← Truth in the Barrel
Truth in the Barrel
This Week Unfiltered | 08.14.25
01:00:22
Amy is joined this week by the legendary Bill Kristol as they take an UNFILTERED look at the deployment of troops onto the streets of Washington D.C., President Trump’s Alaskan rendezvous with Putin, and the numerous ways basic voting is under...
Loading summary
Transcript78 lines
- [00:00]
A
Back to school is better. With family Freedom from T Mobile, we'll pay off four phones up to $3200 and give you four free phones, all on America's largest 5G network. Visit your local T Mobile location or learn more@t mobile.com familyfreedom. Up to $800 per line via virtual prepaid card typically takes 15 days. Free phones via 24 monthly bill credits with finance agreement eg Apple iPhone 16128 gigabyte 8 $2009.99 eligible trade in eg iPhone 11 Pro for well qualified credits end and balance due if you pay off early or cancel contact T Mobile today.
- [00:30]
B
Bill Crystal joins me. Unfiltered look at the deployment of troops onto the streets of Washington D.C. president Trump's Alaskan rendezvous with Putin and the numerous ways basic voting is under attack right now. Plus a steady creep toward authoritarianism. Pete Hegseth's pastor doesn't think women should vote. And Kim Davis has tied the knot four times but still thinks gay people are ruining the sanctity of marriage. This is Truth in the Barrel, a different kind of Whiskey Rebellion. Welcome to the show, everyone. We have a special guest today, the legendary Bill Kristol. Bill was a senior official in the Reagan and George H.W. bush administrations. He founded and edited the conservative magazine the Weekly Stander and is now editor at large of the Bulwark. So really great to have you with us, Bill, today. Welcome to Truth in the Barrel.
- [01:35]
C
Great to be with you, of course, and great to see you again, if not quite awesome, I think. Does this count as seeing someone? I never know what to say. I feel like I'm old enough to remember when we actually saw people in person occasionally, but I guess it does. It does.
- [01:50]
B
And we're moving in this direction. And Covid kind of changed everything. And one of the things that I always remember when I did interviews for like TV prior to Covid, you had to go to the studio for me. When I ran for office, I had to drive to Louisville and sit in the studio at the top of this big building. And then Covid hit and we all did our interviews from our home. And I do think that's cool because now we can just talk more.
- [02:17]
C
Yeah, I remember at the time I had done TV for quite a long time and everyone sort of the beginning, the producer types and the execs were, of course, we'll go back to the studio afterwards. So much higher quality and we could try control it better and makeup and this and that. That lasted for like 10 minutes is my impression. Basically, everyone realized that it's easier for us to sit here, and where we're sitting, it's easier for. It's cheaper for them, honestly. And it turns out viewers, they don't care, which is to their credit, probably don't care quite as much about the, you know, backdrop of the studio or exactly, you know, having a makeup artist to make you look tiny, tiny bit better. So anyway, totally.
- [02:53]
B
And you get to kind of see people where they live to some degree. You know, it's kind of cool. So. Well, we have a lot to get through today, and there's a lot going on in our country. I want to start out with the deployment of the national guard in Washington, D.C. because that is happening right now. And, you know, 30 years ago, House Republicans, you will probably remember, demanded answers from then President Bill Clinton about the siege in Waco, Waco, Texas. And they saw the use of force by the FBI as excessive and an example of sort of big government run amok. And now we have the FBI and the National Guard on the streets of Washington, D.C. you know, you saw it in LA just a month or two ago. We now have supposedly 800 troops being deployed in the next 30 days, perhaps even longer, to fight crime. And my first question to you is, do you think House Republicans will once again speak out about big government in this case?
- [03:57]
C
I take it that's a rhetorical question. Somehow, I don't think they'll be objecting. I don't see any of them objecting yet to this thing, which, as you say, not just the Waco incident, which was obviously tragic in many ways, but more broadly, it's such a staple of conservative talking points. Federalism, state and local control. The last thing we need is a federal government that can deploy military. Very careful with Posse Comitato. Its military should be used abroad. And I agree with this kind of these conservative talking points from the old days, which were also liberal talking points mostly. I remember how hesitant President George H.W. bush was in 92 to send the Guard into LA in the middle of really massive riots. 50 people had been killed. The governor wanted them in. And it was genuinely to help the LAPD in a situation that looked like it could really, really spin out of control. It had spun out of control some already, and they were there and they helped out and they left. And no one thought this was George H.W. bush taking over the governance of the Los Angeles police Force or the state of California and so forth. I mean, think what a contrast, right? And even that was done Cautiously and reluctantly by the Bush administration. I remember the internal discussions because you don't want to set that precedent. And it wasn't a precedent saying no one did it for the next 30 years, basically because everyone understood that, thank God we didn't. You know, that was a pretty unusual situation. And here we are. No emergency crime rates are going down, but even if they weren't, incidentally, there's no cr. It's not whatever, it's not Waco, it's not la. It's. It's just a city, you know. And he has a little bit of a legal advantage in D.C. because there's no state government, obviously, it's a kind of unusual legal situation. A little more ability to deploy the Guard here than he would normally and I guess to take over the police department. But it's very alarming, I think too much of the coverage, honestly. I'm very curious to what you think about this since, you know, this, the world of the Guard and the military much more intimately than I do, but people are a little too focused on what they're doing and they're in the street and they are, they aren't being nice to the people in dc, and, and you know, here's. There's some people yelling at them. I mean, that's all interesting, obviously and newsworthy, but what's the precedent that is being set between LA and DC is really, is intentional. I mean, that's the main point. This isn't just like, oh, he's doing these things randomly, but he's kind of doesn't understand. And look what, look what, look what's happened. They plotted, they planned to do this. This is the design. First you normalize the use of the Guard. Then in la, you normalize the use of the active duty military. Some of the Marines in D.C. you normalize the use of the. But above all, you normalize the use of taking control of the local police department. DC's law says, the congressional law that covers DC says 30 days. But Trump says, well, you know, I could extend that, get another authorization for another 30. And actually if Congress doesn't do it, I have this emergency power, this, I guess artificial emergency power for everything. So they are really laying the predicate for the. And then the ICE expansion. The President of the United States having a personal ability to deploy federal law enforcement at his will and whim, really wherever he wants. He mentioned about other cities too. So I think it's very ominous, honestly. What do you think?
