Even Trump’s Biggest Fans Will Cringe at WHCD Speech (John Heilemann/Bill Kristol) | Bulwark Podcast

0:00 It seems to be a piece with many other lame pseudo jokes that went over horribly. >> I think that even his biggest fans, if they watched it, honestly, would be sort of like, uh, he seems to have lost not just his fast ball, but his curveball, his slider, and his knuckle ball. Hey everyone, welcome to the Bullwork Podcast. I'm John Hileman. I'm have the great and extraordinary honor really. It's like the thrill of a lifetime in a lot of ways to be able to sit in the chair normally occupied I mean not literally the chair met metaphorical chair build normally occupied by Tim Miller who's off you know gallivanting around uh Europe having all kinds of fun and leaving this uh leaving us basically here we're like home alone here it's a

0:46 little bit like we're the Kulkin we're the Kulkin uh brothers here uh I'll be mauy you can be Kieran and we'll have fun here on the show today um Bill by the way uh He'll be back next week. So, for all of you who are like kind of sick of the replacements, the fill-ins, the subs, the the the red shirt team here. Uh, he's back next week. So, everyone can get excited about that. But, Bill, I was delighted when I there when I was asked by Tim to fill in for him. I was like, I want to do a Monday cuz Mondays are Bill Crystal day. And so, here we are. Good to see you. >> It's nice of you to say I wanted to do Monday when I heard you were pinchetting for Tim. It's a big upgrade. You know, I'm going to tell Tim that also next week. next week. You know, we'll see if our we'll see if Tim's loyal fans out there before I get now 72,000, you know, uh uh text messages, emails, and posts on social media. How could you be so disrespectful to Tim? He goes away for

1:32 one week, and here you guys are jumping on him. No, it's great to have you, John. And uh you can fill Tim's shoes. >> They're big shoes, but I'll do my best. Um and and I got to say, uh it was an eventful weekend. I also like the notion that it's a Monday podcast. It basically kind of do a little bit of looking backward because we never we don't have quiet weekends anymore in our politics. Bill used to be back in the day when you and I were younger men, we used to spend weekends in DC padding around the title basement, take taking a taking a bike ride now and then uh you know switching off. But uh every weekend now is another uh cavalcade of horrors. Before we jump into all this stuff is what's what's like as the the end of this weekend and we head in this week. What's like the very kind of like here's your the biggest thing you were fixated on over the weekend? What was like really most

2:17 front and center in your mind? >> I mean one of the bad things about Trump era is when instead of being fixated on whatever your favorite baseball team is not doing too well or thinking back still to Spain's fine victory in the World Cup, you do get fixated on things that have to do with Trump. though I I guess the military stuff. Look, I guess we'll talk about this, but I mean the degree to which I one knows that Hath is a very bad secretary of defense. I'm now worried that he's doing much more damage to our military than I previously had thought, which you know that's one of the institutions you think holds up best under adverse circumstances and it has many many times and I had talked with a couple of people who've served in the military just sort of randomly uh ran saw them or talked to them over the weekend and I they did not disabuse me of my fears, >> right? You know, so we headed into the weekend after, I would say, all of last

3:03 week, the question of there's war plans now in front of Trump. He's backed into a corner. You know, nothing he's doing is working. Um, and might he under those circumstances just decide to finally go forward and do the thing he's been threatening to do basically for the last like five months essentially, which is like rain hellfire down on on Iran and escalate the war in a really dramatic way. And the news of the weekend was he was presented with those plans. there was a thoroughgoing debate and he decided no he was not going to do that although the reasons for it to the extent the reporting is suggest that the reasons are basically we don't have enough bombs anymore uh the munitions stockpile is so low that General Kaine was basically like I don't think this is a great idea um talk a little bit about

3:49 that and and how we've managed to find ourselves you were just talking about Hexith um there's a lot of things to criticize Pete Hexith but the one of them it would seem to me is uh if it's the case that we've left ourel in a situation now where we basically can't fight a major war. We used to need to want to fight two major wars in two different theaters at the same time. We can't even really fight one now given the state of the munitions according to a lot of this reporting. >> Yeah. No, it really was striking and I was I guess a little rattled by that. I mean, one knew obviously that Donald Trump is not a great strategist or a strategist at all and that he's doing this based on a kind of hubris and and a whim and it's very foolish and we were going to pay a price for it. But the degree to which uh it's not just him being a bad commander-in-chief, but the drawing down our stockpiles, I think, especially of the things we use to shoot down incoming stuff and that's

4:35 presumably why people were killed a week ago. Not presumably that is how people were killed. Uh you know, those the casualties that Trump doesn't want to acknowledge the Trump defense department doesn't believe are part of the war in Iran even. I mean, really unbelievable, right? That thing on that actually that thing was on my mind. I should have mentioned that. I guess I wrote about it last Friday morning. I was so furious when I read that uh Thursday night, right, that they'd removed those four army soldiers uh killed in action from the from the website. But but that turns out to be I mean that's terrible but then it turns out to be I won't say the tip of the iceberg but a kind of indication of something much bigger which is the military is kind of complicit I would say in the cover up of how bad things have gotten in terms of our as you say our munitions especially anti- drone anti- anti-missile anti-aircraft maybe anti-aircraft as well munitions in in the region then

5:23 over the weekend there were stories weren't there about the uh appointment of the new chief of naval operations for the Navy and how incredibly politicized that was. You put that together with all the firings we've seen obviously. So, we have hirings and firings politicized. Stories about West Point and the the lack of free speech anymore of teaching at the military academy there. Uh there sort of one thing after another that just made you think it's not just that Trump is a bad commander-in-chief. It's not just that Hagath is really kind of repulsive, I'd say, as Secretary of Defense. It's that they really are doing some real damage now to this one institution that has held up so well over the over recent decades through thick and thin. And I had thought and do think still is probably holding up better than most of our institutions in the federal government against the Trump and Trumpist onslaught. But it turns out you can do a lot of damage, you know,

