Loading summary
Transcript52 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hi, this is Farnoosh Tarabi from so Money with Farnoosh Tarabi and today I want to talk to you about Boost Mobile Quick Money Tip Stop paying a carrier tax. If your phone bill feels trapped in a pricey plan, this is your sign to unlock savings. Boost Mobile helps you reset your spending. With the $25 Unlimited Forever Plan. You can bring your own phone, pay $25 and get unlimited wireless forever. And that simple switch can unlock up to $600 in savings a year. That's money you could put towards debt investing or something that actually brings you joy. Those savings are based on average annual single line payment of AT&T Verizon and T Mobile customers, compared to 12 months on the Boost Mobile Unlimited plan as of January 2026. For full offer details, visit boostmobile.com Close your eyes.
- [00:52]
B
Focus. Listen to work getting done with Monday.com relax as AI does the manual work while your teams are aligned on a single source of truth, Feel the sensation of an AI work platform so flexible and intuitive it feels like it was built just for you. Notice you're limitless. Now open your eyes. Go to Monday.com, start for free and finally, breathe.
- [01:20]
A
Still waiting in line again. That's time you'll never get back. Save time and money with stamps.com over 4 million businesses have skipped the line with stamps.com join them to save up to 90% off carrier rates from your computer or phone right now. Print postage for certified mail, registered mail and packages in seconds. Then schedule a pickup right from your home or office for a limited time. Go to stamps.com and use code podcast for a free welcome gift. Taxes and fees apply.
- [01:52]
B
I'm Charlie Sykes. Welcome back to the to the Contrary podcast. We are still at war with Iran despite what the President has been saying. We're sending more troops there. The President is also at war with the Pope, along with J.D. vance and J.D. vance. I wrote about this in my newsletter yesterday. I still can't quite get over JD Vance, first of all saying that the Pope should stay in his lane. You know, the kind of the shut up and dribble line from Laura Ingraham. You know, you ought to stick to areas like morality. And then he goes down to this tpusa, you know, rally that nobody showed up at and suggests that the Pope needs to be very careful when he talks about theology. This from J.D. vance. So I have to admit I'm a little obsessed by the incredibly shrinking, bizarre, flailing Vice president. Meanwhile, Trump's campaign of retribution continues. It continues to target Jerome Powell, the head of the Fed. And what is going on with the Department of Justice these days? Let's get into it. Who better to get into it this week with all the things that are going on than our good friend Harry Littman from Talking Fed's Substack. Harry, good to have you back again.
- [03:07]
C
Always great to be with you, Charlie.
- [03:09]
B
I really don't know where to begin. So let's begin with, I mean, you know, everybody else is talking about Hungary and they're talking about the war in Iran. I want to talk about, you know, some of the weird stuff that's going on with, with the Department of Justice. And there's too many things that fall between the cracks. So let's, let's at least at the top not let certain things fall between the cracks. So a little light sedition apparently is okay with this new doj. They, the Department of Justice, moving to vacate the convictions of the proud boys. Right? The proud boys who were convicted of
- [03:45]
C
the most serious, the most serious assailant from January 6th.
- [03:50]
B
Yeah, I mean, this is all part of the rewriting of history, right? The cleaning of the, the following up from day one, the pardon of all of the people who attacked the Capitol. But Donald Trump and his Department of Justice pretty serious about this, aren't they?
- [04:04]
C
Dead serious. And it's a dead injustice. Look, this was the biggest achievement in the last term from the Garland department. And it was an extremely hard won and proud achievement. You saw, these are the very people who were, we knew, trying to overthrow or prevent the peaceful transfer of power. They are insurrectionists by any other name. But insurrection has a checkered history, very hard charge to bring. They held their hand back from many people, but not these most serious folks. And they went through the whole thing, committed everything and the country both saw what had happened and then saw the conviction. So this, as you say, rewriting the book, this is, this is many chapters in, and now they're trying to just tear out or whitewash the sort of big centerpiece of all of January 6th. And this would be preparatory to dismissing the cases altogether. So Trump, already in his first day, those really outrageous pardons, he commuted these most serious charges to time served. An incredible, we're talking, you know, 18, 20 year sentences, well deserved. So an incredible windfall for them. But now they made clear because they're still technically on appeal, the sentences have been commuted, but they want to dismiss the case and they've moved in the Court of Appeals to do just that and make it clear. So they want to do with them, what they just did with Michael Flynn, make it have happened, give them a completely clean record, let them be able to go forward. And there's an irony here. We're seeing just today the most recent assailant from January 6th with follow up charges, not the first who had sex crime charges, but to literally make it be the case. It's crazy enough, way crazy enough to wipe out the sentences, but to make it be the case that this never happened the January 6th. They're just some heroes who were at a patriotic loving and it's an insult to American society in response to clearly the most serious assault on democracy since at least the Civil War.