- [06:57]
B
I think it's super scary. So first of all, we know that the Posse Comitatus act is there for a reason. And I think what we're finding right now is we've had these laws in this country. But when you have a president like Trump and you have a Republican Party that is so beholden to him, meaning the congressional Republicans unwilling to stand up to him, you find that a lot of our country in the past has been run by these norms and these norms can be, you know, picked at and so sort of like a thousand cuts and you know, they're going to find a way around this. Well, around the prosecut. Let's just declare an emergency. Well, what for is there an emergency? Well, sure. Crime. Yeah, Crime. Crime is, is real. It's real. We should all be worried about that and do something about it. But the use of the military, as you say, the normalized use of the military in American streets, it's just not something that we should be doing. And it's also really bad for the military. It's not just about what are they doing and they're not trained for this. And that is true. It's also the fact that when you deploy troops first, it costs a lot of money. Okay, great. But the National Guard, these are part time warriors. You're taking them from their jobs, you're taking them from their jobs and whatever it is that they do and you're deploying them to do what, who knows? But certainly as a display of power, this is about power and not crime. And you're taking them away from their families, in some cases away from leave or liberty sometimes a lot of these guys and women are, they're going to school, so you're taking them out of school. And there's really, the reasoning behind it is, is sort of dubious here. And so I, I feel like it's a great concern. And here's the other thing about crime. It is really important to tackle crime. There's no doubt. But if Republicans and Trump were so serious about tackling crime in Washington D.C. why did they essentially defund the police there? In this latest bill that passed, they cut resources for the D.C. police, I think about 67 million that would have been cut from the police budget. And that hasn't been fixed like that. Just, we're not talking about that. That's to me like, hey, if you want to fight crime, you need to give the local police forces the ability to do that.
- [09:47]
C
The crime thing is just a pretext. And people are being a little too, not you, but others, you know, too credulous about it. You know, well, let's have a discussion of crime and is it. Maybe it's down 25%, but it went up a lot in 2022. So it's knocked down quite as slow as other cities are and et cetera. It's all ludicrous. Donald Trump doesn't care about crime in Washington D.C. what is he been like? Is it easy? Have a lot of legislative proposals in the first six months to deal with the emergency. And if there's an emergency in the country. Right. You have proposals to deal with it. Then maybe at the extreme case you have to do something unilateral, even that's questionable. But it did nothing, as you say, the Republican bill he was so proud of cut funds for law enforcement actually across the country, but also in D.C. and they cut funds for the government in D.C. it's one reason of the mayor's being so cautious, honestly, in dealing with Trump. She's already losing federal support. And D.C. again is in a unique situation with being at the Federal city. So he's not serious about it. It's a pretext. It's a pretext. It's a pretext for deploying the troops and it's very bad for the troops. I couldn't agree with that more. I mean one reason the military has such high standing in the US is it's been very careful to keep it out of. It's not like a third world country where they, the dictator snaps his fingers and the military is suddenly cracking down on protesters and then the military is part of the oppressive government and then people don't like it and there's splits in the military and the colonels rebel against the generals or whatever. Right. I thank God been spared that almost entirely in our history. And I mean I do think those headlines, if you, those headlines, authoritarian inclined president calls in federal troops on a pretext and takes over the police force in the nation's capital.
- [11:22]
B
If we saw that headline from Sounds like Sudan.
- [11:24]
C
Yeah. Or Latin America or parts of Central and Eastern Europe and less Happy times or Bangkok or someplace. Right. I mean, I mean that's not, that should. That's. And if we saw it elsewhere, we'd think, oof, that's bad. What's going on there? That could really be a slide towards authoritarianism, towards dictatorship. And we need to think of it that way here, honestly, because it's not.
- [11:45]
B
Just LA and D.C. i mean apparently there's plans to have this quick reaction force. So the military, what that means is the military is constantly on call, ready to go. I mean it's not just like, hey, I'm on call by my cell phone. It's like, no kidding, ready to go. You're on the base with your stuff, ready to go. When you're sort of on call at.
- [12:13]
C
Some of these orders anywhere in the country. And the memo that was leaked was. Yeah, anywhere in the country. And if there are protests or disturbances, well, what does that mean? Right. I mean, so again, Trump's trying to really push the overt window, however you want to say it, you know, to kind of normalize this. And I worry that he's, you know, it's only seven months in the degree to which this and many, many other areas, I mean, the degree to which he's doing things that would have been red line. We all discussed this before. He was in different forums, before he was inaugurated. You and I discussed it, I think, also personally. And what would be the red lines that would show he's really going down an authoritarian path? Use of the military domestically. This would be everyone's top five right. Of things.
- [12:54]
B
Sure.
- [12:54]
C
And here we are.
- [12:56]
B
Yeah, here we are. And the other thing that's really important to point out is, remember in the first term, he tried to do some of this stuff and he was stopped. He was stopped by the then Secretary of defense, first Jim Mattis, then Mark Esper, who then after Donald Trump left office, went to the public and said, this man tried to use the military in inappropriate ways. And I stopped him. And now we have a Secretary of Defense who's not going to stop him. And the other thing about this Trump and Republicans and the sort of anti crime thing, we all have to remember, they cared so much about that. Why did they pardon 1300 or 1200 criminals who attacked the Capitol on January.
- [13:47]
C
6Th in D.C. i mean, sadly, it's not an accident that it's the Capitol. I mean, it's partly because I think D.C. is unpopular. The country, it's been a black majority city, not actually quite anymore, but for a long time. So some of the country regarded it as kind of different play kind of place, you know, and, and so forth. And it's been demonized by Republicans for an awful long time, too. So they think that's one reason they chose D.C. the other reason is it's actually kind of important, like what happens in the streets of D.C. as we saw on January 6th, and having that ability to control the police force here and all the attendant federal forces, and there are a million of them, park police and people who guard the museums and people who guard the embassies. You know, they're just different parts. Secret Service, obviously, this is a big. The last of different overlapping jurisdictions here. The ability that Trump is now kind of normalized, as I say, to exert control over all of them is potentially pretty dangerous for our country, honestly. I mean, really dangerous. Not just in sort of unpleasant or contrary to what we're used to.
