Bill Kristol and Ben Wittes: A Subversive Enterprise

Hello, and welcome to Secret Podcast. I’m Tim Miller. We’ve got a big day today. On the back end, we’ll have been with us just fresh off his being sanctioned by the Russian Federation very happy for Ben on that achievement. But first, we’ve got Bill Crystal much to discuss.

Bill, how you doing?

Not sanctioned, but congratulations to Ben.

Yeah. Unsanctioned. You’re free to take a Tucker Charlie Sykes esque trip to check out the local grocery chains and anywhere else that you wanna go, still in Russia.

Yeah. It’s even joke about it. Right? It’s so horrible. And then people treating this election as if it were a real election.

It is horrible. It is horrible. And speaking of this election, as if it was a real election, I don’t know if you saw This of the weekend. Well, I know you saw it actually. So I don’t wanna pretend like I don’t know.

The former president, well, had a pretty interesting introduction to his speech in Ohio. Let’s take a listen. Ladies and gentlemen, please rise for the and unfairly treated. January six hostages. Okay.

That’s enough. We had, Trump saluting during that whole time, like he was Gaddafi or something, like a weird, you know, Libyan dictator. I don’t know. What were your thoughts about the hostages and that new intro was kind of the world wrestling federation mixed with Gaddafi, mixed with, you know, releasing general Radock from Air Force One.

You know, I’ve I as I said in Morning Shast this morning, I thought I was inured to Trump and all of his horrors, and I’ve kind of told myself over and over as you have to. I’m sure, you know, god, I just, see, blood pressure, keep calm, you know, keep calm and carry on and all that. And I I felt physically sick. I gotta say, listen to that and watching that. I mean, these are the people who violently stormed the capital.

Trump’s responsible for in the large measure, but they obviously made the choice to do it. They’ve been convicted, duly convicted in fair, fair trials in courts of law, And they’re now being called hostages and the crowd is standing, and Trump is saluting them saluting something that our military does as a matter of protocol and order and demonstration of kind of respect for law, really, right, for what’s the famous line? You salute the office, not the not demand. You know, I mean, it’s it’s precisely almost embodies what it means not to be in the service of a willful arbitrary dictator. And here, Trump is saluting.

I just it really got to me. I’ve gotta say.

It did too because it just it also feels Just so un American. I mean, it is un American directly in the sense, right, that we’re saluting people that stormed the capital. But just the whole scene of it, like, feels as if it is out of a bad movie or a third world country. You know, it just does not have the feel of somebody that has respect for the country and the traditions that, you know, I mean, it just do you also get that sense?

Totally, and I I tweeted this is a little over the top, probably. Impossible. About hoist vessel, the Nazi song that was attributed to this martyr, you know, alleged martyr in the hoist vessel. Think he had voted it actually, maybe. And which became a kind of co national anthem of Nazi Germany along with Deutsche Landu Morales.

And That is what authoritarian and let’s use the word fascist movements do. Right? Yeah. And this is a little complicated because it’s sort of the national anthem, but it’s sort of a garbled and mashed up version of the national anthem being sung by this j six choir. I mean, there is something about treating the song of your self proclaimed martyrs of your movement as equal to the national anthem that’s itself.

So at a big rally, with the standing and the saluting. I don’t try not to overuse the Nazi comparison. It is not really quite an Nazi comparison, obviously, but There’s something genuinely deeply creepy about it.

Yeah. Creepy and fishistic. And I made the point that, you know, and these are also the people that were very up in arms about Colin Kapernick taking a knee during the national anthem. And, you know, I do think it puts a different light on this. On those sorts of critiques I’m mad about the Black National Anthem also being sung at the Super Bowl, but also we have a new flag now that has a blue line on it.

And now we all also have a kind of sectarian national anthem. It it kind of, I think, reveals a little bit about what was really underlying some of those critiques from fast.

Absolutely.

There was another thing that happened at the speech. It was a little brouhaha of the weekend about, and it was Trump using the term bloodbath, which I have to say. I I think that some of this was a little overwrought. I used the term bloodbath. I think I used it on on this podcast last week talking about what happened to the RNC.