6:09 when you've got a secretary of defense and people willing to go along with him and he removes the people who might have stood up to him and he's got the backing of the White House and he I guess wanted to show Trump that everything was going great. So he just they just I can't believe the military thought this was wise. They know how many interceptors they have, right? And they don't think it's a good idea to shoot the wall off in the first two or three weeks, but Hexath must have been insisting on it. And sadly, people in command seem to have gone along with it. What do you think about that? I mean, you've covered this stuff for a long time. I mean, >> well, I I think that the to your your broadest point, CQ Brown, who was the the chairman of the Joint Chiefs when Trump came back for Trump 2.0, he was a African-American gentleman. he was removed and and the the argument was it was the beginning of of Hexo's kind of war on DEI, right? And Bill, I think

6:55 that that to your point about the way in which the the damage has been done to the culture of the military, that was the first thing because the thing that you and I both know um and I'm I'm not a a Pentagon reporter, but I've been around for a long time and talked to a lot of people who who have been in military in the military at the highest levels and and all the way down is that we the the military is the most meritocratic institution in America. It's a life and death thing, right? You don't get to be chairman of the joint chiefs on the basis of DEI. They have no time for for DEI. And it's one of the wonders of the military is that it's been this meritocratic institution that has also proved to be because of that one of the great mechanisms of social mobility in America where extraordinary uh figures from from various uh various

7:41 parts of the American gorgeous mosaic have been able to rise up to the tops. you know, Colin Powell, the most uh notable, the CQ Brown thing was like they're starting to wage war on a culture of DEI that doesn't even exist. And I think that you've seen that now play out over the course of the last 16 months. Not just the DEI thing, but the ways in which all of these things have become politicized. And I don't think there's literally an American institution that one should have more reverence for the military for those reasons. does not say that everything that everything the Pentagon's ever done has been great, but that the institution itself I the damage that's been done I think is I don't think we've yet counted the the cost to it and I don't think we yet have our arms around it and I do think it's one of those things that when we get to the other side of Donald Trump um that is going to need a significant

8:27 amount of repair um and serious repair when we think about like what damage has been done to American democracy by Donald Trump over the last 10 years. This is one of those institutions where whoever decides that they're going to be in charge of leading the democratic restoration America, the first place, one of the first places they're going to have to start is on the military and and counting the actual cost and then doing that repair work. Sorry to go on at length about that, but I feel I think it's like one of the things that most upsets me even though I am not a veteran. I but I I've come over time to really appreciate the value of this institution, American life, and to see it degraded the way it's been degraded over the last 16 months is really upsetting. >> No, absolutely. And I mean, I've been a critic of the milit I am not a veteran and I don't presume to have great knowledge of military affairs, but I remember when I was a critic of Rumsfeld and Casey's original strategy in in Iraq

9:13 in 2003 2004, I was following John McCain's lead, the late Lindsey Graham actually, and people who knew a heck of a lot more about it than I did and actual people who'd served and were serving and quietly were talking to us about the lack of a counterinsurgency strategy and so forth. that it wasn't going as well as Ronell's Pentagon was saying even there they made mistakes I think but you know there were the mistakes that get made in an institution in a bureaucracy by by individuals by uh systems uh and ultimately they got fixed a little too late unfortunately in Iraq the surge worked but it was too late to really save the overall enterprise and probably shouldn't have done it if it was going to be mismanaged the way it was but having said all that it was still a very well functioning institution and people respected it and people respected people coming out of it as they should have And the way I was to someone over the weekend actually was talking about this was you know look he

9:59 said well you've been a critical military. Yeah there are times when I thought their leadership was B or even C or C plus as opposed to A or A minus but that's just life right. I mean it's different from taking a wrecking ball to it and that's really what we have now. We don't know how many people have left. How many people I just talked to someone today this morning actually weirdly who has a relative in the military not weirdly but I mean just talking about this person up for promotion not at the general officer level but not too far below that uncertain what's going to happen uncertain whether uh he or she should stay in just the the degree to which people have left people have requested assignments to get them out of Washington I talked to someone for whom this was the case recently and again it's it's probably not good for this person's career it's less of a fast track but couldn't stand really being in

10:45 the Pentagon and the kinds of things that were happening and worried that at some point this person was worried that he or she would have to make a real decision that would be unethical or you know contrary to what they thought was right. There's a story in the Washington Post this morning. I think it's in the Post about these drug boat hits which I think you and I have both been very unhappy about and very dubious legality and sort of seem like murder on the high seas. This happened last October. By the judgment of almost every military, senior military person pe person that I've spoken to who is no longer in the military across the spectrum ideologically, they all are like, "Those look like war crimes to me." >> Yeah. And it turns out they're not even cutting back on the flow of cocaine. So, it's not just they're doing things you and I and I think most people don't like or don't like too too mild think are really wrong to do and and not the US should not be doing them. It's also not

11:30 working. It's It' be one thing. I mean, honestly, it would be one thing if they were doing things that we thought were over the line that okay, you know, that's sort of how war is, blah, blah, blah. None of it's working. They're not showing slowing the the the drug traffic. They're not winning the war in Iran. God knows. They're not strengthening our deterrence around the world. They're not making us more respected. They're not only not making us more liked or more trusted. They're not even making us more feared. I mean, it really is. So, in that respect, I do think the the and we're only 18 months in to your point just a minute ago. We got two and a half more years of this. I mean, I could go on at great length about the drug boats, but you don't need to be an expert. All you have to do is watch a few seasons of Narcos to know that like blowing the the an isolated drug boat out of the water. You could blow 50 of them out of the water. And for the cartels, that's like cost of doing business. A, it's not going to

12:15 change the the gross tonnage of of of drugs coming into the United States. And number two, it's not going to create any kind of disincentive to to keep trying because those are expendable. Those are drug mules. They're expendable. that is all like in the it's a rounding error on the P&L for the narco states and the narco terrorists who who run the the the drug cartels in in South America. So you again you have to be a genius to know that this is not going to be effective in addition to being morally offensive and legally offensive that it's going to be a total waste of time and that is what it's proving to be. >> And what a footnote to that in fact I think the article shows that the drug cartels have adjusted their their way of getting you go closer to the shore they don't go into international they use bigger boats near the shore instead of small ones in international waters. So again that's something that hath I guess and unfortunately I worry about Kane and about some of the senior people. I assume they know better, but they're not