- [14:46]
B
Yeah, I get this question a lot from neighbors and just folks that are watching all of this stuff unfold, first in LA and then now in dc. And one of the questions I get is, is there anything we can do about this? You know, and so that. That's tough. What do you think?
- [15:09]
C
No, it's tough in the LA thing. I mean, since you mentioned. It's just the ice, I mean, the tripling of the funding price and the tripling of its size, I guess, and the recruiting that they're doing, I mean, that is not good. Dha, whatever. The military has a lot of. Still, even if no Mattis, no Esper, et cetera, there's still internal constraints in the military. The probably slow down the ability to use the military in a really pernicious way. Honestly, I think it'd be harder. We'll see how much damage Hexseth can do over one, two, three years, but still, I feel that's harder. That's a harder nut for them to crack. Dhs, they're just recruiting people for eyesight, God knows, off the streets, basically, with huge signing bonuses. They're waiving all the normal training, all the normal criteria, it seems like almost for having a college degree and things like that. And who knows who's signing up for that, and who knows if they're being vetted in any serious way. And so then he's got kind of his own little police force. And of course, what they're doing is horrible, Seizing people who are lining up to go to work and stuff. So anyway, answering your question, but I just think the ICE thing has also been. It's been seen from the point of view of immigration policy. It is very important in that respect too, and that's bad. But I think seeing it as also a threat to our democracy, honestly to the rule of law, is important.
- [16:24]
B
I do too. And one of the things that's really struck me with regards to ICE is this group of masked men running around with the protection of the, you know, and the. And the backing of the federal government. It's just with. With no patches, no identifying features. You know, those of us in the military were very. We were in the streets of Baghdad, we Weren't masked. You know, you go, you go and there's, you're wearing the uniform in the United States of America. You know, it's labeled. I feel like we're in a different place in a place that I have never seen in this country ever. And it is scary.
- [17:08]
C
Yeah. So the mass thing, I'm really, it freaks me, I mean, did freak me out, freaks me out. And I complained about it on TV on something and I was, oh, no, they're having threat, they dox, they're treated badly online. People post their names, maybe their addresses if that's public. And people in my opinion probably shouldn't, shouldn't do that. Not probably they shouldn't do that. And it's unfortunate, it's unfortunate if it happens to judges, which it has, has happened. And it's like violence. But that's not an excuse. I mean, I grew up in New York City at a time of rising crime, really high crime. New York Police Department, they drove around, they dealt with very tough criminals. They were in patrol cars, they had their name badge, they didn't wear masks. Obviously, if you're in some special SWAT type situation with gang leaders, maybe you wear them, you know, you disguise your identity, but not normally to normalize that too is very dangerous. And it does lead to all kinds of practical problems like how do we know who these people are and are they really, you know, ICE and are they just buddies of ice, people who kind of put on the mask and came along for the ride? Or are they the Fox News reporter they've gotten along to, to make it a publicity stunt, you know, for Kristi Noem and, and all that? I mean, I, I, so it's, yeah, the whole thing is distressing. I mean, I think people do need to be apprised at their rights. People should feel very, I think the honesty that just standing there and taking the photos has had some deterrent effect, you know, using the cell phones and stuff. I mean, I feel like that people don't, who knows what would happen if this were really not on camera, so.
- [18:32]
B
To speak, sort of like organic body cameras. But I also feel like this has a potential to create unrest in our country too. You're like, he's stoking, trying, trying to create unrest, trying to get those images, which is also, to me as an American, just sad to see that happening. But hey, while President Trump is running the risk of creating this unrest in D.C. he apparently thinks he can bring peace to Ukraine by meeting face to face with Vladimir Putin in Alaska. And so this is happening very soon. Look, I've always said I think it's important that Trump have an interest in trying to work for peace. I mean, we all want this, right? We all want this war in Ukraine to end. And I was actually saddened when earlier this year, Trump didn't seem to care about peace. Remember when he sort of threw up his hands and said, I'm out. Let these guys, they're just gonna have to fight it out. Now he cares about it again. But I'm doubtful that this meeting will do anything. I think just having a meeting doesn't mean, as Fiona Hill has said, doesn't mean anything's gonna come from it. And I fear that bringing Vladimir Putin, who's a war criminal, to the United States and giving him a face to face meeting is really just giving him a sort of a political win. What are your thoughts?
- [20:09]
C
I think it's very much the case. I mean, he can't go anywhere. He hasn't been in Europe for meetings since the war began because he is an outcast and he should be an outcast. It's a brutal invasion, obviously it's totally launched by him unprovoked, and he's continued it and it's been conducted brutally. And the unbelievable death and destruction in Ukraine. And he has correctly been made a pariah. Now some nations deal with him, obviously, and maybe we should be a little tougher and try to get some of them to deal with them less. But most of our allies don't, almost all of our allies don't. And suddenly Trump has him to the U.S. i mean, that is terrible. It just destroyed. I mean, now he's not a, he's not an outcast. He's meeting with the President of the United States and without celebr Zelensky there bargaining over Ukraine's future, I imagine nothing much will come of it. But on the other hand, I don't think it strengthens. I mean, it will, luckily the Ukrainians are very tough, but it would otherwise demoralize them. It has a real Munich feel to it, you know, where Chamberlain and Hitler negotiated without the Czechs being present. And I think if Putin suckers Trump into some ridiculous deal over Zelensky will object. That I think won't go along. And Europe, maybe we'll stick with Zelenskyy, but putting our allies and our friends and the people who are fighting in Ukraine for their freedom in a very difficult place. So I'm not happy and the meeting is a bad idea. I have no confidence. If one thing, if Trump was Some kind of genius geopolitical negotiator was really going to pressure Putin. Keeps talking about pressuring Putin. He's done almost nothing. Incidentally, this Bill that has 85 co sponsors in the Senate still hasn't come up for a vote to toughen sanctions, let alone actually sending arms to Ukraine, which he's done a tiny bit of, but no actual appropria. So, no, I'm worried about this meeting.
