Aaron Blake: Kevin McCarthy Is Keeping a Secret

Welcome to the Bullework. Hi, Cat. I’m Charlie Sykes. And and happy Wednesday, although this is one of those weeks where I woke up this morning and I thought, what? It’s only Wednesday.

It feels like it should be at least at the end of the week. But, of course, once again, we just have one of those new cycles that just will not quit. And joining me on today’s podcast to talk about all of this. Aaron Blake, senior political reporter at the Washington Post, and he writes for the fix.

First of all, good morning, Erin, and thanks for coming back on the podcast. Good morning. Thanks for having me. And by the way, I’m definitely on team Thursday right now. I think I was surprised when you just said that that it was only Wednesday.

Okay.

So that I’m not alone on that. I mean, no. No. Not just you. Have you ever noticed though?

I mean, how how time sometimes is is so is so elastic? There will there are weeks where you’ll you’ll get up on on Friday that why that week went by so quickly? And this week just seems to be a slog. Maybe it’s because we all sort of had to work through the weekend because of the metabolic stuff that happened in Washington. Do you think that’s what it is?

What’s the psychology?

I think that had something to do with it. But, yeah, it’s you’re you’re right. It’s last week just flew by even though everything was happening, and then this week is kind of a little bit slower. Yes.

But is mourning in Congress again. Right? Kevin McCarthy is assuring us that, you know, the doors to the people house are open. A democracy has been restored. Blows have been struck for transparency that really it’s happy days in congress.

Kidding, of course. So I am struck by the fact that a lot of the Republicans in congress have been using the word trends parentcy over and over and over again. But as you point out, Kevin McCarthy has a secret, does it? And he’s apparently not going to share it.

Yeah, it it’s really rather remarkable how this whole thing began. I mean, without that secret, would Kevin McCarthy be the speaker right now? It became pretty clear towards the end of the week last week that this deal that was cut with members of the House Freedom caucus was not one that many McCarthy allies apparently knew much about or at least didn’t have the whole picture about. And there were some concerns and some kind of private grumblings about that. But they wound up voting for him anyways.

And then on Monday, they also voted for rules package anyways, even though a lot of them apparently didn’t understand the full nature of the deal or didn’t have access to this reported three page document that laid out the terms of the deal. And so, you know, given they decided not to leverage that and to force him to kinda pony up what he had agreed to, and they would vote for him anyways. It really meant that he didn’t have to to disclose all this stuff. And so here we are kind of wondering what the the full terms of the beginning of the McCarthy’s speakership really are. Okay.

There are so many layers to this particular onion. You know, one is the papa or z, you know, after after McCarthy claiming that the house was going to be more open accountable and responsive. You wrote just yesterday. McCarthy was being rather open take about the agreement, this mysterious deal with a hard right, that had gotten him to that point, namely the parameters of the still mysterious deal he cut with a hard right freedom caucus to cure its members of votes in the speaker election. Now punch bowl news reported about this three page document.

It’s in writing. And it referred to as an addendum. And as you point out, it’s all shrouded in shadow because you have McCarthy sounds like he’s he’s denying the existence of the addendum. Other people have confirmed they saw it. Other people are just not commenting on it.

So it feels pretty obvious that that there is a three page secret document and that Kevin McCarthy is lying about it. What do you think? Too strong? I

think if you if you look closely at the way he reportedly denied the existence of it, I think it leaned on the idea that One, this was actually an official document. Maybe it’s not. Maybe it’s just somebody who wrote down the the terms of this agreement, and it’s not really something that is referred to as an addendum. And the other is the idea that it’s technically an addendum to the house rules package that was passed. On Monday.

Mhmm. If you’ve seen other McCarthy you know, Tom McCarthy allies talk about this, they’ve they’ve leaned on those distinctions when talking about the idea that this addendum doesn’t really exist. And so I think they’re playing a kind of acute game here where there is a document, but it’s maybe they’re arguing that it’s not what people say it is. I think that the larger significance here though is that there are a bunch of terms that we’re agreed to that a lot of people don’t under and whether they, you know, wanna see that document or not. Okay.