- [06:35]
B
Right, Very well put, Harry. And this really was the centerpiece in the sense that the conviction for seditious conspiracy, I mean that laid out what January 6th was about, what happened, what the intent was, seditious conspiracy. And it is this attempt to rewrite history. Meanwhile, speaking of rewriting history, here's another thing that I think you're about the only person to really focus on this and we're going to get to the, you know, the hotter stuff a little bit later. But again, in my ongoing project not to let things fall between the cracks, what the administration is trying to do with the Presidential Records act basically saying the President has the right to shred all of his documents, which rather remarkable by the way. The day after the Hungarian election, after Orban was ousted, Peter Magyar, the incoming prime minister, had a press conference and he said, you know, the foreign minister right now is barricaded in the Foreign Ministry shredding documents that would document his dealings with. So the shredding of documents is, it feels very much part of that kind of authoritarian end of days world that we're living in right now. So tell me about what the story is.
- [07:53]
C
Yeah, so look, it is what tyrants do, it is what despots do. But there's a whole extra part of it with Donald Trump, who the whole country saw, you know, serious charges were put forward backed by serious evidence. And he's just done everything, really a relentless and kind of monomaniacal campaign to just as if it never happened. I'm so glad you brought this up, Charlie. It has been one of the things that have slipped through the cracks. And I wrote a two part sub stack to really try to get into it because it involves a little bit of detailed law, but it's not so hard. The Office of Legal Counsel, we've seen them before. They were the folks who had said, you can't indict A sitting president. And so Mueller stayed his hand. They actually, they have opinions and when they set them, they apply to the executive branch. That's the law of the executive branch, unless it is overturned. And here they've done an opinion that completely flies in the face of a 7 to 2 Supreme Court opinion saying the Presidential Records act is fine and constitutional. This 40 year old OLC head, at the request of Donald Trump's White House counsel, just wrote an opinion saying the Supreme Court got it wrong, they got it wrong, we don't have to listen to it. And the really pernicious aspect is as of today, when they do not have to, they can say the law in the executive branch is there is no Presidential Record Act. Fire up the shredders and get them working overtime. And it's really not clear how this gets challenged in court. The first thing they're going to say when someone comes in and says, you can't do that, Presidential Records act says you can't, they're going to say, well, you don't have standing, you don't, you just have a general grievance, as the lawyers put it, you don't have a real stake. Now they've got a couple of plaintiffs who do have a stake, historians and the like. But you're going to hear them say, first, we've changed it and we can. Second, it applies right now. And third, nobody can challenge it. And one last point, if the district court, it's a good district court judge here, Beryl Howe says sorry, and I'm going to put the freeze on this while I decide it. You have above her now a DC Circuit and a Supreme Court that possibly would be poised to remove the stay just temporarily while they decide this. Meaning if, what's it take, a year or two? We saw this just happen earlier in the week with Judge Boasberg, but it just means until it's decided, the shredders can work overtime and literally lawfully. One final point. We've seen how Donald Trump's view about presidential documents, right, they belong to him and nobody can tell him otherwise, including a FBI subpoena. So the, and combined of course, with some of the mischief that's going on, you know, I'm really worried about it and that's my sort of elevator speech version of it. But I've got a two part subset that goes into it in depth and I appreciate your highlighting the issue. I don't, people are missing it. There's so much going on. And by the way, we can talk about the Pope, we can Talk about Hungary. You and I both wrote, both have read about it, but other people are not talking about this, and that's why
- [11:25]
B
I wanted to bring it up. And we'll put the links in my newsletter to your piece. And I guess the two points that are the scariest, of course, is that they could be running the shredders right now. This is not something that will happen in the future. They could be doing that right now, and it's not clear who has the standing to challenge that. Okay, so let's stick with the courts. You mentioned Judge Boasberg. Judge Boasberg, who had begun an investigation into whether the administration aides were guilty of contempt of court for this, was, you know, simply ignoring court orders with on the deportations. So we had the appeals court that basically told him, yeah, no, you have to drop that. So if the courts don't have the power to hold administration officials in contempt, really, what is their leverage? I mean, talk to me about the significance of that for accountability.