- [21:55]
B
Yeah, Trump's threatened to impose tougher sanctions on Russia almost like every other week it seems. And then he's like, well, I'm gonna do it in 30 days and there's a deadline and all of that goes away. And now he's just handed Vladimir Putin this high profile face to face meeting in the United States. And this isn't the first time, right? I mean, Donald Trump likes to hand bad actors the international stage for these high profile meetings. I mean, remember Kim Jong Un in the first administration? But I also think that it's just really bad. I feel like, again, you say you want peace, but you're not doing anything that serious policy or talk in terms of ending the conflict. I mean, what are some of the things that he could do? As you said, more military aid, more sanctions, pressuring the European banks to seize Russian assets is another one that a lot of people talk about. You could even talk about threatening to create a security agreement with Ukraine. I mean, I don't see if you're Vladimir Putin, I don't see Trump coming with anything that, that I'm remotely afraid of, you know, in this meeting.
- [23:22]
C
Totally agree. And it's, it's bad. He's got, you know, he doesn't have serious people advising him on it. Not that he wants them to advise him, I suppose, but his Witkoff goes over it. I mean, a professional diplomat. I was talking to this earlier this week, and this is not the most important point, but it's an interesting point. Wyckoff goes to these meetings. I mean, he's not, doesn't know anything about Russia or Ukraine or anything like that. He's a real estate guy from New York, I guess, but they think he's good at making deals. He goes to see Putin in the Kremlin, brings no translator, no US Translator, no one from the embassy, no Russia expert, no one who knows anything about the details of where Donetsk is or where these different parts of Ukraine are in their history in Crimea. And he sits there, Putin, and he talked for three hours. He comes out with a totally garbled apparently understanding of what Putin said. Who knows we don't know what Putin said. You know why? Because we don't have anyone there taking notes. You've been in international meetings, as. Both when you were in the military and as. And subsequently. Right. As a civilian. And I mean, there's people, like, memorializing what's said. So we have a record. So you can go back home and say, well, is this acceptable? Is this a bad idea? What's the counter proposal to this? None of that. So it's both amateurish and clownish, but also very dangerous.
- [24:36]
B
Obviously, it is dangerous. And not even the jv, it's like not even the freshman team. We're still, we're still back in the, in the, in the, you know, the middle school area. And Witkoff, I mean, yeah, no, in. This is standard for Trump's Cabinet. No qualification, no experience in diplomacy. The guy with. He's a real estate guy. So apparently he knows how to negotiate. I mean, we all know that that's just total bs. And also, I would say, where has he succeeded? You know, there's still a war in Gaza. There's still a war in Ukraine. There hasn't been any success in any of that. But here's the other thing. You can't, in my mind, talk about Ukraine and peace in Ukraine without Ukraine at the table.
- [25:23]
C
Right.
- [25:24]
B
It just, you know, it just. It's a fundamental thing about negotiating for peace in a conflict in which the country that was invaded is not at the table. And Donald Trump seems to want to push land swap as the, hey, we're going to give Putin a little bit of land and then this thing's going to end. And I just want to hear what your take is on that. I feel like, look, I want the war to end, but I just feel like that is a really bad thing to do. We're rewarding Putin for invading if we do that.
- [26:05]
C
Oh, terrible. And I just lays the predicate for him renewing the invasion in a year or two or going after other countries and. No, I totally agree. And it's just skin shows. I mean, I think it's not even that Putin, that Trump, Putin, that Trump doesn't know how to do this kind of thing. He doesn't care. I mean, he doesn't like Ukraine. He sort of admires Putin because he's a tough guy. He's said that many times and, you know, dictate he like the dictators. So maybe I assume he wants peace. I don't know. I hope he wants peace. Decent human being would. But he's not serious about either peace in Ukraine or about the implications beyond Ukraine. And they're the Europeans. I mean, we are living in an era not what I expected to see after being a Republican and the Reagan push type of Republican, McCain type Republican. The Europeans are much more hard headed than we are. The Europeans who are nearby and who really see what's going on are like, you can't do this. You've got to be careful not to reward Putin. You got to be careful to include Zelensky. You can't undercut our actual allies fighting for freedom and for their national well being. But it's us who is undercutting. I mean, isn't that terrible? The US Is the weakest link.
- [27:15]
B
We are, we are. Well, I mean, you know, I'm somebody that I'd love to see this war end. I just don't think it's going to happen in Alaska. Have you ever been to Alaska, by the way?
- [27:27]
C
Yeah, sure, yeah, several times. And when I was in government, when I was Vice President Quail's chief of staff, we used to stop there all the time on the trips to Asia because our old Air Force Two couldn't make it all the way to Tokyo, you know, without refueling it. Elmendorf, I guess.
- [27:42]
B
Elmendorf, yeah. Well, the summertime, the summertime in Alaska you don't really have any darkness up, up that high. So I did a few weeks a month or so in Alaska in the summertime in June, doing an exercise called Red Flag, Red Flag north or something. I can't remember what it was called, Cold Flag, I don't know. Anyway, the sun never set. It went down to the horizon and then back up again. And it really does some weird things to your mind at that point, but. All right, well, we'll see what happens there. One of the worst things about, and I do hear this a lot from neighbors and friends here in Kentucky is that people feel overwhelmed by the news. There's so much going on, so many attacks on our democracy that regular people sort of want to just check out. And I think one of the worst things about being overwhelmed is that we can't sort of pay attention to all of it. And maybe we're not paying attention to some of the stuff that's happening behind the scenes. That is really, really bad because there's so much right in front of us that's really bad. But the Republicans right now are trying and often succeeding to go after voting rights and voting in America. It's under attack. It rarely makes the front page of the news and they're doing this all in the name of, like, election security or preventing voter fraud, which, by the way, no one's ever found any significant voter fraud. But I just want to run down some of the things that the Republicans are doing right now and kind of get your take on what you feel is really important to watch out for. First thing they're doing is gutting, or I've already done, is gutting cisa, which is the component of the Department of Homeland Security that is responsible for protecting elections, the physical security of our election infrastructure against foreign entities and that sort of thing. Another thing they're doing is an executive, or talking about doing is an executive order to mandate that voters show a passport and prove citizenship when they vote. And there's a lot of folks that have said that 21 million citizens do not have a birth certificate. And so that's going to make them. It's going to make it hard for them to vote. They're taking. Making states provide voter rolls to doge to the federal government. All right, that seems bad to me. They're attempting to withdraw federal approval from voting machines. And so now there's just one voting machine system that complies with the new standards, and that's going to cost lots and lots of money to fix and make states want to do paper ballots, hand ballots, which contain tons of errors. There's the major gerrymandering efforts that we've all been talking about more kind of on the front pages of the news. And then most worrisome to me is the use of the Department of Justice to target election officials who were telling the truth, Bill, in the 2020 election, who were just simply doing their jobs. The administration has repeatedly threatened to prosecute these individuals. And I just think that's just really, really scary. So I want to get your thoughts on all of this and what you think is most important.