The question is about the context of this. And so, you know, for folks that missed it, they were actually enjoying their weekend and to not see the back and forth. I basically, what has happened is Trump. This is also the problem with with dissecting these trump speeches is that a lot of times it’s nonsense garble speak. I mean, you know, he’s like Nora Borse, the the snake just kind of these sentences, like, goes out and comes back, and and they don’t follow a a rational logical verb predicate noun predicate sentence structure, but in short, basically, he’s talking about the plants that are being built in China and how the auto industry in Ohio and in the Midwest is you know, getting us suffer and the suffering under Biden.

And then he says, now if I don’t get elected, it’s gonna be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it, but they’re not gonna sell those cars. So, you know, if you wanna call that a sentence or sentences, okay, you can dissect it if you want several people in the media were kind of claiming that he’s saying that he loses, there will be a bloodbath and kind of alluding to January sixth. Others are saying he’s just talking about the car industry. Your colleague and our colleague, Andrew Edgar, was, got some attention for saying, well, no.

Actually, he pretty clearly says it’s gonna be a blood bathroom country, and that’ll be the least of it. So how do you assess the kind of bloodbath brouhaha?

I mean, I wouldn’t obsess on the sentence. And as as we said earlier, I was kind of obsessed with the hostages and the quote hostages and and that horrible part of the speech. But look, when you said the RNC was a bloodbath, you know what? You haven’t called for killing people who work the RNC. You haven’t called for beating them up.

You haven’t called for putting them in camps. You haven’t said that there’ll be retribution or vengeance against them. In the future, except you might personally not choose to hire them for some enterprise that you’re involved in, but that’s that’s free country.

I definitely would choose not to them for an enterprise. I’m involved in. But, yes.

So you know what? No one thinks when you say bloodbath that you’re calling for a bloodbath. When Donald Trumpson uses words like that, and he does so routinely, of course, it’s not quite like a normal politician or a normal commentator using a colorful term. And people are entitled to be a little alarmed, though as I I think there are even more alarming things in that speech and every other speech. And it is not just his speeches, but in his actual program for for twenty twenty five.

The pardon power, which I I mentioned also in morning shots. So, of course, the context of the hostages, quote hostages. I even hate to use that term. I mean, it’s so offensive after, you know, they’re real Americans being held hostage and, obviously, in the Gaza strip, but also in Russia to get back to that unpleasant topic. Anyway, so why does he talk about the hostage?

Because he’s gonna pardon The pardon power, that is really dangerous at a Trump second term. When he says he’s gonna pardon people of committed violence doing something he wanted them to do. What is he saying about the future? You do something that I want you to do. You’re outside the government.

The government can’t quite get around to doing it. You take law into your own hands. Here’s a pardon. You’re in the government. Someone tells you you can’t do that.

It’s not really authorized by the law and the regulations. You do it anyway because you’re furthering Trump’s wishes. Here’s a pardon. The pardon power, the way interrupt talks about it and glory said it in the context of all the rest of his rhetoric is an invitation to violence. So people are entitled to be a little more alarmed when Trump uses the term bloodbath than than a normal commentator does.

Yeah. I totally agree. You know, the mega defenders and the apologists and, like, the worst people in America who, you know, who are always looking for any excuse to be able to defend trump because they can’t defend him on the merits. You know, they come out and say, well, you have to look at the context. You’re talking about the auto industry.

It’s kind of like, well, no. Actually, we can, you know, take the aperture back a little bit on that context. And think about the broader context, which was there was maybe not a bloodbath, but there was blood shed after he last lost an election because he refused to accept defeat. Like, that happened after his last loss. So when you support a nominee for president, that incited a deadly riot at the Capitol after his last loss, then part of the baggage associated with that, when you nominate him again, unbelievably is that when he talks about a bloodbath after the next election, that some people might take that literally.

The part of thing Paul Manafort. There’s a report out of the Washington Post today that Paul Manafort is back to advising Trump at least informally and possibly formally again I do think that it it kind of got lost because of the timing. It was after Christmas, I believe, or maybe right before Christmas of twenty twenty, that Paul Manafort was pardoned by Trump. So this is during the stop of steel. It was a couple weeks before January sixth.