So what do we

think is in this maybe secret somewhat document? What do we think is in Well, we know some of the contents of the concessions that were made that were not included

in the rules package. They include the ten year budget that would freeze funding at twenty twenty two levels. This was, of course, the the thing that kind of caused a little bit of a stir last week because it would effectively mean a ten percent cut in defense lending. And then there are votes that are due to be had on various matters like border security and building the wall. I think maybe the biggest question about what’s in this document or what’s in the deal more broadly is what are the concessions that were made on committee memberships.

Mcarthy and his allies have said they did not give away gabbles for for votes last week. And perhaps that’s true, but there are a number of different ways that you can give concessions to the House Freedom caucus and empower them that are short of that. And so I think that’s one of the things that we’re paying attention to, especially this week, now that the House GOP steering committee is awarding those committee assignments.

Okay. So this is obviously a big deal. This this is really a b f d. And we’ve we’ve had reports that members who’ve seen this document are not allowed to keep copies because they’re afraid it’s going to leak. We kind of know some of these broad strokes, but not its full scope.

But do you ask a really interesting question? So why don’t more Republican members curious enough to force the issue? It’s one thing for you and I not to be able to know what’s in the document. But there are members of Congress, members of the of the House Conference who are not allowed to see. So, Nancy Mace, South Carolina, over the weekend, said that she might vote against the package because of the lack of transparency.

She ended up caving like everybody else, all the other normies with the exception of one. While also saying that, you know, she would push for the release of the details. So what are your thoughts on that? Why weren’t more of the quote unquote moderates or normies. Why didn’t they say, look, we can’t vote for this if we don’t know what’s in

the secret addendum. Well, it’s it’s pretty obvious that the name of the game for a lot of these people was staying in line and moving past this. They didn’t like what last week looked like and who can blame them for that. But, you know, not forcing the issue, not trying to get the full terms of the deal comes at a cost for them. It it shows that they are not willing to go as far as the House Freedom caucus was last week in fighting McCarthy for their own concessions.

And it I think kind of sets the tone moving forward for the next couple years where if the House Freedom caucus shows it’s willing to go further, if it’s willing to threaten a government shutdown or a default on the debt ceiling, is the establishment wing of the party going to cave to them on these things repeatedly? Again? Yeah. Yeah. Again.

Because that’s what they do. Right? I mean, they gave to them. Right. And so, you know, it’s a very unusual circumstance in which of small handful of Republicans can gum up the works in the house and really guide the the conference moving forward.

And one side of the party has proven much more willing to do that than the other. And so that creates a situation where you know, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. And right now, this squeaky wheel is very much the house freedom caucus and it’s

getting the grease. Well, I think this is the key to the whole thing. We know that freedom caucus is willing to go to the mat. We know that they’re prepared to basically pull the pin from the grenade and stand there and, you know, dare the rest of the conference to not give them what they want. We have seen no indication so far that the, again, you know, what, six to ten moderates are prepared to do the same thing.

I mean, I think there’s been some wish casting. Well, you know, there’s a handful of people who are not willing to go along with all of this. But on that rules vote, I thought it was very telling that only one, you know, they couldn’t afford to lose five, there probably were five or six people who had really serious doubts. I mean, I don’t know what number you’d put on it, but none of them except one guy voted against it. And I do think that’s that’s kind of an indication of what’s gonna happen ahead because I think a lot of people are hoping and praying that there are going to be these moderates establishment normies who will buck the majority inside with Democrats on cruise things like the dead ceiling.

But I don’t know, Aaron, until they do it,

there’s no reason to think that’s probable. Is there? Yeah, I I think there’s a couple of things here that are worth pulling out of all that. One is that the vote on the rules package the the overwhelming support for among Republicans was only that one Republican voting against it. That was an easy vote for them to justify to themselves because the big concessions that McCarthy made that were not contained generally in that rules package.