13:02 speaking back or they just overridden or maybe they don't know better in some cases or they just decided to go along. >> But I mean this lesson that you know what the enemy can change its modus operandi. It can change the way it's doing things if we start to do things one way. That's kind of an elementary point about life in general, not just about the military. And they seem not to have thought about that about Iran or about the drug boats. You guys know we love Ridge around here. They make amazing power banks, wallets, luggage, and premium everyday gear. Uh the power banks in particular have been a lifesaver for me. I can keep all my devices charged on the go without carrying around those million different charging cables that get kind of caught up with each other and you don't know what fits in what. Well, now Rage is back with their legendary sweep stakes for the sixth year and this time it's bigger than ever. The sweep stakes runs from July 24th through September 8th. Tony Hawk is the official spokesperson

13:49 this year. So, you already know it's going to be insane. Two lucky winners will get to choose between, and I kid you not as I'm about to list this, a Lamborghini Hurricane Strato, a Ford Hennessy Velociraptor, a souped-up Ford Bronco, or $100,000 in cash. Yeah, you get to choose between those. Honestly, I take the cash. But if you're a car person, this is an awesome opportunity. Here's the best part. You can enter completely free at ridge.com. There's no reason not to enter. Why not just take your shot? And if you want to boost your chances, you can earn additional entries by picking up Ridge Gear during the sweep stakes. Whether it's the power bank that we love, wallet, luggage, or something else you've been having your eye on, you'll earn extra entries with your purchase. Ridg's power bank is built for modern life, lightning, USBC,

14:36 wireless charging, built-in cables, Mag Safe compatibility, and up to three full phone charges. Ridge 2.0 is their most refined wallet yet. It's 10% lighter, more modular. It's designed to pair perfectly with the new tracker card, so you never have to worry about losing your wallet again. No matter what you pick, Ridge has free shipping, a 99-day risk-free trial, and over 100,000 five-star reviews. Ready to upgrade your wallet, maybe a ride? For a limited time, only head to ridge.com and use the code labwork at checkout for 10% off your order and a chance to win Ridg's biggest sweeps ever. A Lamborghini Hurricane Strada, a Hennessy Velociraptor, a Ford Bronco, or $100,000 in cash. No purchase necessary to enter, but every dollar you spend gets you more

15:22 entries. That's ridge.com and use the bull work. After purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them our show sent you. So, let's just think about a little bit more about the Iran thing. Mike Waltz went on did a round of the Sunday shows and and basically said, you know, we have all the munitions we need. And also at the same time, the munitions have been left in a terrible state by Joe Biden. He's the one who screwed us here. And you're kind of like, dude, you're really literally contradicting yourself in in every one of these interviews. He's saying this talking out of both sides of his mouth. We the the war now is on hold. The potential escalation of the of the war is on hold. Uh for the reasons that we've just talked about, you now have uh this week uh the funeral of Lindsey Graham uh and has got a lot of foreign leaders who are in town. One of them uh we'll talk about

16:08 both of them frankly because they're both important in different uh theaters of operation right now. One of them is is uh Benjamin Netanyahu has been banging on the door at the White House trying to get a meeting with Donald Trump. Has not been back to the Oval Office uh to see Trump since the meeting now famous meeting from uh Maggie Herman and Jonathan Swans reporting where he made the case for uh why not only we should go to war, but why it would be relatively easy to have regime change and have a an unccork an Iranian revolution uh from the streets. He's now come he's now back and he's going to get to see Trump uh tomorrow. There's obviously a lot of tension between uh America and Israel now tension between Trump and BB now. What do you imagine that Netanyahu is going to try to get done in that meeting and what will be a win for him uh coming out of it? You

16:54 know, I don't know. I mean, I don't know how much his pressure or the pressure of his allies has caused Trump to not do what really was the obvious thing to have done after two or three or four weeks or even six or eight weeks. Uh, which was to say, okay, we did a lot of damage. You can put a nice face on it so it doesn't look like a humiliation to the US even though it is a little bit would have been then a little bit and say, you know, we're getting out. Okay. And the straight of horses isn't open quite the way it was before, but they'll try to paper that over and stuff. That was the obvious exit for Trump. I kind of thought he would take it actually about too. I think I've been right about Trump that he didn't want to go to a full-scale war in a ground operation. He's he knows that that's not a good idea, but I was wrong that he would just take the L uh as I say, put put the best face on it and get out. So now he here he is 5 months he's showing up on the

17:40 fifth on the fifth anniversary, isn't it? What is today? The 27th year. So he's showing up on the fifth anniversary of Trump and Israel going to war against Iran. It has not been good for the US. It's not been good for Israel, incidentally, in my opinion. Uh, will he try to persuade Trump that yes, you can still do it. Go for it all. I just I mean with what ground troops? I mean to to to seize the strait and then to try to go after the for regime change. I mean whatever the possibility of doing that was 5 months ago and it doesn't it didn't work and it didn't I don't think Trump was ever going to do quite enough. Well, I'm not sure he could have honestly, but uh I don't think he's going to do it now. So I honestly don't know. I don't know. What do you what do you did you have a thought about what he's going to say? I mean >> I think Netanyahu at this point is is ex extraordinarily highly focused on the his re-election. Um, in addition to

18:25 obviously I I don't mean to to say that all of the regional security concerns and everything else Israel is doing is not in his mind, but I think his re-election is going to come before the midterms. We know what the midterms have done in terms of shaping Trump's calculus. Uh, you know, the it is it remains the case, I believe, that Donald Trump is a lot more popular figure in Israel than BB Netanyahu is. And that's not to say that Netanyahu has has managed to turn his bellacosity into a political strength for a long time, but he has uh he's someone who's barely holding together that coalition that he needs to hold together in order to continue to to be prime minister there. And he needs Trump's support. I mean, Trump actively turning against Netanyahu in an election in that election would potentially be the end of Netanyahu. And so I think, you know, I my guess is at least part of what DB is doing in this

19:12 meeting is trying to get things back on track enough with the White House that he doesn't have to worry about the prospect of Donald Trump turning actively against him and and thereby uh uh ending his his reign in in Israel and then putting him in a position, as we all know, where he's have to go back and and face these court cases against him uh for corruption and a whole bunch of other accountability that he would have to face if he doesn't get reelected. I think that's got to be pretty close to the top of his mind when he gets in there, which is just like, "Hey boss, can we get back to being friends again? This kind of this kind of this kind of mounting degree of tension and antipathy is not really good for my politics and therefore for my senior years." >> No, that's a really good point. You know, I hadn't really the election how much of it for BB will be an election visit. And incidentally, that will mean he will pull his punches, won't it?