- [31:25]
C
No, I think it's great that you put it together that way, because people do. One tends to see them individually. Of course, this thing is in the news this day and something else is in the news, you know, four days later and stuff. And it's part of a broader attempt to tilt the playing field. I mean, let's just be honest. And I mean, the overwhelming thing you mentioned at the beginning is also part of a broader attempt to overwhelm us, you know, with so much stuff that we can't really react and that you sort of let a lot of it go by. But in this case, it does fit together. Of course they want election. There will be elections in 2026 and 2028 I believe he's not going to cancel them but they would like as much as possible to help Republicans and we're seeing that that totally transparently in Texas obviously with you know, where the norm has been and the law really following the constitutional mandate for the 10 year census that, you know, you redistrict once every 10 years. That's a political process. There's gerrymandering on both sides, no question. But then you don't get to change it every, you know, every midterm midway through if you think you're going to lose the House. And it's once or twice they've been attempts done a little of this in the past often provoked by court fights but not this kind of just blatant flat out. And they say it incidentally the Texas top Texas officials don't say we're doing this because there are inequities or there's problems or there's this. They're doing it because they want to get more Republican seats and then they're forcing the Democrats to react by saying we're going to try to get more Democratic seats and we're in a not a good situation. I think Democrats have to react and I don't know ultimately how many seats this moves. But no, but we are now but we're again we're unleashing things here that we're now going to play out in a very bad way. Various norms that have constrained politicians ability to monkey with the electoral system that have allowed therefore the voters to throw out politicians in midterm elections many times and throughout the majority party they're trying to stop that. It does suggest they're nervous about 2026, which is good and that he is losing some popular support. But again he can lose popular support. But if they can monkey with the system and the right to vote and the ability making it easy or not easy to vote, mail votes and so forth ma votes and though they seem to want to also deny female votes, you know that's a separate agenda.
- [33:37]
B
We'll talk about that later.
- [33:38]
C
That's a separate agenda. Item of feed ex I guess I mean it, you know it is no, I, I very worried and I think it's not only just to look it back, I think the deployment of the police, taking of the troops and taking over the police force is very much part of that riots and I don't know, I'm making this up. You know, you're in Kentucky riots in, in whatever Louisville, some city in Kentucky one may be one of the few places that has a Democratic member of Congress had to send in the guard and have to send in the TR take over. The police are very strict. You can't let the very strict now requirements for as you say, for voting and birth certificates, things that none of us carries around really. And don't not all of us know where ours are, you know, sorry, can't vote. Maybe a little bit of discriminatory enforcement of some of these things. I'm thinking in some areas and suddenly, you know, you get a different vote in some of these states and localities.
- [34:27]
B
Yeah. I mean it doesn't take a ton. I mean 1, 12 points. One or two points could be the difference in some of these districts and sort of. So it's, it's very scary. What do you, what do you think of Governor Gavin Newsom in, in, in California, sort of his maybe preemptive, hey, Texas, you're going to do this. I'm gonna, I'm gonna retaliate. I mean on the gerrymandering.
- [34:53]
C
I think he is probably his instinct is right that you shouldn't let them get away with it. I mean, practically speaking, California being a sort of good government ish state and having been governed by Democrats who believe in redistricting panels, commissions that are not partisan, California has a law that establishes these commissions and makes it. You can't just overturn. So he would have to have a referendum to overturn to allow for redistricting. Texas has no such law. And that Abbott just calls the legislature in and we'll see if they get away with doing it. But they're trying. They can get away with doing it. I'm not so sure. But citizens don't. They kind of like in California, the nonpartisan redistricting. I'm not so sure it's that easy for Newsom to pass that referendum. The Democrats, because they actually sort of believe that we should limit gerrymandering, somewhat disadvantaged themselves. I'm not criticizing them. I think they were acting honorably. I just think it's a little tough for Newsom to make up the difference. Tougher for him to do in California than it was for Abbott in Texas.
- [35:50]
B
Yeah, I feel like Democrats have played by the rules for so long, it's hard, it's hard for Democrats to turn and flip a switch and be like, okay, we're just going to go for pure power here and go after it. And that puts Democrats at a disadvantage. Yeah, well, there's a lot going on. I mean, it's a lot to watch out for and I do feel like the voting piece is we're not paying attention to it as much as we should because that is a big way to gain power and disenfranchise millions of Americans. I want to stop right now just to give a quick plug for our upcoming live show, Tuesday, August 19, from 7:30 to 8:30pm Denver. And I will be there live with special guest JoJo from jurors. That's JoJo Carducci. We are really excited. That's Tuesday, August 19th, 7:30 to 8:30pm Eastern time. Can't wait. Now it's time for some quick shots. We're going to go through a few things to get your take on this stuff that's happening. Bill, Pete Hegseth's pastor said women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Okay. And his his pastor's name is Doug Wilson. He went, I guess he had a PBS an amazing interview and has one quote that stood out to me isn't about voting, but it's about women serving in the military. And he said, quote, I think we ought to find out the name of the person who suggested that we put women on those submarines and have that man committed. He said it's like having a playpen that you put 50 cats in and then drop catnip in the middle of it. Whatever happens is going to be ugly. And if you think it's going to advance the cause of women and make sailors start treating women less like objects, then you haven't been around the block very many times. I say that because this guy was also in the Navy a long time ago. He didn't serve with a whole lot of women. And he's very clearly a far right sexist pastor. And the fact that we have a secretary of defense who is not only listening to this guy, but retweeting him to me is definitely outrageous. But it is a slap in the face to the thousands of women who serve in the military and frankly, serve in capacities that this guy, this pastor couldn't even dream of and couldn't do himself. So I'll just leave it at that and give me your take.