I mean, we’re talking really in the rules package only about the motion to vacate the chair which allows one member to call for a vote of no confidence on McCarthy — Mhmm. — the creation of the, you know, committee on the weaponization of of federal government, which a lot of Republicans generally support. And I think even Brian sits Patrick now says he’s willing to serve on a very moderate member from Pennsylvania. So, you know, even when Nancy May says she is going to maybe vote against the rules package, she emphasized that she supported the package herself and that her opposition would come from these side deals that were made. The other thing that I think is kind of pushing them to support a package like that is I think they believe that they, to the extent, they want to fight the freedom caucus, are going to be able to do it in future matters.

Because if they need to get votes from Democrats, they can do that. The idea is that, you know, whether through a discharge petition or anything else like that, they’re gonna have the votes to do it. So maybe they think the House Freedom caucus isn’t going to be quite as powerful as it seems right now. And and maybe that’s a good bet. I would imagine that things like that probably wind up getting resolved without the Freedom clock is getting what it wants because of the realities of governing right now.

But that’s also placing a major bet and you’re also setting a tone right now that basically the House Freedom caucus got a lot of what it wanted because it was willing to stand in the way, which is really what it does best.

So what would be the breaking point? This was an easy vote. So what are gonna be the tough votes? Where would they draw the lion, say, okay, we are prepared to abandon our leadership, take on the Freedom caucus and vote with Democrats. What issues would those be.

The ones I

would watch for are the debt ceiling and government shutdowns I would add. Mhmm. Those are things that House Republican leadership over the years has come to understand are not fights that reflect terribly well on the Republican Party if they’re going to try to enforce concessions out of these matters. It almost never works out. In fact, it basically never does.

And they have to go through a whole lot to get to that point that voters generally don’t appreciate. Another one that I’m writing about today is is Ukraine funding. Mhmm. What happens when this comes around again and Congress wants to send money to Ukraine and there’s a growing portion of the Republican base and the Freedom caucus that does not support sending more money to that war. I think that’s something of a significance that we could see a sizable number of, you know, more establishment, moderate Republicans joining with Democrats to to push that through.

But as far as, you know, major legislation, we’re we’re not gonna see a whole lot. It’s gonna be these kind of must pass bills the hugely significant thing like Ukraine funding that are gonna force these kinds of reckonings within the party. And so I think those are the the things to really watch for over the next two years. I

guess what my fear is, I mean, I I hope the scenario that you lay out is more likely because you don’t wanna see us default on the debt that would be catastrophic. And I think they know in the past, the default position is it’s going to be messy. They’re going to go through the various kabuki dances. But in the end, you know, calmer, senior heads prevail. And we hope that that continues.

My fear though is that voting on the discharge petition will become one of those you know, bright line litmus tests that the right wing media ecosystem and, you know, the folks in Mar a Lago and everything will say that, you know, if you vote with the Democrats on this, you have cast yourself into outer darkness that this will be as toxic as voting for impeachment that any Republican that votes to defy the leadership votes with Democrats on a major piece of legislation guarantees that they will be primary and that the pressure will be turned up absolutely to ten. And if McCarthy doesn’t punish them or something that you’re going to see in the motion to vacate the chair. I think this is the darkest timeline, but I think we have every reason

to believe that the darkest timeline is certainly possible. What do you think? I I I’m really glad that

you raised this because I’ve been thinking about it a lot. I get a lot of reader feedback when I’m talking about the bill that the house just passed. To defund the IRS and and some of these other proposals that are part of the concessions that McCarthy made. And the point that they make is basically well, none of this stuff is gonna become law anyways. Right?

Mhmm. And the answer to that is, well, probably not. We’re probably gonna get a clean debt ceiling increase. Ukraine funding, I would imagine, would go forward when it comes to that. But the process of how you get to that point matters greatly because you’re right.

It does create and reinforce dynamics within the party that then send the message to leadership and tell their members about what is acceptable. And how far you’re willing to go around members of your own party to get things done. And so that’s the real shift here. It’s it’s a signal of intent for the party to pass these things and to to try and get things out of the debt ceiling debate. It’s a signal of intent for them to go against their leadership.

