for that.
- [58:47]
Jon Hor
Right. And I, but I mean, just to, just to put a, sort of put a cross a dot I's and cross T's here. So it has been an act since Trump arose that people like us get called rhinos if we oppose Trump or, you know, we're not really republic, we're not conservatives. What do we know? So Ed Whalen, just to give you an example. So Ed Whalen has a National Review for 10 years done a feature called this Day in Judicial Activism. Like, he literally goes through and he says, on this day, 22 years ago, a court in Ohio said that, you know, it was okay to seize somebody's farm in order for, you know, someone to build a casino on it. And no one stopped them. And then we led to the kilo decision or something like whatever we, they like, we have. I've been like, fighting in these trenches for more than four decades. Ed Whalen, for three decades. Like, if you think that you can trump us by saying we're not right wing because we don't accept everything that comes out of Trump's mouth. Trump, who yesterday endorsed the Trudeau successor for prime minister in Canada on the grounds that Pierre Polievre, the Conservative candidate, was saying mean things about him last week because of the Canada 51st state thing. As Polyevre desperately tries to save his candidacy and succeed to the premier premiership, which is something that every right winger in the world should want.
- [60:24]
Seth Mandel
He's trying to save his candidacy from.
- [60:26]
Jon Hor
From Trump and the 51st state.
- [60:28]
Abe Greenwald
Wouldn't that help him if Trump is endorsing Carney?
- [60:33]
Jon Hor
Okay, interesting. See how, okay. See how.
- [60:36]
Abe Greenwald
Dimensional chess, John.
- [60:37]
Jon Hor
Okay, I. Yeah, okay. Nine dimensional chess. This is a guy. This is a guy who lost who got bankrupt owning a casino. So I don't think he plays nine dimensional chess because no one ever went bankrupt owning a casino.
- [60:53]
Abe Greenwald
All I'm saying is that you don't want to be close to Trump in Canada these days.
- [60:58]
Jon Hor
Fair enough.
- [60:58]
Abe Greenwald
And for Trump to say, I don't like polyv because he might actually help.
- [61:03]
Jon Hor
Him, I don't know, maybe people in Alberta and Calgary and Saskatchewan would like to be part of the United States. Who knows?
- [61:10]
Seth Mandel
He could encourage Quebec's separatism and then we make trouble for people.
- [61:16]
Jon Hor
There we go. Yeah, that would be fun. We should take in Canada. So we should have a civil war.
- [61:21]
Seth Mandel
With the Kevin Harm, the moderate Canadians.
- [61:24]
Jon Hor
That would be great, right? Yeah, absolutely.
- [61:26]
Abe Greenwald
Yeah. I don't know how the Quebecois will deal with Trump's executive order making English the official language of the United States if Canada becomes.
- [61:36]
Jon Hor
That would be great. The 51st state that's pulling down all the French language.
- [61:41]
Abe Greenwald
That's kind of a complication that I don't think our president has addressed yet.
- [61:44]
Jon Hor
Yes. Yeah. Well, yes. You know that in, you know, when, when the, when the partic announced that according to its federalist rules, no signage in Quebec was allowed to be in English at all. In other words, not even name joint like things like that. Right. So. So the famous Schwartz's smoke meets a deli in. In Montreal. That, you know, is where you get the best pastrami in Montreal had to become Charcuterie Schwartz. Right. I say return Schwartz to the smoked meat from which it came. That's what I say.
- [62:25]
Abe Greenwald
Well, this is the world we now live in.
- [62:27]
Jon Hor
Yes, it is. Okay, well, I, I don't think we have a recommendation today, so until tomorrow. For Seth, Seth, Matt and Abe, I'm John Pot Hortz. Keep the candle.