19:58 Probably. And so for example the Saudi nuclear deal which incidentally is another very bad thing I think the administration has done Israel is actually against it and normally an Israeli prime minister would I think feel it compelled as you know from his point of view is just country's national interest to say here are all the cautions about that and if you don't have the kind of inspection standards even what are we doing giving this you know path to nuclear weapons to another nation in the Middle East I mean but maybe he'll pull his punches on that but then he'll get criticized maybe at home I don't know he's probably in a tough position but you're right I think for him he needs he needs Trump at least nominally on board. I guess they'll talk a lot about the Abraham Accords which both have touted as like you know big changing big change events in the Middle East. How's that worked out incidentally? These Abraham Accords was signed what 2018 2019 or something. Since then we've had you know huge attack on Israel uh war obviously in

20:45 Gaza and and and elsewhere and now the attacks on Iran and Iran being stronger than it ever has been. closing the straight of Hormuz, something they never did after all these decades of being at odds to say the least with us and of course with Israel. I guess they'll try to paper it over, huh? >> The level of inconstency uh foreign policy in constancy on Trump's part. Uh and I don't didn't say incontinents, although you know, one could metaphorically go there too, but in constancy, which is like the the the notion of doing the nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia was on the table for it felt like basically it was it it was like on the table for like a couple of of heartbeats. I mean, and before it was pulled off again. It's just anyway, I think is a general matter not great for American foreign policy to be constantly, you know, we're doing this, no, we're doing that, you know, we're

21:30 doing this, no, we're doing that. Constant, you know, consistency is an important attribute, but do you think that there was ever any I mean, I looked at that deal from the very beginning and thought there is no way this is going to happen given the kind of push back you would get from Israel and from others. um the notion of of of of opening up another nuclear Pandora's box in the Middle East. I just sort of thought somehow that thing's going to fall apart um under pressure and and I don't know, maybe it's only temporarily falling apart, but the fact that it fell apart quite so quickly made me think, you know, this is not really this is not a thing that's long for this world. >> Now, you could be right. On the other hand, they did sign something as the Saudis pointed out. So, I don't know. when there's big business interests, real business as well as Trump family business interests uh interested in this. I really don't know. But your your point about the inconstency is really

22:16 important and again it's one thing to have obviously administrations change policy over time and the countries change policy over time but yes to change it every 24 hours is not good on on a matter of some real importance. I mean this is where I do think everyone in the world looks at this and says come on I mean we cannot depend on these people. It's not just that they're not nice to us. It's not just that, you know, they're not trustworthy the way allies are supposed to be. They're just undependable in the most fundamental sense. And if Saudis think they need to have nuclear weapons now, which is sort of what was signaled by this, right? They're they're pushing for this even more than they have been. What do Japan and South Korea think? What do other nations think? I mean, I just think the degree to which the whole thing is fraying because of really just because of Trump. And I mean, obviously, there were reasons it might have frayed. Anyway, I don't want to deny that. But actually, under Biden, a lot of this the

23:02 alliances in some ways had come back together a little bit more. I'm not going to defend every aspect of Biden's foreign policy, God knows. But, uh, and it wasn't inevitable, I think, that this whole order would crumble to this with the speed it has. This war really has been really bad. Really a disaster. I think more I thought it was going to be bad. I didn't quite expect it would do this much. The damage would radiate out in so many directions. You know what I mean? >> So, let me let me get to to Zilinsky here. other meeting uh on Tuesday. both these meetings same day. uh another uh leader from uh who was in town for the Lindsey Graham funeral and someone who frankly the loss of Lindsey Graham is a meaningful thing because there was was well you can say a lot of things about Lindsey Graham a lot of things have been said about Lindsey Graham but one thing that Lindsey Graham was not inconsistent on was his support of Ukraine and if you're Vimir Zilinsky you show up in

23:49 town kind of thinking you know I have some work to do here he's got this meeting to go see Trump and the most incredible thing about this story is the way in which Laura Loomer who uh as batshit crazy as anybody who's ever been on the MAGA right uh suddenly starts talking like a a completely sensible sane person uh and says you know what I realized that a lot of the stuff that right-wing MAGA podcasters were saying seemed to be influenced by Russian propaganda and I suddenly decided you know what I should go over to uh Ukraine and see for myself she did this interview with the AP uh where she uh explained why she's now done a total about face and is completely on the side

24:35 of Zalinski. Let's play this here. >> When I started to see a lot of these woke Reich, as I call them, podcasters in the United States turn on President Trump and you know start to spew a lot of anti-semitic rhetoric, I started thinking, wow, why where are people getting their information from? This is just so crazy. And when I looked at the social media landscape and ecosystem, I realized RT was doing most of the clipping and the promotion on social media of these people's clips. >> So, Bill, I saw um uh JBL and and some of your colleagues there saying, you know, in this one very narrow way, uh Laura Loomer sounds like she may be the last sane person or the biggest still grown up in the MAGA coalition, but she was quoted in that story, that AP story.