- [12:19]
C
Yeah, look, they surely have the power here. A higher court told them to stand down and invoked a higher power to do that. By the way, Charlie, I won't get too into the weeds, for even though the to the contrary, subscribers I know are pretty sophisticated. But they had to do what's called a mandamus, a very, very high standard that the judge there just kind of completely rolled over all requirements of it. But here's the thing. This goes back to the very first glimmers of, holy shit, this is what Trump 2.0 is going to be March 15, when there was an emergency hearing because they were sending people down to see cot and nobody knew. And the judge said, clearly, turn those, turn those planes around. Then later the Supreme Court vacated what he had done, but only for a very different reason. And it doesn't matter. You may not, may not, may not violate, violate knowingly an order, even if it's later overturned. So he has been virtuous and dogged in really saying, I want to find out what happened and whether you deserve to be held in contempt here. And it's been on the part of the whole court that they were the ones who presided for three years over all the January six cases, only to have them wiped out in a stroke. And Boasberg has been really virtuous about this. But the point I want to especially raise the opinion it's a rare thing to do a mandamus. And when you do, even if you think it's a cowboy district court, it's always the learned district court didn't quite see this opinion is just loaded up with insults as if Boasberg was both a complete activist and doesn't know the law and it was written by a judge who I just don't see any way to account for it other than pick me, pick me, Donald Trump. If Alito or Thomas resign. It's so gratuitous, the continual slaps in the face and kicks below the belt from her. I've never seen anything like it and it's completely undeserving. Anyone who knows that court knows that Boasberg is a solid down the middle, roomed with Brett Kavanaugh and law school is off. But it's just totally for this audience of one and to suck up. It's a really degrading kind of an embarrassing opinion that way. One quick point, maybe it now goes to the en banc court. There was an 80 page dissent by the Biden appointee and I think there's going to be real focus for the whole court to overturn it in part because that language just shouldn't stand. It's so unjudicious.
- [15:20]
B
So I know that most of our listeners understand all of this. But just to clarify, so the appeals court decision has a three judge panel that makes the decision, but en banc is the entire court, all of the appeals court. How many are there?
- [15:36]
C
I think in the D.C. circuit, I want to say 11. But your point is really well taken because there are three judges. Rao wrote this screed insulting of Boasberg. The second judge just concurred in a much, much more temperate and sort of narrow way. So in that sense, she's on her own. And then of course the third judge went, really, what are you talking about here? On the merits, on the mandamus, et cetera. But the entire court, as you say, could vote a major could say we want to rehear this, all of us together. And then the process just starts again, arguments, briefs, etc.
- [16:18]
B
Look, if you're like me, you're thinking a lot more about what you wear day to day and are looking for pieces that feel easy, comfortable and still look put together. It just makes getting dressed simpler. Quince has been my go to. Their fabrics feel elevated, their fits are clean, and everything just works without needing to overthink it. And I definitely do not want to overthink what I wear every day. I actually bought two of their pullovers, one dark colored, one gray color. And they're just amazing. I mean, they're comfortable, they fit perfectly well. The quality really kind of surprised me. It's been on constant rotation. In fact, if you watch the podcast on YouTube or my live streams, you'll often see me wearing one of them. And those are Quint's pullovers. So refresh your everyday with luxury. You will actually use head to quince.com contrary for free shipping on your order and 300 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com contrary for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com contrary. Amazon Health AI presents Painful Thoughts I I can't stop scratching my downtown. Yeah, but I'm not itching to go
- [17:36]
C
downtown and tell a receptionist I'm here
- [17:39]
B
to talk about my downtown. Some things you'd rather type than say out loud. There's no question too embarrassing for Amazon Health AI. Chat your symptoms and get virtual care 24. 7 Healthcare just got less painful. Okay, so the other development, it looks like, well, first of all, Trump once again comes out and, you know, threatens to fire Jerome. Jerome Powell, the head of the Fed. That's the political aspect. At the same time, we know that Jeanine Pirro, who has been trying to have a criminal investigation of Jerome Powell thrown out by a federal court. But apparently they are continuing that investigation even though the federal court has said no. So give me some sense of this. I mean, again, not shocking in the sense that this is the retribution campaign. We know that Trump wants the DOJ to double down on this, but this is one of the most bizarre, absurd criminal investigations. So talk to me about that.