- [38:39]
C
Well, you know, I think you made a key point, which is people I was talking about Wilson with someone. He said, well, I mean, he's sort of Hexeth's pastor or Hegseth goes to a church, is affiliated with, I guess the group of churches that Wilson leads or something. But, you know, we can't hold Hegseth responsible. Hegseth chose to retweet this interview in which these things, your statements that you're reading were made. So, I mean, I think it's perfectly fair to say. Why. Why is he retweeting it unless if he doesn't agree with it and admire Wilson. So I think that's the one point. And second point I defer to you totally on how much were problems, how many problems there are in the military with, you know, sexual abuse of different kinds and. And so forth. There clearly have been, as have been some took to work things out, I think, but I think the military's been pretty serious about working it out. And I kind of feel like my senses from our son served and said that, you know, it's there. As institutions in America go, the military is in decent shape in this respect, and it's been taken. Has taken seriously its obligations to obviously provide decent work environment and human environment for all everyone who signs up and who's in there. You know, maybe Doug Wilson should look a little closer to home with some other institutions he's pretty close to and see how women are being treated in, you know, sadly and very unfortunately in some churches that he's quite close to and so forth. Right. That seems to be the place where the scandals are happening. Not on submarines these days. So, yeah, again, it's not as if, again, it's sort of like with Trump, though, in the. It's not like he sincerely is studied or cares about, I can honestly say, women on submarines. Right. It's just a talking point for him to be against everything, I don't know, any kind of equality of treatment for women, really. Right.
- [40:22]
B
Well, and let me just make the point because I know some women who have been on submarines and serving on submarines. You know, the folks that go on submarines and sailors, they're really good, they're really smart. You don't get. You don't get the subs. You really have to score high. The officers that go through the training for submarines, that's some of the toughest training in the entire Navy. To go through nuclear power school, we need talent in those areas. And when we didn't have subs open for women, we had a hard time recruiting the talent. And I know this because I was at the Naval Academy as an instructor later on in my career, then on the board of Visitors under Joe Biden. And I gotta tell you that when we opened subs to women, not only did the women perform just as well, if not better than many men, but we started meeting our recruiting needs because we opened up that talent pool to 50. The other. Well, women were 30% of the Naval Academy at that point. The other 30% of officers that are graduating. And that's huge when you're talking about taking the right people, the smart people to go into that field. I mean, and I always kind of joke around with sub folks about that because I never wanted to be on a sub myself. You know, there's no windows. I don't typically like that. But you gotta have a special person to do it and they gotta be smart. And the women that are doing it are fantastic. And the professionalism of our submarine force is just amazing. And again, and it's so unfortunate to me that we have a Secretary of Defense that would like retweet this stuff because you're literally, you're slapping the face of the people that are working for you, the professional people that are working under you. So that's all I'll say on that.
- [42:26]
C
And he fired, of course he fired the competent, apparently, yes, very competent woman who had been, who was with cno, right? I guess, yeah.
- [42:33]
B
Right. The chief of Naval as well as, as lots of other women and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who happen to be a person of color. So there's a lot going on there with P. Tech, Seth. In my mind, it's a lot of insecurity, frankly. But let's move on. Kim Davis, the former Kentucky clerk, Kentucky county Clerk who in 2015 refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples due to her religious beliefs. She is back in the news. She filed an appeal which has gone up to the Supreme Court to overturn the Obergefell versus Hodges. You know, that, that, that's what legalized gay marriage around the country at legalized same sex marriages. She has filed this to overturn it. And you know, to me, I thought, I always thought, thought this issue was kind of done in America. But here we are, we have a Supreme Court that has overturned Roe, which I also thought was kind of a done issue at one point in terms of like the legal right. And now I'm kind of worried. Are you?
- [43:54]
C
I mean, I'm not worried in the narrow sense that I don't think the court's going to take the case. And I think there's not. I think they're very, very unlikely to strike down same sex marriage after 10 years. But the, yeah, the. I am. What I guess I'm amazed by is the extremism on the right and that it's come back. It's, it's stronger than I expected. It's more radical, more extreme than I expected, you know, obviously, I mean, I was a Republican and I, you know, we always had people on our flanks who were a little crazy about different issues. We fought them sometimes. Pat Buchanan and others, I was certainly pleased when he left the Republican Party in 1999. But. But others, we kind of accommodated. You know, probably, maybe it was a mistake, but whatever. You know, they were part of the coalition. But I mean, to be fair, I think Bush, Romney, McCain kept him in check, if you know what I mean. And mostly, and what's striking is I don't think this woman represents that many people, but I haven't heard a whole lot of Republicans saying, well, that's out of the question. That's ridiculous. You know, that's a bad idea. I don't associate myself with that. I don't know. You're there, you're closer than I am. Are the senators from Kentucky all saying.
- [44:56]
B
Oh, they're not, they're not saying anything.
- [44:58]
C
Are you saying members of Congress, I mean, members of the governor.
- [45:01]
B
I'm not going to. Well, the governor. The governor might say something, but. But certainly the Republicans in the state.
- [45:07]
C
Are going to say democratic governor. Yeah, but the Republicans are.
- [45:10]
B
Yeah. Our governor, may. I feel like here's the other thing that's interesting about Kim Davis. She is the Kentuckian bringing this case. She has been married, Bill. Four times. Four times. And she is like saying, oh, I'm gonna bring a case about the sanctity of marriage. I mean, you can't make this stuff up. I don't know. All right, so recently the Smithsonian got a letter from the White House saying that the White House is now doing, I guess, an investigation where they want all of Smithsonian exhibitions to reflect Trump's views on history. And this also is one of these things that's like, maybe not the front page news, but it seems pretty, I don't know, Stalinesque to me. What are your thoughts?