25:20 She says it's looking good for Ukraine, right? Going into this meeting next week at the Oval Office is looking pretty good. Uh and there was the interview she did with Zilinski. Trump on Soap Truth Social uh retweeted retruth or whatever they call it uh the interview that Loomer did with Zilinsky and wrote very good with about 14 exclamation points as is his wand. What is going on there in your judgment um about Zilinski standing with the White House and about suddenly uh him embracing I mean I if you're if you're Vironsky you'll embrace anybody who will help you with the White House presumably because you're trying to your stakes are existential but what is going on there from your vantage point? >> I mean God knows I I guess two things I do I I guess I do know uh I think Ukraine is doing much better than anyone expected including me 18 months ago.

26:06 really and really a kind of remarkable story. I bet historians, military historians, you know, 5, 10, 25 years from now will write the story of this country one quarter the size of the dictatorship that invaded it, you know, written off at the beginning and then written off sort of later after Trump comes in and they we did cut off tens of billions of dollars of aid. Uh, and somehow its own technological development and innovation and ingenuity, I mean, the drone stuff is really kind of amazing. I talked to some military types and they they are amazed by it. and Trump sort of wants to be on the side of winners and so maybe that makes him less less anti-Seansky plus Putin's disappointed in my stuff. So uh that's good. I'm it's very important that Zinsky hold on the Ukraine hold on and he possibly win. There have been some internal issues Silinsky Minister of Defense stuff and all I can't but he

26:52 it being a democracy there was a lot of pressure on him and so he actually rescended the initial appointment he made sort of different from from Putin's Russia. So that the Silinsky side I mean on the Laura Loomer side I mean I'm of two minds as I imagine most people are about this >> at least two at least two minds >> you don't want to give her a lot of credit you know as a kind of serious observer and student of these things who knows what's really going on there but having said that I got to think it's got to have some effect in mag world when one after another on different issues Marjorie Taylor Green on Epstein whatever loomer Ukraine start to say wait we were lied to I mean I doesn't it have some I mean it's got some effects even on that impenetrable Trump base. I think I >> I don't know how much any of those individual people like whether it's Loomer or MTG, their comments to the extent they amplify a growing sense

27:39 among a lot of people in the in who voted for Trump that that they have been uh they've been lied to um and that Trump uh either lied to them specifically on on some specific set of issues or that was in general that he turns out to be a fraud and and in this all for himself and isn't really different from every other politician that they disdain. I think it, you know, that that rhymes with with a growing sentiment. It's kind of part of the atmospheric uh difficulty that Trump finds himself in right now in terms of uh not having that many people who are willing to uh want to stand with him. And it's worth saying as we kind of transition out of this. I mean, I think one the last thing about Zilinsky here interesting. I thought this one thing that I saw over the weekend, which was that's one of the things Zilinski is going to do is share evidence with the White House showing

28:24 that Russia is assisting Iran uh in targeting American bases in the Middle East uh via satellite surveillance. And it said in this in this reportage, it said they had specific dates July 19th and 20th um when four bases fell within the Arab interest of Russian satellites. Two in Bahrain, one in Jordan, and one in Kuwait. I mean, Donald Trump likes to be with winners, as you said. Donald Trump has also liked to be with with Vladimir Putin. um who is you know I guess in his mind is a winner. Uh for a long time he thought Zilinsky was a loser even though Zilinsky to your point has done one of the most extraordinary things in the history of modern warfare and being able to do what he's done over the course of this of this conflict. But I just wonder when the rubber meets the road where Zilinski is sitting there trying to basically say to Trump, look, you want to win this war in Iran. I have specific evidence that Russia is is is

29:12 helping is helping Iran. Here are the dates. Here's the the receipts. Whether that cuts any ice with Trump or whether that is yet the kind of thing that an irrational world would cut ice with any president but just won't with him because of whatever kind of core reflexive Putin love and fear or admiration or whatever uh that he just won't let go of. Maybe at least helps Republicans on the Hill say, "Well, whatever the president might have reacted, I this seems pretty convincing and we do need to pass this package Lindsey Graham was working on actually of sanctions on Russia." At least this segment is sponsored by the New York Times. So, John and Bill's conversation today relied on a lot of original reporting. We had things like Lauren Negan's deep dive into Ken Martin's wos at DNC. We had Politico story on BB

30:00 Netanyahu's efforts to get a meeting with Trump. We had NBC and the New York Times reporting on the state of the military and the conflict in Iran. Before John and Bill could give their takes on these stories, however, these reporters had to track those stories down. They had to interview sources and they confirm the information and then write about it. The foundation of news commentary is fact-based reporting. This show and every other show with commentary on current events, that depends on original fact-based reporting. The Bullwork, Politico, NBC, The New York Times, your local paper are all sources that you can trust for fact-based reporting. Here's one example from John and Bill's conversation. Over the weekend, Eric Schmidt and Jonathan Swan at the New York Times published this crucial story about the White House's deliberations about the next

30:46 move in Iran. Now, Eric and Jonathan relied on sources they have spent months and years developing to give us insight into the highest levels of decision-making. They found that Trump had been persuaded by his advisers to hold off on escalating our attacks on Iran, at least in part because of concerns about the dwindling stockpiles of munitions. This is a huge story. It reveals that under the Trump administration, the US military has been so poorly managed that we don't have enough of our weapons we need to fight the war that we started. And while this may not be a surprising story for those of us who have been critical of the administration, without fact-based reporting like this, the rest of us are just guessing about what's actually happening inside our government. Wherever you seek it out, nationally, locally, support fact-based reporting.