And it was the type of pardon that in a different administration or a more normal administration where there was not an insurrection a few weeks later. You know, would have, I think, just totally dominated coverage. And it would have been treated like Mark Rich on steroids, which is what it was. It was an absolutely treasonous pardon. I mean, Paul Manafort was colluding with the Russians.

Was dealing with Russian intelligence sources, even the Republican senate report, that looked into the Russian interference in the election said that Paul Manafort was doing influence work for the Russian government and its interests. That’s a direct quote from the Republican Center report. And then he did not cooperate with federal officials that wanted to investigate his work his influence worked with the Russian government. He was jailed. Donald Trump pardoned him, all the while getting an assist from Russia, of course.

And now with everything that we’ve learned since and all the actions of Russia since Donald Trump is now bringing this person that he pardoned back into the mix. It’s really astounding.

Yeah. And really dangerous. I mean, he also pardoned, I think, flynn and Roger Stone

and Steve

Vanon. General election day in January sixth, I I think. He’d used the pardon power earlier and talked about using it earlier to attempt to towards the course of justice. He really started to use it after, you know, when he was trying to overturn the election results. And he obviously learned in a sense maybe you already had the sense of it, but he really learned how powerful that could be, I think, accomplishing his aims if he ever gets back into the presidency.

And so, yeah, the manafort reemerging. And incidentally, all those Republicans, you mentioned briefly before as senators, the members of Congress, all these error locked at least supporting Trump. Could one of them say a word about the propriety of Matterford or Steve Vander for that matter being part of Trump’s inner circle. I mean, it’s just why even bother? Why am I even on this question.

I don’t know, but it’s just so but, I mean, it is a subversive. If I could put it that way, Enterprise, the Trump has evolved. In subversive of our constitution, subversive of the Republic, And all these people are just, well, I don’t I don’t prove some of the things he says. I wouldn’t say it that way myself, you know, but nothing they don’t take it serious. Mike Pence takes it seriously.

No no one else seems to.

He does. And let’s get into Mike Pence. I bet I wrote it to them. I mean, you think subversive. When I wrote about the Manafort thing in twenty twenty pulled back up that article.

I I called it treasonous at the time. And I I just I don’t know how to otherwise explain it. I mean, Russia engaged in attack on our democratic elections. Manafort was speaking to, including with Russian intelligence during that time. He lied and concealed this effort when the American government tried to investigate it in order to protect himself.

And then Donald’s not part in him for it. So you don’t need to split hairs about that. And he was he was literally working with the people that are attacking America. So you’ve defined that however you want. Okay.

Mike Pence is somebody that does see this clearly. Over the weekend. He was asked about whether he had endorsed Trump on Fox News and said no. I said he also is not gonna vote for Joe Biden. He he said he’s not gonna reveal who he’s gonna vote for.

And, he expressed dismay about on a range of issues, Donald Trump, but but specifically, like you just did mentioned, you know, his use of hostages and referring to January six hostages at a time when when they’re our actual real life American hostages. So what was your take on Mike Pence? Hero of democracy, just just barely passing the bar. Where do you stand?

He’s progressing. I mean, incidentally, the first time he said was, mister Thursday, Friday, that he wouldn’t support Trump. It was kind of he because Trump’s not a true conservative. He doesn’t support the serve it of agenda. It’s like really, I mean, isn’t there a little more abortion?

He mentioned abortion. Trump’s a little too weak need on abortion for him. I’m like, is this helping him? You’re kind of helping Donald Trump now by saying that it’s too moderate on abortion point.

Right. And then, you know, it doesn’t support. I don’t know what your balance budget is. I was glad to see tense on Sunday. It didn’t move a little further to mentioning January six, which is incidentally seems to be basically verboten to be mentioned by any Republican.

Right? I mean That’s

like the eye roll. If you’re like, oh, you’re gonna talk about that whole thing again. Right. The storming of the capital.