And to the extent that the leadership or members of the party have to go around it through very unusual and seldom used processes like a discharge petition. That’s just gonna kinda light a fire beneath this very fractured party. And potentially empower that wing even more because they’ll be able to argue that the establishment is working with Democrats. I mean, that’s that’s kind of the the next step in this process, I think, even if you concede that a lot of these things aren’t gonna become law. Yeah.

I mean, and the dynamic is that the outrage meter always has to be turned up to max all the time. You know, that sense that, you know, you are being betrayed by these people. I mean, they they have to find something to be upset about, right, to be outraged about to draw the line on. It was in the past the impeachment vote. I don’t know how this is going to play out.

But you you raised an interesting thing, which I find fascinating at your holiday this week, you know, asking what will Republicans vote to defund next? I find this to be one of the deliciously ironic moments that the Republicans made tremendous hay out of the defund the police issue. And now it seems that they are on this march to defund one agency after another. I mean, they’re talking about defunding the the IRS. They’re talking about defunding the military So talk to me a little bit about this, the the Republican, you know, passion for defunding.

And and whether or not Democrats gonna be able to turn that around on them and say, hey, wait. I thought we weren’t supposed to defund cops and things like that.

Yeah. Yeah. I I think it’s it’s important to draw that line talking about defunding things broadly versus the specific things the Republicans are talking about defunding. Of course, the Republican Party has for a very long time argued for smaller government and cutting the federal government spending. Things like that.

I think where things have moved is these concessions included a budget that would cut defense spending by about ten percent over the next ten years. And Jim Jordan went on Fox News and defended that and basically said, look, there is stuff that can be cut out here. That’s a big departure from where the Republican Party has been in recent decades. You the same the same day that they were voting to be from the IRS. We had congressman, Chip Roy, who was perhaps the most significant freedom caucus figure in reaching the agreement with McCarthy last week coming out and saying that he wants to withhold funding from the Department of Homeland Security over border security.

So, you know, the argument is that these agencies, you know, the the defense department which protects us, the homeland security department which protects us are failing at their core missions or becoming too woke or something like that. But when we had the debate over defunding police, the nuance was gone. It was that they’re just gonna take money away from people who protect us. And so to the extent that Republicans are willing to go down these paths even if they’re symbolic votes, I would imagine Democrats are gonna be happy to say that Republicans are voting to you know, defund the defense department and and defund the homeland security department. And this is just another example I think of this wing of the party forcing the party into certain things that it might not otherwise want to dip its toe into.

We’re all

juggling life career and trying to build a little bit of wealth, the Brown Ambition podcast with host Mandy, and Tiffany, thebudget minister can help. It’s time for the b a q a a. The b a q a. What did you say? The b a a.

Thank you. Ryan, I mentioned question answers. If you have questions, we have some answers. We are not your therapist. That’s a financial advisor, your attorney, but we are two smart brown girls when it comes to money, career, business, brown ambition, listen wherever you get your podcast.

Well, Marjorie

Taylor Green was out front calling for the defunding of the FBI. They seem to have backed off on all of that, but so are they Are they just content to harass and investigate the FBI? Are they they’re not actually gonna have T shirts defund the FBI anymore? Are they Yeah.

I mean, that was you know, last summer after the the search of Mar a Lago, and and there were a number of Republicans who were going down to defund the FBI. Path and I think somewhat similar to what we saw with Democrats and defund the police. There was a recognition among party leaders that maybe we should try to talk these people off of this idea. And so we saw it somewhat, you know, swiftly from from people like Mike Pence and and others and we haven’t heard a whole lot about that moving forward. But, you know, this is another idea that depending upon what comes out of this committee on the weaponization of the federal government could be picked up again now that Republicans actually have the power to do something about this.

So I would imagine that the likes of Marjorie Taylor Green may not be done with that particular subject in the months to come. Okay.

Just a quick fact. Check here because, you know, the Republicans have been claiming over and over and over again that the IRS was going to hire eighty seven thousand agents and they say they’ve they’ve reversed that, which of course they haven’t. What is the reality here? Are we adding eighty seven thousand IRS agents who are gonna be rifling through my

my banking account my checkbook over the next few years. I I would point people to my colleague Glenn Kessler, our fact checker, who’s written, I think, almost like a half a dozen times because it just keeps coming up over and over again. The Democrats did past funding, you know, increased funding for the IRS. There has been a significant backlog there in recent years. It is not eighty seven thousand new agents.