31:32 So, I was saying this thing about how Trump is various people inside the administration who will who are willing to uh to to say whatever he wants them to say, but anyone outside uh in the Republican party, the reality of the midterms coming into view um is is really starting to change certain things on the ground. And one of them, as we were reporting this morning, that that the White House is now telling uh as I knew this day would come, Bill, I predicted it many times, the day has come where the White House is saying to uh Republican Congress people in in contested districts and to Senate candidates in contested states, feel free to start putting yourself some putting some distance between yourself and the president. Um something that, you know, now, who knows, Trump may decide to attack those people when they do it. But the fact that the White House is now uh telling people, "Yeah, it's

32:18 time to start to cut Iran here," uh is really kind of extraordinary. And one of the best illustrations I can think of as to why that might be the case uh was Donald Trump's rather extraordinary performance at the White House correspondents dinner, um which I would love to speak with you about a little bit here. I know Tim does not like to play Sound of Donald Trump on the show, and I'm respectful of that. I understand the rationale for it. Uh, and and but I was reliably informed that it's not a hard and fast rule and that if we're going to talk about this White House correspondent dinner, we want to let people see what we're talking about because I assume most normal people were not watching this on Friday night uh for reasons that we can get into. Donald Trump attacked a lot of people uh over the course of this hour and five minute long speech that he gave Bill where he attacked you know every all of his normal political enemies and you know

33:04 went after uh Governor Nome and Adam Schiff and Chuck Schumer and attacked Bruce Springsteen and said that Springsteen's tour was bored in the USA. He's attacking all people. But the the most extraordinary in this rambling, insane, lunatic performance was his decision to suddenly turn on JB Pritsker. >> He's doing a bad job running a state. You can't have somebody like a JB Pritsker, who I understand is not president, sadly, but uh you know, some people say never use the fat word, and I don't. I would never call anybody fat. I have my own problems, you know. It's not like I'm perfect. sir in the back. Don't call him a fat pig. Okay, that's I'm sticking up for him. Don't call him you. You can't do

33:51 that, sir. You can't call JB Pritsker a fat pig, please. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Everyone's trying to figure out who is that guy? Does he exist? But the nice part is when you do that, the press can't get you because I'm defending a man who obviously has a problem. Actually, he's lost a lot of weight. I saw him recently. He lost quite a bit of weight. I don't know what the hell. He's got no chance. Believe me. >> Got no chance. Bill, I don't know if you've watched the full speech. I'll just let you I'll let you speak to the Donald Trump performance at this this insane event that I can't believe anybody in my business thought it was like a reasonable thing to go knowing that something like what happened would happen. >> Well, I totally agree on that point. Um,

34:37 and I agree that he seems to have bombed. I didn't watch it, needless to say. and haven't really haven't watched all of it or even chunks of it much. Uh Andrew Edgar had an excellent piece on it in morning shots this morning which we supposed to look at though about how how pathetic it is that Trump want still wants to ingratiate himself with this White House correspondents dinner. You know that's like a it was something he went to 14 years ago now and got insulted by he thought by President Obama and he just hasn't it's like his finally gets his chance to insult everyone I suppose but how sad is that? You're president of the United States. You're the most famous person in the world, I suppose, and you still got to show that you can do it. But how lame was that thing you I hadn't seen the prince cliff, honestly, even read about it. I mean, it's it seems to be a piece with many other lame pseudo jokes that went over horribly. He was terrible. I mean, even by like I sometimes I will

35:23 say and people will get >> he could be funny. He could be funny. >> He can be funny. There are times when Trump is actually, you know, it's part of the secret to why the man has won election twice over the course of the last 10 years, not three times as he claims, but is that a lot of normal people think Trump is, you know, is sort of funny. It's not my, again, it's not my preferred mode of humor, but I understand that he sometimes can be quite funny. This was not funny. This was just like incoherent and adult and mean. And anybody who's ever found anything charming about Trump, they were not present in this speech. They were. It was just a a kind of rambling adult, savage, stupid kind of uh performance that I think that even his biggest fans if they watched it honestly would be sort of like uh he seems to have lost not just his fast ball, but his curveball, his slider, and his knuckle

36:08 ball. >> Yeah. No, very much so. And so I don't know what effect it has. And um you know, I hope you're right that even Republicans are moving away from him. I don't know. Well, on the one hand, they they vote dutifully for this stupid war that they don't support in reality and for the defense budget increase that is very unpopular and that they probably some of them don't support and they're going to vote for Todd Blanch despite the fact that they probably know he shouldn't be attorney general. So, I do you I'm just curious because you follow this stuff closely. You're shrewd about it and look look around the corners maybe very effectively sometimes. Do you think there really is erosion? Will be erosion in support for him on the Hill or will it be more a little bit of just tonal change of attitude? >> I think it's important to make a distinction between erosion on the Hill in the sense of what they are when they're forced to vote on something

36:54 versus what you're going to see in battleground districts and in in Senate seats that are up for grabs. Where Trump is in Michigan, we'll talk about Michigan in a second, but Trump is in Michigan today. I can tell you I think this will be the last time you'll see Donald Trump in Michigan. U Mike Mike Mike Rogers is not going to invite Donald Trump to Michigan um between between now and election day. I don't know about Ken Paxton. Uh that might be one exception, but if you're running for Senate in Maine, if you're Susan Collins, Donald Trump's not going to be not going to be in Maine. And what the White House is saying to people now effectively is not so much, hey, feel free to vote against us, but is, hey, feel free to start making arguments on the campaign trail that are either implicitly or in some cases maybe even a little bit explicitly kind of contrary to Trump to to what Trump says to to not have him not invite him to the district

37:40 to kind of put kind of some distance between yourself. You don't have to be tied at the hip to Donald Trump going forward. And I think that's going to be an enormous relief for any Republican who's running in a battleground district, in a in a purple district, in a swing district, or or in one of these Senate seats that that that is going to determine control of the upper chamber. And I think you're going to see, you know, you can go around the map. You're not going to see Donald Trump in Ohio. You're not going to see Donald Trump in North Carolina. You're not going to see Donald Trump in Iowa. No one's going to want Donald Trump in their district or in their state if there's if it's going to be a close election. And I think the White House has just basically signaled to those people, it's fine. You don't have to pretend like you want Donald Trump to come here. And going forward, I do think on things on high-profile things like a lot of these nominations that that it will still there still will be a lock step loyalty. I I want to see a situation in which the United States

38:27 Senate rejects something Donald Trump wants before I'm willing to countenance the notion that that might start happening with any frequency. There's not been a single example of it the entirety of the last 16 months. So until there's one example of it, I'm not going to open my mind to the possibility of a whole bunch more. >> I'm totally with you on that. On the other side, I'm just curious. you've been through some of these midterms as I have. Um, do you think it will work the the quote distancing? I would say in the past it doesn't work, right? I mean, I was old enough to remember 1994 and bunch of southern Democrats, Tennessee for example, really did distance themselves from Clinton in pretty big ways. They lost just as badly as if they had never died. And 2010, I mean, we've been through these wave if it's a waveish election, I kind of feel it will be. I I it feels like almost it's the worst of both worlds. some of the Trump people won't turn out and the normal