- [46:06]
C
Totally. We have a good piece on this in the Bulwark this morning by a historian. I mean, it'd be one thing if you looked at the people who were governing the Smithsonian, both the staff, but also the boards of advisors. You can put on a couple of conservative historians if you think it's got a little unbalanced in the presentation, but a letter that supposed to, okay, so restore some balance. I don't know it soundly. I live here in D.C. or outside D.C. i haven't heard a lot of complaints about Smithsonian exhibits, but it's conceivable but reflect Trump's view of history. What the hell is that about? Who cares what his view? First of all, does Donald Trump have a view of history? No, he has a view that he doesn't like it when people talk about certain topics that are from the past or the present, that, that discomfort him as he wants a kind of, you know, as you say, so Stalinist. You know, everything was always been great until the woke. People got involved and then it got really bad. And so you can't have anything divisive. That's like the letter says. And then it's all supposed to be about Americanism. So it's kind of creepy in that way. But the idea that they're supposed to listen to Trump, that's not. The president has no right to tell or shouldn't. In a healthy liberal democracy, the President would be president, he'd do whatever he does. And, you know, these other organizations would be semi autonomous and they would report, obviously they get appropriated funds and they would report up to different administrators and so forth, but they would be. The President would not directly say that I want you to reflect my view of history. And the Kennedy center thing is the same. And it's similar in the sense that it's, of course, that's just more comical and ridiculous. And Trump's picking Kennedy center honorees. Who cares, I guess, if he's deciding what shows will be put on there. He likes 80s musicals. That's very nice. But again, there's something, something really third world about it.
- [47:51]
B
And it's more than just like what he wants. I mean, he fired the director of the National Portrait Gallery. The Smithsonian has sort of done this preemptive, if you remember earlier this month, they took out the references to Trump, Trump's impeachment in 2019 and 2021. Now it was later restored because sort of people brought that up. But like, it's like universities, people are kind of like scared. They don't know what to do. And I also feel this is, this is sort of like Pete Hegseth taking down pictures of Jackie Robinson and the Tuskegee Airmen in the Pentagon. Like, we're just not going to talk about this part of our history anymore. You know, I don't know.
- [48:34]
C
And there is too much. You mentioned others taking down, you know, others. I mean, there's a fair amount of preemptive of capitulation and accommodation going on outside of the government. It's one thing if you're at a government funded agency. It's a little trickier to manage that. I appreciate that. But I know of two instances of Think tanks in the last couple weeks. Think tanks. I respect people. I like putting together panels. One case, selecting a speaker for an annual kind of event. And none of this involves me at all personally. But friends told me about this and the discussion was partly, well, we don't want to be at odds with the administration totally. We have people who are critical and that's great free speech. We, we want diverse scholars. We don't want to look like we're just picking fights for them because not that they're getting money necessarily, but we want to be able to have access and make our case and blah, blah, blah. So for all these kind of good reasons, we're proud of our work. We want them to influence policy. They're not having a speaker who would really be viewed as kind of too critical of Trump. So that's happening a lot more than I think I would have anticipated honestly, and maybe more than people realize because a lot of it is a quiet discussion in a boardroom somewhere and then they invite someone else. They don't invite someone terrible. They don't invite Pete Hexess brother or something to speak, you know, but they don't invite the controversial person. And we saw that with the Naval Academy. Right.
- [49:47]
B
Yes, we did.
- [49:48]
C
At West Point too, I guess. Right. Recently in terms of who could be a guest lecturer there. I think it was a position and very well qualified person incidentally in that case. Right. Who just gets bumped.
- [49:59]
B
She was a graduate, retired colonel, worked in the government in a nonpartisan way, was an independent. Independent. And yeah, these stories. Because she told the truth about the 2020 election, apparently.
- [50:10]
C
Yeah, that's literally it though. I mean she's not like she was out, you know, being a full time campaigner. I don't believe for. No, that's or anything like that. And yeah, and, and then, and it happens. And the Secretary of the Army, I mean, that's the thing. All the enablers. It makes me sick. Some of these people have a little bit better backgrounds than Pete Hagseth. I mean it doesn't take much a better one, but they have, have considerably. They're like semi serious people. They were reputable figures. They come in and Trump, you know, Heath tells them to do this and they're going about, they don't fight back. I mean, whatever. The first term there was so much more resistance which had a real effect incidentally in checking Trump. And this time they've carefully selected loyalists for all these top positions. The Republican Senate, they have a huge amount to answer for. I think if Hegseth And Kennedy and one or two others had been. Not confirmed. Had not been confirmed, I feel like. And then he'd have to take someone else. It wouldn't have been, believe me, people you and I like, who would be in these jobs. There would have been a sense of, there are certain limits. There are certain things you kind of shouldn't go beyond. And now that's all gone. I mean, the United States Senate, 50, 51, 52 out of 53 Republicans, not like 70% of them, but 95% of them, voted to confirm these obviously unqualified and dangerous people in many cases, to these jobs. Very hard to then sustain any internal, I mean, internal checks within the administration, because one of the checks in the administration, as you know, having been in and around government is, well, this will cause trouble for us on the Hill if we do this, so we gotta be a little careful. But now nothing causes trouble on the Hill among the Republicans. It's really the danger of that kind of combination. The administration full of loyalists with no guardrails, a Republican Congress that just goes along with everything, a media ecosystem that parrots and publicizes the lies and the disinformation. It's genuinely dangerous.
- [51:59]
B
It is dangerous. And that, and that leads me to this, this last point, this firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics head, replacing her with the guy from the Heritage foundation. You know, 2/3 of Americans view the economy negatively. So my guess is Trump looks at that and says, well, I got to change that view.
- [52:19]
C
Right?
- [52:19]
B
Right. Because this is hurting me. So I'm going to change the view. I'm going to change the messenger. I'm going to change what the data says. So I'm going to put my, my economist who's completely unqualified, by the way, his name is E.J. antoni. And we find out this morning, by the way, that he was in the crowd, in the insurrection there on the Hill and on January 6th. But, you know, a loyalist who's, who's going to go in there and falsify the data that's given to the America and the world. I mean, I, I just think this is alarming.
- [52:56]
C
Totally. And it's very much of a piece, as we've said, with the other loyalists, and this is particularly traditionally totally nonpartisan, by the book, very kind of nerdy economist place, very much the data sacrosanct. I remember when we were in the White House, you don't get to see it ahead of time. You don't get to butt in at all. It's there. It's very much Supposed to be credibility of it depends on there being no political involvement that's now gone. But it's a good case study. Also, the way in which the. You get, you know, the frog in the water problem. I mean, the boiling water. Right. I mean, he fires the woman who's totally competent, who has run the place with total integrity so far as we know. Then there's a day or two. Well, the deputy's taking over. I think he, too, is a career person, so maybe it's not quite as bad. Trump was being irrational. He was annoyed by the numbers. But, you know, but then there was a little bit of, gee, Steve Bannon and some people on the far right want this guy from Heritage to be appointed. And he. He's got a. Nominally a PhD in economics, but he's not a serious person. That won't happen, though. Maybe they'll get some economists we don't like that much, but at least they'll get someone who's respectable and they nominate him. Then it turns out he was in the crowd on January 6th. He seems to do these zooms like we're doing with the Bismarck as the ship behind him, the German ship which Hitler personally commissioned in 1939, famous because it got destroyed pretty quickly by the British Navy, I guess, in 41, and then they dug it up 20 years ago. There's a lot of publicity. It's a famous ship. I guess maybe he just likes famous battleships and he has them on his wall. And the one he chooses to do zooms in front of is. Is a German one, not an American one, for whatever reason. It's a little unusual. It's a little unusual, I would say. But I mean, you know, I don't mean that. Yes.