It’s eighty seven thousand employees, and a lot of that is replacing people that have left or are going to leave through attrition. So I think that the eighty seven thousand agents talking point just kind of goes to show how hyperbolic some of this stuff is And the fact that this is the first major bill that the House Republicans decided to pass an effort that in many ways is founded on that hyperbole, I think says a lot about the intent and the the need to to do what this wing of the party tells the leadership to do. And so we’ll see whether that’s a precursor to things to

come. There are hundreds of billions of dollars, trillions of dollars that are owed to the federal government that they’re not collected because of people who are scoffed laws, people who don’t pay their taxes. Right? You have, you know, lots of rich people who figured out how to game the the system. I never advised people on how to spin this but Republicans have weaponized the eighty seven thousand IRS agents.

But what they’re really doing here in part and I’m not defending the IRS, you know, up and down. Is saying that, you know, we wanna make sure that people like Donald Trump who make millions of dollars and pay nothing in taxes are not hassled by the IRS. This strikes me as a target rich environment for Democrats if they wanna get back some other populist mojo. Yeah. Yeah.

Potentially, I think the way that you brought this up is somewhat

telling though because as you said that you’re saying, well, I’m not defending the IRS, you know, up and down. I I think if there’s an agency that many Americans dislike very passionately and have for many decades, it might be the IRS. So to the extent this is Republicans saying, look, we defunded this thing that, you know, might audit you and things like that. I think that could be something that doesn’t necessarily hurt them. One one of the big arguments Democrats have been making is this was supposed to be something that is going to reduce the deficit, you know, finding people who are cheating on their taxes helps the government recover money.

Right. And the CBO came out with an an estimate that showed that this bill that Republicans just passed that knocks down that funding. Is gonna cost money over long term. I think it’s a hundred and fourteen billion dollars is the estimate, which Republicans dispute I would hasten to add. But that’s a much harder argument to make.

And right now, it’s Republicans saying that they’re keeping the IRS off your backs. And — Mhmm. — I think this is maybe one of the less dicey things that Republicans are looking to defund at least politically speaking. Yeah. No.

I I

mean, obviously, there’s there’s a lot of symbolism there. Okay. So one other wonky thing. You you point out the Republicans are reinstating the so called home in rule, which I will confess I had never heard of until this week, which my understanding is allows lawmakers to cut the funding of specific federal agency programs and to target the salaries

of individual federal employees. What could possibly go wrong here? I’m glad you brought this up too because I think this is something we might be talking about a fair amount.

The whole in rule. It is as you described it, and it was in effect until I think nineteen eighty three before it felt a favor. Was brought back by Republicans under Donald Trump, but, you know, it wasn’t used as much because it was a Republican administration and the appetite for cutting and going after the administration is less in those circumstances for perhaps obvious reasons. But now we have a democratic administration. We have a house Republican majority that’s eager to send a message on to certain things.

And this is a lever for them to pull. They can go after specific programs they can make a fuss about it. And I would imagine that they are going to use that at least in certain instances. The question is on what? There’s been some talk about using it for the special counsel’s investigation of Trump.

That would certainly be a very dicey decision, but there are many other things, especially given the kind of anti woke crusade that exists inside the Republican Party where I would I would imagine that this might be applied

in the years to come. Okay? But what actually happens? So let’s say that they target Jack Smith and, you know, they they move to, you know, zero out his salary

or the salary of all of his age. That is unlikely to become law. Right? Right. I mean, just like everything else we’re talking about.

This is you know, these

would be amendments to legislation. That’s basically how the process works. And then the House and the Senate would have to decide whether they want to you know, vote up or down on that. But the amendment process also does provide an avenue for people to insert things that other people don’t like, and then air them to vote against the entire package. And so, you know, if this was just forcing a vote up or down on this single issue of, you know, taking Jack’s Miss salary away, that would be one thing, including that or something less serious or less severe than that as part of a larger package.