- [18:44]
C
Bizarre and malicious. Now, again, the only possible charge is that in the overage of the building of the Fed, which is what, you know, dog bites man happens to every single construction project. Somehow Jerome Powell either lied about it or knew about it. It's 100%. Everyone understands this is just his effort to put pressure on Powell to raise interest rates. A perennial fight, but normally a fair fight, not a, not a dirty fight. The judge held that you there can't even be a subpoena issued because it's an improper purpose and you're just going for retribution. And what they did, so, so it should be dead for now. What they did yesterday, Charlie, I've never seen before. Prosecutors, not FBI agents. FBI agents may well have refused and said, well, we've got an order here. Perot ordered her prosecutors to stroll over to the Fed and knock, knock, knock. We just want to come in. Prosecutors don't do investigations and you don't do an investigation for a case that's closed. It's. Now Perot may not know this, but it's completely. I was, of course, you know, prosecuted before I was U.S. attorney. That, that's not something you do. And most, if you have court authority or a subpoena, you'll send FBI agents over. But, but there's no, there's no basis for sending them. So literally, prosecutors from the office were just ordered to, to show up. It's just not what an investigation is that would make them witnesses. I've never heard of it. And of course, this is a case that, that is already stillborn. So I can't conceive of it as anything other than to try to sort of intimidate and show we're still on the case, but the bureau isn't. So totally bizarre order and execution in what should be and really is a moribund case.
- [20:48]
B
So what's happening at the top of the doj? Pam Bondi thrown under the bus. Todd Blanche is the acting attorney general seems very interested in getting the job himself. We haven't heard a lot of movement on that. Trump can keep Blanche in that position for a very, very long time as an acting attorney general. So what is the state of play about who's going to replace Pam Bondi, if anybody.
- [21:13]
C
Yeah, so it's a great, it's a great question. And this piece with Perot yesterday, I think really feeds into it because Blanche, you know, meet the new boss, worse than the old boss. To do this extreme and bizarre move there and then to make the moves to vacate as we were talking about before, the seditious conspiracy convictions impossible, that those aren't done with his approval, if not exhortation. So, you know, you thought when Bondi was fired, obviously she was doing all she could for the retribution prosecutions. What more could anyone do? Todd Blanche is showing it. Oh, I know. Here, I'll see your bet and raise you the seditious conspiracy convictions and a complete sort of empty but intimidating move on the, on Jerome Powell. So I think you're right.
- [22:13]
B
Auditioning too, so.
- [22:15]
C
Yeah, exactly. But let me just say for from there, look, he's got his fingerprints over everything does Blanche, dating Back to this March 15th with Emile Beauvais. I don't think he can be confirmed, though. Obviously it's. He's all of a sudden a dream of a lifetime. Maybe I could be AG or court of appeals judge as well. He's clearly, I think, trying to placate Trump even more. It's hard to even think how to be more aggressive. But he is doing it. And I think from the White House's point of view, you're right, it's different from the U.S. attorneys. He can stay there a long time. They have confidence in him. They think they, he. I think if they're smart, they'll know it's hard to confirm him. So I think they just let it ride. But he hopes eventually to. This is how Bill Barr first became an ag. He was an acting for a long time, won the confidence of the, of the White House, etc. Now you also hear about Lee Zeldin or Harmony Dillon as possible candidates, but I think the immediate thing is they're happy with the status quo and the status quo can endure. I mean, we're talking a year plus. So I personally think that we're not going to see a nomination, especially with, you know, the tenuous situation on the Hill with Epstein. It opens up everything for inquiry. And they're happy, I think, to have Blanche as acting. And he's showing them. I will, I will totally tow your barge and more. I'll tow faster than that bonding character.