And then maybe it’s good political advice that, you know, Democrats shouldn’t talk about it all the time because you gotta talk about kitchen table issues, and people don’t understand democracy, quote unquote. I think they kind of do understand storming the capital, though. And I think January sixth has an actual issue in the fact that Trump is literally on the side of the insurrectionists. I mean, he incited them, but he could have said, and many people said, right after all, he kind of puts accident didn’t really expect him to storm the capital, and he could have said nothing. Not they’re not even pretending that there’s any, you know, regret or or second thoughts or, you know, little bit of distancing from the interaction.

I mean, to think of that was the Trump rally. This was not a, you know, What’s a Charlie Kirk organization? A turning point. This was not, like, some Trump adjacent thing. This was a rally for Trump.

The announcer who presumably wasn’t struck by the Trump campaign as to what to say. Please stand for these brave for the hostages. Trump to salute. I mean, that is what the alternative is in twenty twenty four.

There was not just pence among the senior trump staffers that were speaking out as former defense secretary Esper had some pretty alarming comments about his private conversations with Trump and what he would expect from a second trump term. Let’s take a listen.

You know, eventually it culminated, but the the long break, simmering break between he and myself in June of twenty twenty when he wanted to deploy active duty troops on the street of Washington, DC, and and suggested actually that we we shoot American, Americans in the street. So, I mean, kinda more what you’ll see. It’s very hyper aggressive behavior. And this, you, you know, willingness to flaunt norms and and rules, if you will.

Like, I mean, sometimes again, it’s like the match between the tone and the words is a little off for me. It’s like, you know, there might be some flaunting of norms, if you will, in the next term, like, for example, he wanted to shoot Americans in the street, and we had to talk him down from that. So, Harrow is a metal for, Mark Esper, maybe not. But the pairing of those things, right, like, to have Trump’s own vice president this weekend say that he cannot support him. Because of January sixth.

To have his own defense secretary say he cannot support him because he’s concerned that he would wanna put into place some of the some of the proposals that they discussed apparently in private in up to and including shooting Americans in the street. I it’s pretty remarkable. To have both of them kind of speaking out that clearly. I mean, there’s not really an analog for that.

Right. And, Mark, I’ve known him a long time. He was a you know, foreign policy staff are on the hill for Fred Thompson and Phil Frist and sort of mainstream Republican. And when he went in there, I mean, he wasn’t a famous guy like Jim Mattis, and he wasn’t, you know, conspicuously, you might say standing up to Trump, but I knew some people in the defense department. I think he did his best to to prevent really terrible things from happening.

And along with some things as they all had to in a sense. But I remember being one of these, maybe we discussed this once one of these exercises before November fourth election day in twenty twenty. What Trump could do people were trying to prepare? I think intelligently for, you know, worrying about the scenario that actually happened. And I remember I played Trump because I allegedly knew more about Trump having been a Republican, and, I said, well, of course, you’ll fire Esper.

This was on Zoom. It was the pandemic. There were, like, fifty of us in Zoom, but I remember. And so the chat thing is open, you know. And I remember getting a ton of chat of chat things.

Hey, that’s great, Bill. You’re really getting rid of the spirit of this game. It’s important to make us really think outside the box. Of course, it will never happen. Who wins that ever happen?

President firing secretary of defense right after, you know, losing an election. It’s, like, yeah, I I think it could happen, you know, and he could probably fire a bill bar too, and he could try to take over financial security, sectors, the the, something like that, the power agencies, I think, the power ministries of the government to help advanced his plans. And sure enough he fired Esper when I think four days after the election. And I think Esper’s been pretty outspoken and pretty, you know, Yes. He’s there’s a little mix of the tone, and the the words are a little maybe off.

But I and I think he and other people I’ve talked to served in the first Trump administration. So if he’s elected, he’ll invoke the Insurrection Act on January twenty twenty twenty five, what he sworn in, and he’ll say he’s doing it for the border because the border’s been out of control. Of course, the interaction act is very vague in general, and it does allow you to deploy US troops in, on the soil of the United States as Trump wants us to do and June twentieth when he got Esper and Milli to march across Lafayette Square with him. So, yeah, it’s it’s Esper is a should be promoted more as a sensible voice of alarm who has no personal stake in it. You know, I mean, he’s really has tried to say what he believes to be true.