- [54:40]
B
The German Bismarck in the background or something.
- [54:42]
C
Have you seen this? Yeah. Yeah. Literally. Yeah. You go. So go look on. Yeah, that's the. That's like.
- [54:46]
B
That is the German battleship that people.
- [54:49]
C
And it's big. I mean, it's not like a living little like he's got eight battleships. You know what I mean? It's a big kind of mural.
- [54:54]
B
One of the biggest ever built, I think.
- [54:55]
C
No, but I mean, then the mural behind him is big.
- [54:57]
B
Oh, okay.
- [54:58]
C
It was one of the biggest ever built. It turns out, like, it wasn't very apparent. I read up on this for five minutes. I mean, it, like, didn't work out very well because the British Navy took care of it after nine months. I did some damage and then they. They sunk it. But the. Anyway, but no. So the guys, obviously, in addition to not being qualified, sort of a weirdo and whatever. And yeah, and this will be a good one. Will he get confirmed by the Republican Senate? I, I, I guess a little bit of me thinks, I don't know, maybe this is a bridge too far. There are some actual business types and economist types in the Republican conference who look at this and think, okay, I have to go along with Hegseth. He's a Fox News personality. This guy is a nobody. And I don't have to go along with this. But you know what? They're probably going to go along.
- [55:39]
B
They're probably going to go along. I mean, I, I, I feel the same way. And, and there's a lot of people that look at all of this and I feel like, like have this idea that, oh, the Senate's, the Senate's not really going to go through with it. This guy is so, you know, whether it's jfk, first it was Hegseth. And I remember talking to a retired flag officer who told me, you know, when I asked, hey, are you worried about this, this nomination? This, this guy is completely unqualified to be Secretary of Defense. And the, an, the response was, I don't think he'll get through committee. You know, and if he does, then maybe I'll say something. And I'm like, okay.
- [56:18]
C
And then if I could just, if I can, and if I could just interrupt and add, and then he won't get confirmed. And it gets confirmed. Well, he won't do some of these things. I mean, I know he complained about the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and totally unwarranted claim that he was political or unqualified or something. DEI appointment. Really disgraceful. Extremely. As I understand you would know more than I, very well respected throughout the military. Seakera. And it won't really fire them. That was just talking locked up fires them. I mean, I mean, the degree to which people just won't come to grips with what is happening is alarming.
- [56:49]
B
It is, it is. Well, I don't want to end completely on a negative note. We always on this show end with the cheers on the unfiltered show. And the cheers is about something that good that happened that we'd like to highlight. I'll start with you. Is there anything that, that you think is happening that's, that's good or something that maybe happened in the last week?
- [57:10]
C
You know, I think the public is, you know, people vote, more people voted for Trump than should have, in my opinion. But a lot of them didn't quite want this you know, and I do. On the one hand, they should have known it was coming, to be honest. So I don't want to like excuse them. I think Trump said mass deportation. They don't really get to say, oh, I had no idea this might happen. On the other, they didn't really expect it to happen the way it is.
- [57:32]
B
Right.
- [57:32]
C
Same with these appointments, same with this BLS stuff if they're business supporter of Trump and stuff. So I feel like there's a better chance for Democrats to make the case that, look, however you voted in 24, you voted, and you may agree with Trump on issue X or issue Y or issue Z, but you do not want this guy unchecked within the administration, unchecked outside the administration, by Congress. It's too dangerous. So I actually think the chances of a pretty good democratic showing in 2026, with a slight caveat about the redistricting and the putting the thumb on the scale, but leaving the voting stuff, but that's why that's so important. But if that stuff doesn't hit in too badly, I think 2026 could be pretty good for Democrats.
- [58:12]
B
Yeah, I agree with you. I've been talking to a lot of folks who voted for Trump are lean Republican, and what you hear is, you know, we like kind of what he was trying to do. We sort of agree with that, but the way he's doing it is really bad. And here's the other thing I'm hearing. Republicans in Congress don't have the guts to stand up to him, to do what's right. These are Republicans saying this. They're saying, these guys are afraid of him. And we can't have that in this country. We gotta have people that can stand up to him when he does this. Overreach. So I'm hopeful too. But my cheers for this show, though, is gonna be completely non political. I wanna bring in something that I think is really cool. Just this week, over the weekend, the Major League Baseball got its first female umpire, a woman by the name of Jen Powell. Powell, I think, who has been a longtime umpire Many, many years, 30 some years, was called up to the majors and she worked first base and I think behind the plate at the Miami Marlins, Atlanta Braves doubleheader. And I just think that's great, great. And, and so I wanted to do a cheers to her. But also it got me thinking, Bill, like, of the other professional sports in America, have we had female umpires, referees? And do you, do you know this, like NFL? Do you know if the NFL's had a have female referees?
- [59:52]
C
I don't. I mean, I don't think they have, but I don't. Yeah.
- [59:55]
B
So they actually have. The only professional sport that's left that hasn't had a female female umpire or referee is hockey. So the NFL has had one. And I knew this because I took the kids up to Canton last summer and there's some women in the hall of Fame there. But the NBA has female referees. The Major League Soccer has referees, but the NHL hasn't. And mlb, the baseball, until this past weekend didn't. So I just think that's great. And cheers to her and to Major League Baseball for that. And I really appreciate you coming on the show and hosting this with me today. This is great.
- [60:42]
C
No, I really enjoyed it. Thanks. Thanks a lot. It's been great seeing you.
- [60:45]
B
Phil Kristol, everybody.