- [23:54]
B
Oh, absolutely. So speaking of the Epstein files, I mean, one of the reasons why I think Todd Blanche would have a very, very hard time being confirmed is, you know, he's up to his ne in the, in the, in the botched rollout of the Epstein files and basically said we're not investigating anymore. But then this may seem like an odd segue. The other thing that's happening on Capitol Hill you're talking about, you'd have seen the Capitol Hill is they're kind of in a frenzy of expelling members or talking about expelling members. You know, Eric Swalwell drops out of the race for governor in complete disgrace, has to resign from Congress basically ahead of the expulsion. He's the Democrat. They paired that with Tony Gonzalez down in Texas, who also was involved in a nasty scandal. He has also resigned from Congress. It does strike me, and this feels almost too obvious to make the point that Congress has been dealing with lightning speed with its predatory, you know, sex abusing monsters, and yet we still can't deal with the man in the White House or his circle. I mean, it's just the, there's a, I mean, we could spend an entire podcast on Eric Swalwell and the culture that clearly there are powerful men from both parties who see their power and their fame as a license to abuse women in the most grotesque manner and that there are apparently sociopaths. I don't know whether, you know, swell. Well well, but I mean, apparently, you know, part of this is that all the people who believed him and trusted him and just can't believe, you know, how this could have happened. There is that cultural. But Congress is dealing with that culture very expeditiously, in contrast to the whole Epstein files. Yeah.
- [25:39]
C
And I think that's no coincidence. Epstein has become the radioactive issue that sticks to everybody, including even Donald Trump. You and I are old enough to remember a whole wave of this stuff with Gary Hart, and I kind of of thought it had had its impact. And how can you be Swalwell, who I, who I did think on a policy level was an effective congressman, et cetera. How do people, on top of the abuse of exploitive behavior, how can they run for office knowing. Knowing what. What could well be coming is likely coming. And now he's. He's even out of Congress. You're, of course, right that there's a way in which the Epstein scandal sticking to everyone is connected to the Teflon treatment.
- [26:27]
B
Yeah, it is. How do you think you're gonna get away with this? And apparently there were reports this was an open secret, that people kind of knew this and now they're denying it. But, you know, was there sort of a code of omerta, even in this age about this sort of thing? And so, you know, it feels like you're peeling the onion. And yeah, it's really even worse than you thought. Even in the Epstein age, a guy who behaves like that still thinks that he can run for the governor, governorship of California and it's not going to blow up.
- [26:56]
C
That's the thing. And we are learning that we've had a couple, a couple members come out and say, oh, I obviously, I didn't know this, but there were whispers about his being flirty. Well, he was a way, way more than 40, but really is just a head scratcher. How it happens again and again with powerful men and why they think it almost feels like a tragedy, you know, play. They can go to the next step and then be completely leveled. But again, there's, you know, one person, really, you could say two people. All the victims of Epstein are there to as testimonial. He obviously isn't around anymore, but there hasn't been a full accounting there. And Trump from the Access Hollywood days, you know, historians are going to be puzzling over how people brought up the Pope early on. I kind of wanted to ask you about that. I don't mean to stereotype you, but, you know, Midwestern Catholic, you think of Trump's supporters. How could they possibly. This was like, you know, it's like he couldn't top it. I thought at first, literally was a joke when you saw that picture. And then the screed against His Holiness, the infallible first bishop of the Church. What does he. Is it not just a terrible insult?