Could force a little bit more of a difficult situation for Democrats in the next couple of years. So it’ll be really interesting to see how they attempt to wield this tool because it it could force some difficult votes. Howard

Bauchner: It occurred

to me because we’ve been focused so heavily on the House of Representatives and what’s going on over there. That there hasn’t been a lot of attention paid to what’s going on over the senate right now, and Democrats still control it, but Mitch McConnell is also sitting there, and he’s going to have to deal with this new house Republican majority. And I thought it was fascinating last week, Wally. The House Republicans were melting down. Where was Mitch McConnell?

He was down in Kentucky shaking hands and and, you know, and making merry with Joe Biden. So what’s going on with the senate? And also, this morning, I’ve been reading in your newspaper about, you know, senator Rick Scott has a has a new ad where he’s touting himself and attacking the rhinos and the Senate who have, you know, have not been fighting strong enough. So what’s going on there? The McConnell

decision to appear with viden even as all this was going down was certainly an interesting one. I imagine it was considered and they knew what the objects of this would look like. And maybe it was intended to send a little bit of a message about the realities of governing over the next couple of years. I think it’s he’s gonna be one of the most interesting people to watch over the next couple of years because he is somebody who has at least from time to time argued against going down the Trumpian path for the party. He is a guy who perhaps more than anybody else in the party is saying that yeah.

You know, funding the war in Ukraine should be their number one priority even as all this, you know, this movement has kinda taken off in the base that opposes that. And so — Yeah. — I don’t think he necessarily, like, wants to lean into that battle too much. But, you know, as a leader, sometimes you have to take part in that. And I think he’s shown he’s somewhat eager to demonstrate the difference between Republicans who are interested in governing and others.

And whether he’s able to do that over the next couple of years, I think is a separate question, but he could emerge as a significant figure if the House Republican conference is thrown into this court over and over again. Well, I I think

the conference will be dramatic and the dynamic will be fascinating. Because, you know, Kevin McCarthy is on a very, very short leech from from Mar a Lago. He is not going to do anything that’s going to get him labeled rhino by Donald Trump. And Mitch McConnell seems like he’s a lot of fucks to get. Well, trust doesn’t care.

We’ve

we’ve seen this from time to time where there are Republicans who Trump has gone after. And most of the time, he ends their careers, but sometimes that’s not the case. You know, I’m thinking of, like, Mitt Romney in Utah who has such a kind of a connection with the party there and and such a reputation that he’s a little bit immune from Trump’s attacks. I think McConnell is is somewhat in that class he’s been the target of Trump’s attacks over and over again. He still won the minority leader slot relatively easily.

And so he may feel a little bit emboldened to go outside of where a lot of other Republicans feel that they have to right now and run things as he sees fit. And so I think that’s a really good point and it’s definitely something worth watching moving forward. Okay. Now let’s

talk about the thorniest issue of the day that will annoy everybody. I don’t think it comes as a surprise to anybody that Republicans are all over the news that Joe Biden apparently took some classified documents with him when he left the vice presidency and We’re getting reports that there are about ten documents, including intelligence, memos, briefing materials that covered, Ukraine, Iran, and Britain. So, as I wrote in my newsletter this morning, if you’re expecting calmer heads and Nuance takes to prevail here. You really haven’t been paying attention. So these cases are very, very different and yet the politics, the optics, the legal standards, you know, would suggest that at least for my read as as a non lawyers that is that number one, this is a blow to the Trump prosecution for squiggling away his documents done in Mar a Lago, and it’s gonna be a real political headache for Joe Biden because it’s kind of an easy, hey, what about is a thing for Republicans?

So what what do you think? How badly does this damage the prospects of an indictment prosecution of Trump for his classified document case. And again, stipulating that these are very, very different cases, very, very different stories. I I think your summary of it is right here. There’s no world in which

this is a good thing for a former vice president to have glassified documents outside of where they’re supposed to be. It’s not good, and that doesn’t mean that it’s the same as Trump, but it’s something that should be recognized given the the focus on this issue right now. But it is very different in the number of ways. It’s different in the volume of documents here. It’s different in the intent.