The substance and mistakes of the threat for Esper, but the instruction act, etcetera, is super alarming. I have one more sentence on the on the politics of this. I do think that hopefully, eventually, this will accrue to Biden’s benefit. Is it possible that we could live in a world where it doesn’t sink in that Donald Trump’s own vice president multiple of his defense secretaries, multiple of his national security advisors, all are not supporting him.

Mean, it’s possible. I hate it. Yeah. I hate to say this.

That’s gotta sink in with some people. Right? There’s nobody just like, Hey. I’m looking around. I’m like, well, know.

I’m trying to decide between these two guys. And his own vice president and all of his top staff members say we should never give him power again, but my judgment from sitting here and and coming Georgia. Is that, you know, I think that he’s probably still a better.

Yeah. No. I I think it should sink in. I think, honestly, and some people say, well, Biden needs to talk more about that. I don’t actually think that’s right.

I think it needs to be, frankly, you know, Sarah Longwell and and and Republican voters against Trump, but other groups too that aren’t part of the Biden campaign. If it’s Biden, then it’s like, well, somebody sold out to Biden. It really should be an independent effort and many independent efforts. And I encourage, much as I look, Bob Vasera, and, of course, we’re we think we’re the the best of of these efforts, but everyone should get involved in the finding Republicans who’ve spoken up against Trump and finding former Trump officials, especially who’ve spoken up against Trump. They saw him up close They really understood what he was trying to do with the defense department, the justice department, Cassidy Hutchenson and Sarah Matthews, and others understood from in the White House what was happening.

Those people need to be very famous by election day twenty twenty four.

Agree. Okay. Rapidfire. Couple quick other things that are happening, Tom Emer over in the house. Who’s you might recall.

He’s part of the house leadership. He was one of the more supposedly establishment. Whatever Republicans was kinda traded by Donald Trump to when he attempted to run for speaker. Apparently, that did not bother him. And there’s a gathering in West Virginia over the weekend, the house Republicans there.

Apparently, he said that the state of the union was so divisive that if Biden wins next year, he would not extend him an invitation. I I just I I feel like I have to bring this up because, you know, if Joaquin Jeffrey had suggested this that would just be, you know, wall to wall pearl clutching from the norms crowd. You know, we’d have multiple New York times op eds about this, but it’s kind of hard to break through with these sorts of things on the Republican side, but I do think it bears mentioning that Tom Emmer who, I supported, you know, as we’ve been discussing, the man that spurred on an attack of the cap it all feels like that Joe Biden’s frankly pretty normal state of the union address was too much for him, and we must now stop the historic practice of the state of the union. Thoughts on that.

AB, he has ambitions to move up in leadership, you know, still and wants Trump to be okay with him next time.

That’s pretty dark. Okay. Yeah. On the other side of the hill, there’s been a some kerfuffle about comments by Chuck Schumer. I’ve just been kind of wondering what Bill Crystal thinks about this.

Chuck Schumer basically calling for a new government in Israel A lot of more pro Israel folks in the Republican side of the aisle creating a stink about this talking about how inappropriate it was. You know, where do you fall on that?

I I’m sort of of two minds. I mean, I’ve I wish there were a new government in Israel. I wish that, you know, it steps aside the week after. And these are the industrial has been in a way to stick with the government you have, get the war over with, and then make a change. That’s happened two or three times, but he’s so divisive and there’s so little trust in him that having a national unity government led by gods or someone else, I suppose, it would have been so much healthier, I think.

And that’s probably still the case. So I think substantively, I agree with Schumer to a large degree It’s a little unusual for the one of the leaders of one country to tell another country they should have elections, but he’s not telling them. I guess he’s suggesting liberty’s not making any of our aid contingent on that. And he is a genuine friend of Israel. So as I say, I’m slightly ambivalent.

It has a true supporter of Israel as I think sure where is, I really wish Naceliahu would step aside.