39:13 swing voters as it were will say well you still need to check Trump we need Democrats to control Congress I don't know >> the elections have been are more nationalized than they ever have been number one and the overriding sense of most voters is correct which is that the Republican party has been the is the party of Trump and that they've been basically operating on autopilot uh at Trump's behest they're right about that and putting a little bit of distance between themselves and Donald Trump and doing a speech that says hey I know Donald Trump is kind of pretended like affordability is a a hoax or whatever. I don't think it's a hoax. I think it's real. It's like that's not going to that's not going to help anybody. The median voter is like the Republican party is the party of Trump and if they are interested in punishing Donald Trump, they're going to punish that party and and also to your point before Bill there their the level of enthusiasm

39:59 and this is the thing that there's been some reporting on over the weekend. In fact, I think a piece good piece in the Washington Post that basically was said that Republicans are starting to just freak out over the lack of enthusiasm among core Republican voters. And and I want to get to while we still have time, I want to get to a few of these domestic things. We'll go relatively quickly through them. Michigan is the one race in the Senate where Democrats are still nervous. Georgia, which was the other seat they worried about losing, um they're not as worried about that anymore. say Osaf has been a better thanex expected performer, has been a way better than expected fundraiser, and they got the nominee that they wanted in Mike Collins, the Trumpbacked nominee rather than the the Brian Kemp backed nominee. So, I think people are not as worried on the Democratic side about Georgia, but they're really worried

40:45 about Michigan. Um, and we have a debate tonight, the last debate between uh Abdul Elsa and and Haley Stevens. Uh, we also had Gretchen Whitmer, who remains a very popular governor in Michigan, who decided to endorse Haley Stevens, I think, not surprisingly. But on Friday, let's take a look at that. >> As governor, I've had one strategy, get things done. That strategy informs everything that I do. And that's why I'm endorsing Haley Stevens for the US Senate. Just like me, Haley will do whatever it takes to get things done for the people of Michigan. And we need her now more than ever. Republicans in DC are making your life harder and more expensive. Tariffs, cuts to Medicaid, soaring gas prices, it's all piling on. Luckily, Haley is taking them on and

41:30 putting money back in Michiganers pockets. She helped President Obama save the auto industry and protect 200,000 Michigan jobs. Brought billions home to rebuild Michigan manufacturing. Took on big pharma to lower the cost of prescription drugs. Led the fight to block Republicans from defunding Social Security. and she's standing up to Republicans right now as they jack up the price of gas, groceries, and healthcare. Haley is as Michigan as it gets. She grew up in a middle class household. Her parents ran a landscaping business out of their Ford F-150, and she'll tell anyone who will listen about her first Oldsmobile. She knows what Michigan families are going through, and that's how I know she will always put Michigan first. Haley Stevens has been the candidate of the establishment, the

42:17 Washington DC establishment. Not a good thing in this cycle. Abdul Elsad has been the candidate of uh has now been endorsed by basically everybody on the left from Bernie Sanders, AOC, Elizabeth Warren. This is a very nationalized race and and I I would say it's like a microcosm of what's been going on this summer in the Democratic party. You've got the wet, hot TSA summer that we've seen in some of these primaries in New York and in in Colorado. You also, you know, saw the fallout from the Platner thing in in Maine. And so the the notion that that possibly Abdul El Say, you know, he's a rising figure. He's had all the heat. There's polling shows the race is within the margin of error, but he's kind of had the momentum in that race, but now people are looking up for reasons that we can discuss and saying

43:02 this guy might be just too far left for this very, very, very purple electorate at Michigan. What do you see uh on the horizon there for that Michigan race? I mean, I guess with the primary just a week off, so we'll know. Yeah, pretty close. I kind of think Stevens might have I think McMurray dropping out, the third candidate, uh, and then having Whitmer, who's a bit of popular elected and re-elected governor of Michigan, um, endorsing. I think I don't know. I'd bet on Stevens. I mean, I also think she's just an underrated politician. She's tough. She's won in the past in House races. And, um, so I I think she has a pretty good chance. I do think she has a better chance of uh of beating Mike Rogers than than El Say. I also think I don't one thing I would slightly tweak if I were writing Gretchen Whitmer's little thing there was good actually. I thought pretty effective. I'm sure she

43:47 was advised what to say by the Stevens campaign. You know, I talk about what she's been what she's done in the past in Congress. I actually leave all that out. First of all, as any a lot of it was attempts to stop things from happening that didn't happen. what she did with Obama 15 years ago as on the car bailout maybe if you want to mention that I guess in Michigan that's a big deal understandably but still it's got to be a little more she will stop Trump from doing more damage over the next two years and Mike Rogers won't there's no reason you can't be establishment and also be forward-looking shouldn't be and there shouldn't be a reason why you can't be establishment and also saying I'm going to be as effective more effective in stopping Trump so I think it's with those slight tweaks I thought it was an effective little ad by Gretchen Whitmer and I guess I think Stevens is in pretty good shape Okay. But as you say, the what a loss money betting on the establishment people in some of these races this year.