- [28:21]
B
Insult, blasphemy. Well, now, this is interesting. This is fascinating to me because first of all, I have been arguing that I think this was the undercovered story, the American Pope versus the American President, and now it is burst out. So there's a couple of things about this that, you know, that Donald Trump won the Catholic vote, and American Catholics are used to separating themselves from what comes out of Rome. But something interesting is happening. This Pope, because he is an American Pope, understands American culture, understands American politics, and speaks with a clarity that other popes, I don't think has had. And so he has also. Look, it's not just that he has been openly critical of Donald Trump. He is basically mobilizing the church on these issues. And the Catholic Church has a very large infrastructure. And even though there have been a lot of divisions in the past, are you noticing how all the bishops from right and left are coalescing around this pope? The church feels more united than it has in a very long time around this particular pope, who is immensely popular. Now. What does it mean for the voters? You saw the blowback after the Trump as Jesus Christ. And by the way, there's been a lot of. Remember that Easter thing he had where his spiritual advisor, Paula White, compared him to Jesus Christ? So they've been doing this for some time. That was the blasphemy before the blasphemy. And people were offended and they were shocked and they did feel insulted about that. So you have the evangelicals who were, I think, shocked by that. You have the Catholics who are going, wait, what is this guy doing? Especially because. And this is. You want to talk about cognitive dissonance, you have Donald Trump and J.D. van saying, we need more religion and politics and government. You know, our war is, you know, in the name of Jesus Christ and everything, using all of us, this religious imagery. And yet when the pope says something, it's like, hey, you know, shut up. Don't, you know, just dribble. The hypocrisy, the cynicism is on fire. So I think that this is part of that. Drip, drip, drip. Yes, yes.
- [30:33]
C
Can I add one quick aspect?
- [30:35]
B
Yes, very much so.
- [30:36]
C
Yeah. It's not just J.D. vance. Look at the Pentagon. Hegseth tells Sends a message, we should pray to Jesus Christ. And then when the Pope does the completely conventional message of better to negotiate than make war on countries, his ambassador is hailed into, the Pentagon told you better. We're the most powerful country in the world, and the Pope better get with it. And there's a reference here. We're getting in the weeds, but I love seeing it. A guy there picks up something that evokes Avignon, the period when the French politically forced the Papacy to come to France and, you know, where the political structure actually overwhelmed them. That is a real, like, throwing down of the gauntlet. I just don't see how American Catholics can't find that offensive, whatever your view of the Pope is.
- [31:40]
B
No. And I also think that this is significant because it really goes at one of Donald Trump's strengths. I mean, I know that it's the economy, stupid, but there are a lot of voters who vote on the basis of values, who vote on the basis of their religious identity, and for whom Donald Trump was a flawed vessel, but they thought perhaps would protect their values in a way the Democrats would not. Leave that aside, what their assumption was. But those religious, you know, that religious element in the Trump base or the people who voted for Trump shouldn't be underestimated. And so when the party pope begins talking about that this is unchristian, when he goes after the religiosity that they're embracing themselves with, that goes right to the heart of one of Donald Trump's strengths. And obviously, he's concerned about erosion. But the problem is that this is the wrong fight with the wrong guy at the wrong time for Donald Trump. And so I do think that this is one of those where. Where these voters are not necessarily gonna vote for Democrats because they're not gonna vote for Democrats on the abortion issue, the trans issue, and a variety of other things. But they are having doubts. They're rolling their eyes, they're shaking their heads, and these are the voters who might just sit home, stay home during the midterm. So this is catastrophic. Part of it's the hubris, where it's almost like Donald Trump is saying, how far can I push this? What can I get away with? How dumb are my supporters?
- [33:08]
C
Right? It's one thing to take up to have certain issues and then not act in your personal life, but, man, oh, man, he purposely rubbed it in the face of the Pope. Right? He was like, with the picture and with that long screed and that, to me, you know, I felt offended for, you know, just given the stature and the moral importance of the Pope in the world. And even leaving aside, you know, if you're also, he's the most important religious figure and an infallible one, having these guys just crap all over him purposely, gleefully. It really is a head scratcher.
- [33:51]
B
It is a head scratcher, but also it's part of this pattern where Donald Trump is in the process of dismantling the coalition he put together to get elected. And I mean, really, when you think about it, he's losing with young voters, he's losing with Latino voters, other non white voters, he's losing even white working class voters. And it's almost systematically like, how can I break this apart? And now this fight with the Pope. And by the way, I don't know if you saw Jon Stewart the other night. It was actually. He was actually pretty good.