I kinda agree with that. That’s sort of where I landed on this too, but, you know, sometimes I feel like I’m out of my element on this stuff. Okay. Finally, also very important issue. I just had to get your take on it after seeing your social media posts.

Kate Middleton, I don’t know. If you’ve noticed she’s still not seeing the sun, one of the tabloids, in in the United Kingdom has said that she was spotted this weekend, but there are no photos of it, which is actually weirder than putting up a photo or then saying nothing, I would think. But, I’m just wondering if you have thoughts as, you know, I feel like we are two of the most prominent anti monarchists and, you know, all of the west. And, it seems like you might see an opening for, you know, finally toppling the monarchy somewhere here in the Cape Middleton saga.

You would think I didn’t really watch the crown, but someone on social media put up the last, you know, one of the very last segments. I think of the crown where Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth are saying this where the last where the last who can keep this going, and it’s not gonna be sustainable once we leave. And I think there’s some some truth to that. So Yeah. It’s time for Kate Middleton to, or I hope she’s well, and she can emerge, and then she can start an anti monarchy party, you know, enough of the crown.

That would be exciting. The Labour Party, as I did eight seconds of research on this, the Labour Party has never been, I think, as a way of making themselves seem less radical. It’s never been anti crown anti monarchy. In fact, they’ve gone out of the way a different time, clement attlee way back after world war two. No.

No. We’re fine with the monarchy. But I think enough already, you know, and let’s, they can become a republic and, follow in our footsteps two hundred and fifty years later.

Yeah. Enough already. To a constitutional republic led by let’s go gonna step further. You know, Kate, I don’t know. I can take a leap, Kate.

Maybe it should be led by an American Meghan Markle. Maybe that I think that is where the United Kingdom it’s sort of reaching its inevitable conclusion, you know, sort of the final battle of the revolution, if you Will Saletan Markle, a seeding to the prime ministership.

It can’t be called the United Kingdom anywhere that would have to be just great britain. You know?

Fair enough. Okay. Bill Crystal, we’re up next with the recently sanctioned Ben Willis. I’m very excited to talk to him about what’s happening in Russia as well as the Trump trials. Bill, we’ll see you back here next Monday.

Alright. We are back with Ben Willis, editor in chief of Law Affairs senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings institution, author of dog shirt daily on Substack. But then your most important recognition this week comes as you’ve been actually sanctioned by Russia. Well, technically, they sanctioned a guy named Ben Wittz, a journalist, but we’re gonna assume that that was just you know, maybe a translation error and give you the due. Congratulations that you deserve.

How does it feel?

It feels great. You know, I started these operations against the Russian Embassy two years ago. I’ve done eleven countries projection operations. And as you know, they’ve been officially recognized by the president of Ukraine, all of which has been incredibly heartwarming, But there was a missing piece. It’s like, you know, being frozen out of the Grammys for thirty years or something.

And then you get a lifetime achievement award. The Russians came through finally, and, you know, gave me that Oscar I projected my thanks to the ambassador on the wall of the embassy this weekend along with a request that next time, they do spell my name correctly. And, you know, all is right with the world now.

Is there any bitter sweet element to it to know that you’re not gonna be able to visit Vlad Avostock in winter or, you know, see the beautiful gleaming grocery marts of Volgograd.

There has been an element of regret, but, you know, here are some things that I’m thinking of doing. I’m thinking of applying for a visa just to get the letter that says, no. You’re sanctioned. You you can’t have

a visa.

And that would be like an awesome thing. You know, I’m thinking of that. Although, there is this problem that, you know, I can’t really set foot in that building. Because there are sort of Jamal Khashoggi like concerns.

Yeah.

You know, can I apply for a visa by mail And will there be polonium on the letter that comes back? So there are, like, you know, challenges associated with this project. But, yeah, no. I I have actually all jokes aside. I’ve always wanted to go to Russia, and I have a lot of Russian friends, and and I actually would under different circumstances like to go to Russia.