Donald Trump was asked return these documents and resisted over a number of many months, didn’t get those documents back until they raided Mar a Lago. And if you look specifically at the crimes that are being pursued in the Mar a Lago documents case, they don’t lean on the retention of documents. They lean on obstruction of justice, of resisting, returning the documents, things like that. And so I think that’s where where the big the real big difference is here and the big difference is legally speaking. But you’re right.

It’s not a helpful development for Jack Smith. It’s not a development for people who think that Donald Trump should be charged for the crime here. And so I I think that it’s important and Merrick Garland has acknowledged that it’s important to make sure there’s an investigation of this. That’s only fair. But right now, we have no real reason to believe that there’s any similarity between these two beyond the fact that both of these guys had these documents in

their possession. This does remind me though that sometimes in our world, the simpler explanation almost always beats the more complex explanation. So the simple explanation is Joe Biden to classify documents and we just found them. Donald Trump took classified documents and we just found them. It’s the same thing.

How can you go after Donald Trump for this? Now I understand, look, to Biden, it’s under twelve documents with with Trump. It’s like a hundred and sixty plus secret documents by his personal staff, discovered the documents. Trump denied But do

those distinctions matter in the political world? I think they matter when it comes to the decisions that are going to be made about this, but public opinion does also matter, and you’re right that to the extent, you know, most Americans are paying attention to this. It’s Yeah. Both of these guys had classified documents. And to the extent that any people in the middle were on the fence or work sure what to think about this process, it it does muddy the waters, and Republicans are using it, and we’ll use it to muddy those waters.

I think that this has always been a very difficult decision for the DOJ moving forward because however much they will say, you know, the justice system is blind and it shouldn’t matter who this guy is, it should matter what was done and whether it’s a crime. Practically speaking, stature of the former president looms all over this, and launching a prosecution would be one of the most momentous decisions in justice department history. So to the extent that there’s now this kind of troubling development that can be used to what about this to death, it doesn’t help their cause any bit whatsoever.

Yeah.

And I I understand this is gonna be frustrating for people who think, you know, but but this is the way it should be versus, yes, but this is the reality. And it does kind of remind me of the debate about, you know, defunding the police where I got all of these comments people out Charlie. Actually, let me explain what defunding police mean actually means. You know, what we’re talking about. And I was like, wait, do you understand, you know, that it’s still going to be politically toxic?

It is a terrible, terrible issue. So I understand what you want to have happened, but it’s not going to happen the way you want. It just feels that way again. Nick Catagio, I’m mispronouncing his name over the dispatch, says that Now that Team Biden is splashed into a classified document scandal of its own, it seems likely to me that Trump will be let off the hook entirely. Don’t know if that’s true.

But he does say, and I think accurately, the one thing that could be counted on to drive wavering Republicans back into his corner in this matter has come to pass, they’ve been handed a Libs do it to on a silver platter. And, you know, life’s not fair, politics is not fair, and I think this gonna be a real problem. I mean, so I I I think it’s incumbent on the media and other folks to, you know, continue to point out what the distinctions are but not to be so naive to believe that in this particular age, nuances actually can cut through all the smoke that’s going to be out there. Yeah.

And and

the point that Nick made about this driving Republicans to to kinda hunker down and and really stand by Trump on this issue is well taken. I think it’s worth emphasizing that after Mar a Lago was searched, the Republican Party very quickly closed ranks and called it into question based upon very little knowledge about what underlied the the search or really any details about it. So getting them to fully close ranks was not perhaps as difficult as it might seem, but it’s certainly a point well taken that this will enable that and perhaps allow them to make that case more publicly even if that glosses over all kinds of nuance and the many differences between the two situations. Okay.

So one last thing. I personally find it remarkable. How openly Steve Bannon is cheering on the violence in Brazil. Okay. It’s not a new story that Steve Bannon, Steven Miller, and other, you know, folks in in Trump world.