- [34:19]
C
Oh, my God, perfect. Can you do a link to that? Is it possible?
- [34:24]
B
Maybe I'll look.
- [34:25]
C
And also the J.D. vance stuff.
- [34:27]
B
So good. Well, I mean, all the sound bites of JD Vance basically talking about, you know, that, that we need more religion, we need the church to have a greater, perhaps even dominant role in American politics. And then he's out there going, oh, you know, Pope lecturing the Pope. By the way, the Pope ought to be careful on theology. Anyway, back to John Stewart. He plays the Pope, basically saying, I'm making up an appeal for peace, that we should have dialogue rather than conflict. And he says, who on earth would disagree with that? Who could possibly disagree with that? Who could? And it's like, well, okay. And then it's, you know, Donald Trump, you are weak. You are a loser. For, remember like five minutes ago, when Donald Trump wanted to be the peace president and win the Nobel Peace Prize, and the Pope says, maybe we ought to try peace. And Donald Trump is like, oh, that is so weak. That is so weak.
- [35:18]
C
As someone said on our podcast not long ago, I think FIFA wants its peace prize back.
- [35:23]
B
Oh, exactly. You know, and I think, you know, for, you know, poor J.D. vance, who's got a book coming out about, you know, how important his Catholicism is to him. So here he is, this recent convert to Catholicism who has been one of those who thinks that the Catholic Church, you know, ought to be a dominant force in America, American life, is now sitting there on stage explaining why he is going along with Donald Trump's vicious personal attacks on the Pope. I think what it's going to reveal is not just the JD Vance, the incredible shrinking JD Vance is kind of a pathetic toady, but also that, you know, His. His intellectual view of the world is just incoherent. I mean, this is a guy that we used to think of as like, well, he was the smart guy, right? He wrote books, he had, you know, but he's been nothing if not malleable. Okay, can we end on one positive note? Since this has been kind of a dark.
- [36:14]
C
I just want to say, Stu. Yes, I love always positive and maybe hungry, but there are others. But again, if you can link it, the Stewart on JT Vance. You know, the vice president typically has nothing to do, but then when he does these things, it's just debacle after debacle. It's priceless. But. But we can't do it as well as he can. So.
- [36:33]
B
Well, but J.D. vance is really on a losing streak. I mean, you know, the Orban thing ending and the Iran thing, and then he just looks shrinking. And if you're Donald. See, I do not think that he is any longer is the designated heir, but that's for another thing. So the positive thing, I was thinking the other day, we need.
- [36:51]
C
I think that's right.
- [36:52]
B
And I make the distinction between optimism and hope. You know, optimism is just to believe things are gonna get better. Hope is if you work hard, things will get better. And of course, I'm talking about Hungary, and I was thinking of that image and I know you saw it as well, the night before the election, that huge candlelight rally in Budapest where hundreds of thousand, it looked like Hungarians came out. And I remember thinking, is this going to work? Can they actually do that? And you want one symbol of hope in 2026? It is the picture of those rallies and the commitment of average people in hungary who overturned 16 years of Viktor Orban's rule. And not just overturned it, they just. It was an incredible landslide. So very, you know, amazing.
- [37:40]
C
It's a. It's really a beautiful development in all senses. By the way, Budapest, if you've been there, it's huge. And people were spilling out into the pest side or Buddha side or whatever. But it's. I have a long piece on this yesterday that among other things, went into how hard it Was that your 16 years of boot on the neck, during which he'd gone far farther than Trump has to capture the judiciary, to capture the machinery of the election, to have media completely in his pocket and the popular will just blew it all away. And you and I field every. Every week, don't we? The what. What is to be done? What happens ultimately? And you play these out, these war game scenarios and you think you know, at the end of the day, it may come down to just the people, people, but, man, that is a lot, especially in this country. Nobody In Hungary over 40 has grew up in a democracy, but nobody in the United States didn't. We do the Pledge of Allegiance, et cetera. The sort of spirit of constitutional law and democracy is stronger and more rooted in us. And, yeah, you see them do it, by the way, over the concerted opposition of Trump and Putin, the new autocrat movement. It really. It really was inspiring. And the piece that I wrote is long to try to give the nuances of. Don't just assume that it'll be replicated. And there's complications, including for Mygar now to govern. But still a really beautiful day, just as you say.