44:33 >> I thought the most effective parts of that of that video are the parts at the end where she starts talking about her being more as Michigan as Michigan can be. Um my my mother was from Peninsula Michigan and when I saw these videos going around of her >> uh that she was being mocked by the left for her kind of Chris Farley kind of you know that you know Michigan way and all that stuff. I'm like everybody I have ever known in in in Michigan from Meno Island north. There's a Haley Stevens in every ice cream parlor in every uh at every roller rink, you know, like there's a that's that's that's someone who sounds a lot like a lot of normal people in Michigan and you can make fun of it, but uh I think that that part of Whitner, the Whitmer thing that kind of keyed in on the notion of she's one of us and that's, you know, that will obviously be to some ears will be coded as kind of a an attack in a way on

45:18 Elsiad. the the the biggest concerns I think about him. If you're really if you're focused mostly on electability has been his unwillingness to climb down from things like his advocacy of defund the police, his embrace of Medicare for all which is you know uh I understand that it's a putting aside whatever the policy arguments are for it. It is a thing that you know I had Adam Jenson on my podcast on on impolitic the other day and Adam had done they the search light uh institute had done a big piece of research about about the political problems with Medicare for all. Um he's going to be easier for Mike Rogers. Now, it might be that because he's popular with the base, he can drive more turnout. But if I'm Mike Rogers and I'm thinking, who do I want to run against in this race, I'd rather run against Elsa, has nothing to do with the fact that he's uh that that he's hangs out

46:04 with Hassan or that he's or that he's a Muslim American. It has that he's a bunch of issues that I think are to the left of where the median voter is in the state of Michigan. And I think that that will be the big concern if Elsa does pull this off is that they've got themselves an electrifying candidate who also was just there's this reporting in political in political playbook this morning who seems to be more interested in fighting with Democrats than he is in fighting with Republicans. You know there he's kind of like if I win this race we were going to primary John Federman. You're like why are you talking about primary John Federman when rather than talking about beating Donald Trump and winning in in the in the general election. I just think these inter nacine fights among Democrats like your priorities are kind of kind of screwed up if that's where your head's at when it comes to El Say >> I think that's right. I I think don't you think if if Stevens wins and let's leave aside the merits I mean I prefer

46:51 on the merits honestly but still just on the electability thing I think Democrats end up they got lucky in Maine honestly and I think they end up with a pretty good slate of candidates in these key Senate races. I mean if you just go one by one it's kind of there's some older ones, some younger ones, some more establishment ones, some more you know sort of progressive ones. Uh V Cooper is a very different candidate from I don't know you know from Haley Stevens or from Tal Rico but really if you just go Iowa, Texas Ohio Alaska. >> Alaska. Y >> yeah even Kansas it looks like Montana maybe. But then also the key states that we mentioned they they ended up I mean it's not perfect when when is it ever though in America in politics. I mean it's a pretty strong I would say electorally and I would say even substantively slate and mostly younish which is good for the Democratic party. It's good to look like Osafar Rico and

47:38 Haley Stevens, not like you know necessarily like with all due respect to Chuck Schumer and Dick Durban and all these characters. So, >> we should mention um Troy Jackson became the the former nominee and there's the early polling uh is giving some some is heartening to Democrats who are thinking that maybe the platinum implosion will be the best thing that happened to them because his support was looking pretty soft and and Troy Jackson is you know people have been saying for a while that a generic Democrat beats Susan Collins. the early polling suggests that he's uh got a two or three point lead even before he's really in the race uh there. So that's a reason for Democrats to be uh cheerful. The one thing that is not uh a thing for Democrats to be cheerful about is uh is the state of the national party and I got to get this in just because Lori Egan uh from the Bullwork did a a fabulous piece uh that broke a

48:25 bunch of news about just how bad the financial situation is the DNC. I could go on about this at great length, but uh Bill, you look at Ken Martin and you think about I mean, has that guy had a good news cycle since he got uh became the chair of the DNC, the the party's broke through using the the headquarters as collateral on loans? There's a like literally literally mortgaging the furniture over there. Um and of course there's the autopsy and all the other things that he gets heat for. I mean, I guess my question is, do you think that that guy will survive? And uh do you think it matters? >> I mean, I'm inclined not to think it doesn't matter too much. People I know who are really in real politics think a little worry about the money stuff than I do. I assume the money can go to the other committees and to obviously these days the super PACs and stuff and to the campaigns themselves and get spent

49:12 probably just as well. There's some issues, I guess, that get a better rate if the DNC works for them and all that, you know, TV rate and all that stuff. But yeah, I I don't think it matters that much. The irony will be Martin probably have done a horrible job. Then they'll win the House and the Senate. Can you dump the chairman after you win both houses? I I guess you can, right? They probably should, honestly. He really does seem unusually. You and I have seen many party chairman who weren't great. He does seem unusually not good. Yeah. The problem is that that people say things like, well, you know, you Rahm should do it. And you're kind of like, you know, I don't know. Back in the day of Haley Barber at the G at the at the RNC and Ron Brown at the DNC when the parties were more powerful, you had serious people who wanted to be party chairs. Like apart from the fact that Rahm is running for president, Rob would never want to be the chair of the DNC

49:58 again. I mean, maybe you could maybe convince like Terry McAuliff who doesn't seem like he's like overmp employed right now to come back in and raise some money for the party. But like the part of the issue here is that like the the chairman of the Republican party, I had to look this up. Do you know who the chairman of the Republican party is right now? >> Yeah, that's a good question. >> Yes, I asked you that question because I looked up >> that guy from North Carolina, but isn't he running for >> No, it's it's it's now the it's the the chairman of the Republican National Committee right now is a guy named Joe Gruters. Joe Gruters, who is a Florida state senator who Donald Trump likes a lot and is someone who I guarantee you, not just me and not just you, but almost everybody who covers politics and lives this stuff, could not pick out of a lineup. This is a job that's been devalued to enormous to enormous extent. And it's because the central parties, I mean, maybe in the wake of the Supreme

50:43 Court decision about spending, the parties will start to rebuild some power because they'll be able to direct funds in a different way. But man, this is not a job that a serious person wants anymore. And so, I mean, I don't know. I think, you know, you if unless the Democrats collapse completely and don't take control of either the House or Senate, I think that happens, Ken Martin's out pretty quick. But if they take control of one or both, going to be very hard to get rid of that guy. The last thing on my list, uh, Bill, for you is, uh, you're you did a conversation with an Epstein survivor over the weekend that I think is worth promoting. So, why don't you just, uh, you be able to find this on the Bullwork site. Talk a little bit about what that conversation was like and what you got out of it. >> Yeah, Bull Work on Sunday with Dandy Bensky. I mean, she really was. I had seen clips of her and she testified

…