But here is the thing, any circumstances in which I would go would involve a different government that would rescind these sanctions anyway. So I’m I don’t think the marginal impact of not being able to visit the hermitage under Vladimir Putin is pretty close to zero. So Plenty

of beautiful places to go in the world. I I wouldn’t sweat it.

Exactly. Before I

get to the trump trial is one other thing I want you to take on, related Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk. We’re liking this guy.

Oh, yeah.

He’s great. Trolling Mike Johnson on social media over the weekend saying, look at Odessa, how many more are units do you need to make a decision? There was maybe a little bit of movement at the Republican retreat that we discussed with Bill Crystal about potentially having a vote on Ukraine funding under suspension What are your thoughts on the state of play there?

So the state of play in Congress is simultaneously, awesomely depressing and a bit encouraging. So the depressing side is that we’re having this conversation. There is literal rationing of our Killery shells on front line positions. The Russians took of DIVka, not so long ago. This is a really costly bit of gamesmanship and Bulwark.

And it’s costly, you know, in terms of actual Ukrainian lives and that were that were looking for hope in marginal discussions of you know, the the chicken entrails of Mike Johnson’s

The criminology, if you will.

One might say is really depressing, and that said the news late last week out of the Republican retreat was in that context encouraging. I do think it suggests that he’s looking for a way to get this done and get, you know, the monkey off his back. It’s not it’s not playing well. For, you know, Americans actually support Ukraine. And so this is it’s not like, you know, abortion, right, where you’re adopting a view that very large numbers of people feel incredibly strongly about, but you are adopting a view that the average voter does not share and that the administration’s position is very close to that of the median voter And so it’s a bad position for them to be in, and it does suggest that he’s looking for a way out And, you know, this is one where as much as I want to take every little bit out of their hides, the administration and all people who care about Ukraine need to help them find a face saving solution to just get this done because because we actually really do need that money to free up as quickly as possible.

So thank you, Mike Johnson, for entertaining something approximating reality, and let’s get this done.

Alright. Concur over the well, I don’t know if I concur on the thanks. Even even if it was a sarcastic thing, so I’m

not sure I could I could get that out of my

mouth for Mike Johnson, but

Let me rephrase. Mike Johnson, you are part of the way toward stopping my campaign of giving fifty dollars a day to trans rights organization in your home state. All you have to do is hold that vote or schedule that vote even.

Fingers crossed. Okay. Onto the trump trials on Friday, Fulton County superior court judge Scott McAfee ruled that Fony Willis and Nathan Wade cannot continue to prosecute the electoral inter interference case against Donald Trump together. So Nathan Wade is withdrawing. What say you?

And I think, obviously, the gonna cause a delay, but I don’t know if a delay really mattered that much. In this case, at least with regards to Donald Trump, I don’t think there was a lot of hope that this was gonna come to trial before the election anyway. What other kind of downstream ramifications are there of this?

So I’m not sure it is gonna cause a delay actually Fulton County to appeal this requires the permission of either Scott McAfee or the Georgia Court of Appeals. It’s not clear to me that either of them is going to be eager to put this case on hold for eighteen months in order to revisit Fony Willis’s sex life in more detail. The opinion is sound and good, and it actually forced her to get rid of Nathan Wade who had serious credibility problems at this point. And so I think it actually potentially freeze up judge McAfee to move this case forward. Now as you say, the case is not going to move in time to be resolved before the election.

It’s among other things, the state estimates that the presentation of its side of the case alone will take four months. So even if you had a, you know, a reasonably prompt start time, And there’s still some more issues to resolve before you could have a trial. You know, four months is a long case. And I don’t think this is likely to start before August. And so you’re not gonna get a verdict in Fulton County before the election.

That said you could have a trial begin. I mean, there are some obstacles, but I think you could have a trial begin sometime in the late summer or early fall. And I think one of the things that is attractive about judge McAfee is that unlike Eileen Cannon in Florida. He is moving things along, and he rules on motions pretty quickly. And I think he’s got a pretty expeditious way of handling things.

Now he also has you know, fifteen defendants, which, you know, was Bonnie Willis’s choice, not his. It’s a he actually has a hard job unlike some of the other judges in these cases. But I think this case is put back in a position now where it can move, and that is a healthy thing.