- [39:23]
B
Yeah, I mean, it really was a defeat for that axis of authoritarians, you know, Trump, Putin and. And Orban. But I think the hopeful thing I would take away is that Orban had done all of these things to crush these democratic institutions which you mentioned, the judiciary, the rigging of the election system, the media. And I think that a lot of our fear is that if Trump or Maga succeeds in doing that here, that it's irreversible. They believe that it's irreversible, that that kind of illiberalism, once it gets in power, is unstoppable. And I think. I think what Hungary showed is that despite all of that, you can at least have the hope of reversing that if the public steps up in the way that they did. And it was a wave. And sometimes these things, just the mood, this. The optimism matters, even just the symbolism matters, because you're right. I mean, obviously, there's no direct crossover, but for the opposition here in the United States going, wait, wait, you know, we have had one defeat after another, but look at that. Look what just happened. Could we do that?
- [40:32]
C
And, you know, we've been saying since the beginning, Anne Applebaum made your point in the Atlantic very well, but we've been saying since the beginning, look at Hungary. They used to be a democracy, and it happened, and now they're not. It happened there, so it could happen here. Now we say the OP now, they're no longer a cautionary, but an enthusiastic tale of it happened there, and it can happen here. The people have the power.
- [40:58]
B
Well, I think you're seeing that all around the world is that we had gone through that period where people were, I think, back on their heels about the rise of authoritarianism. And now there is the sense that, no, we're not going to give in. We're gonna stand up. I actually think that it's somewhat encouraging what the Europeans are now doing. They're actively planning on a NATO without the United States. I think that's a terrible thing. And you know, and yet the illusions have dropped and they're willing to take the stand. So this is an age in which these issues have a lot of clarity. As you point out. Maybe some of the stuff we'd become complacent about it was in the background noise. But what you're seeing in some of these countries is this is the fight of our generation. Harry.
- [41:46]
C
Yeah, and I know we're about out of time but just very briefly, you know, it's bigger than Hungary. It has overlapping consequences. You know, in the EU itself Hungary was a sanctioned country. They are no longer remember when Brexit happened and of a peace with Trump and it seemed the world had waves. Wasn't just each country insulated. I think that's what Hungary feels like as well. I agree with you.
- [42:13]
B
You know, I think that's exactly right. And what a great note to end on. Harry Lipman thank you so much. Go over to his substack talk talking Fed substack. I'll post links to the recent articles but it is definitely a must. Subscribe Harry, good talking with you.
- [42:26]
C
Always good and same for to the contrary all you talking feds heads on here. Go check out Charlie.
- [42:33]
B
I always do well and thank you all for listening to this episode of to the Contrary podcast. You know why we do this? I say this every time because it is so important as we go go through day by day, hour by hour to remember that we are not the crazy ones. Thank you. This message comes from Jackson. Taxes aren't something you can only think about once a year year with investments planning for tax days year round. Fortunately Jackson offers tax efficient products. Visit Jackson.com for more information on how our products can make your tax bill a little bit less painful. Jackson is short for Jackson Financial Incorporated, Jackson National Life Insurance Co. Lansing, Michigan and Jackson National Life Insurance Co. Of New York Purchase, New York. AI is transforming customer service. It's real and it works. And with FIN we've built the number one AI agent for customers service. We're seeing lots of cases where it's solving up to 90% of real queries for real businesses. This includes the real world complex stuff like issuing a refund or canceling an order. And we also see it when FIN goes up against competitors. It's top of all the performance benchmarks, top of the G2 leaderboard. And if you're not happy, we'll refund you up to a million dollars, which I think says it all. Check it out for yourself at fin AI. Still waiting in line Again, again. That's time you will never get back. Save time and money with stamps.com over 4 million businesses have skipped the line with stamps.com join them to save up to 90% off carrier rates from your computer or phone right now. Print postage for certified mail, registered mail, and packages in seconds. Then schedule a pickup right from your home or office for a limited time. Go to stamps.com and use code podcast for a free welcome gift. Taxes and fees apply.