We’re very, very close to the ball scenarios, the defeated president of Brazil and his son. I mean, we knew that we knew that he was spreading the big lie. But in the aftermath of the outbreak of these riots and all of the destruction in Brazil by the neo fascists anti Democratic protesters, Steve Bannon is going, these are freedom fighters. I’m not backing off an inch, which I I don’t know, Erin, this does strike me as kind of a maybe it’s incremental, but it’s a significant incremental step where he’s not pretending that he’s in favor of peaceful protest but we, you know, deploy the violence. He’s all in on the violence.

Steve Bannon is grooming people to accept violent responses to an election result they don’t like. Yeah. And it’s

just kind of a death by a thousand cuts, whether you’re talking about the death of democracy or kind of the death of accepting elections as being valid. You you mentioned Steve Bannon, but we also had Tucker Carlson on his show just flat out saying that the election in Brazil was

was rigged

was stolen without presenting any actual evidence to that effect of, I would add, no bait. At the very least, for a lot of Republicans that will reinforce that elections can’t be trusted and that they can be calling a question in the future than maybe Donald Trump won. You know, Brazil is not on our level of a democracy, but it’s certainly, you know, a major country. And so to the extent this can happen, in another country, why couldn’t it happen in the United States? And then beyond that, I I think one of the more telling things that I noticed over the weekend and early this week was after the scenes in Brazil, we saw a a whole bunch of Democrats announcing this.

Pretty unified response that this was a very bad thing to delegate. Very few Republicans spoke out on this. I counted among the first sixty members to tweet about this. Only two were Republicans. One was George Santos, which is interesting in and of itself.

Jeez. And the other was Brian sets Patrick, who, as we mentioned, is perhaps the most moderate house Republicans. So the fact that Republicans didn’t see fit to jump out and condemn this, I think, is telling when it comes to where the base is at. And to the extent that there’s no pushback on the things that Steve ban him down and talk Carlston are saying about this. I think it it just cements that sensibility within the Republican Party base that elections can’t be trusted based upon no actual evidence of that.

Well,

it’s understandable why George Santos would have tweeted about this considering the fact that he’s a former president of Brazil So

but this time, I’m sorry. But the I wondered where you were going

with that.

Or whatever his name actually is. We really we really don’t we didn’t even get into George Santos because I think there’s a lot out there. I think I think that’s going to be a gift that that’s worth giving. You know, people keep saying, you know, when are they gonna deal with him? Look, we keep coming back to that four vote majority I can’t see Kevin McCarthy being too aggressive.

So I think George Sandoz is kinda like, you know, that dead fish you left out in the sun. He’s just gonna sit there. And it’s gonna get stinkier and stinkier. What do you think? They’re stuck with him.

I

think you’re right. Not not only is it a four seat majority, but he comes from a very competitive district. And so, you know, this was a guy in Ruby Red rural Alabama who was having these problems. It would be easier to say, hey, maybe we should just boot this guy out and let them have a special election. We’ll get that seat back very soon.

There’s no guarantee of that in this situation. So I think his problems probably don’t come from McCarthy. I think they come from the justice system investigating his campaign finance. Very curious filings. I think that’s gonna be the next thing to watch out for here because you’re right.

There there’s not gonna be an appetite for McCarthy to do anything about this. Until the situation is completely untenable. Aaron

Blake, senior political reporter at the Washington Post who writes for the fax Aaron thank you so much for your time today and coming on the Bulwark podcast. It’s so good to talk to you, Charlie. Thanks for having me. And thank you all for listening to today’s Bulwark podcast. I’m Shirley Sykes.

We will be back tomorrow and we’ll do this all over again. The Bulwark podcast is produced by Katie Cooper, an engineered and edited by Jason Brown.

Former Navy SEAL Sean

Ryan shares real stories from real people, from all walks of life. On the Sean Ryan show, wealth strategist, Rob Luna. If you could solve a problem in

this world, better than anyone else, you’re gonna make a lot of money. And that’s really what a business’s ultimate goal is, whether it’s your business or a manufacturing business, it’s about solving a problem and making a bigger impact in people’s lives than anyone else on scale. I mean, I’ve been trying to scale my business, but I can’t find somebody to conduct these interviews. Yeah. The

Sean Ryan Show on YouTube or wherever you

listen.