Wanna get Tyler and cannon. Just one more thing on this. I gotta say I’m still pretty annoyed at Fannie Will Saletan Nathan Wade.

Right. So.

Yeah. And just it does feel like from the PR side of this, even if the legal element of it moves forward, it was just kind of like the way that they kind of responded to this relationship and was handing this club to Donald Trump to bat them over the head with. In a case that is very serious where they’ve already they’ve already gotten guilty, please. Right? I mean, like, there was there was so much progress in this case, and and it was so encouraging that it is, you know, it’s just annoying.

It’s annoying and disappointing, and it feels like it was preventable.

I have thought about this a lot over the last few weeks as I watched the evidentiary hearings and the arguments, and I have to say the person whom Fawning Willis reminds me of most in the world is Bill Clinton. That is she is dripping with talent. I mean, she’s one of the most electric courtroom presences I’ve ever seen. She is incredibly bright and watching her argue emotion is a genuine thing of beauty. And she’s arrogant as hell and does not concede an inch ever even when she can save herself as you say a clubbing by just not handing the club to the other side.

And I do think it’s very frustrating in exactly the same way that Bill Clinton was frustrating you know, she could have gotten rid of Nathan Wade a long time ago and made this issue go away. And she just refused to because she was so wrapped up in the, you know, attack on her dignity and her integrity that she could not see that there was a real problem here. And You know, I I do think she gets some real blame for that.

The Bill Clinton comparison, not not really a winner on the Bulwark podcast. But I see what you’re saying, talented. The there was just unbelievable. Sometimes people too talented for their own good at times. Okay.

Aileen Cannon briefly. The delay is the theme of the podcast today. We also have a a delay. Another one in in the documents case over what your colleague Roger Parloff called a, breathtakingly baseless claim of selective or vindictive prosecution by the former president. But, despite it being breathtakingly baseless, judge Eileen Cannon, it’s like, yeah, we gotta chew this over for a little while.

Yeah. So there are two issues argued on Thursday and without going into the the details of them. One involves the presidential records act. You know, these are arguments that a normal district judge would deal with, in a very expeditious, and I wouldn’t say disrespectful, but they’re they’re not arguments that require a great deal of time and energy to resolve, and she is treating each one. Like, it is a major quest that you have to hold a hearing about.

And even when she denies emotion, like she did on Thursday, She does it in this fashion that makes it sound like the issue has a lot more gravitas than it really does. And she does seem to be setting up a perhaps an evidentiary hearing on the matter of selective prosecution. Which is, frankly, somewhere between meritless and trivial, whatever this is Trump’s handling of classified documents is so beyond what other presidents have done that the idea that you would prosecute this case, but not others is intuitive, not merely defensible.

Okay. Final delay in the Hush Money Stormy Daniels case, we are looking to start that in March. You were planning on going up to New York for that being our special correspondent here later this month. That’s been kicked to at least mid April after, I guess, there was a a bunch of documents by the federal prosecutors and and Southern District of New York, a bunch of guess, new material, new documents. Can you explain what the what the delay is in New York?

Yeah. So this is one that I don’t think is going to be a serious issue. It’s just going to require a couple of weeks of additional time. The federal prosecutors. Remember, this case arises out of the federal investigation of Michael Cohen.

So the feds, both the Mueller investigation and the New York attorney’s office, US attorney’s office in New York have a lot of documents from their own investigations of this matter and related matter these were requested a long time ago, and they were finally turned over you know, like, well, the other day and more of them are coming.

What was the delay on this from the feds? Where was Merrick Garland? Was Merrick Garland just shampooing his hair, instead of turning he’s over?

Not a Merrick Garland issue. It’s a US attorney’s office in New York issue. And I don’t know the answer to that question. I don’t think anybody else does either, but it’s it’s basically indefensible. And so they the feds dumped this very large.

I mean, it’s tens of thousands of documents on the prosecutors, the New York State prosecutors, and they turned stuff over to the defense promptly but the defense, of course, argues that, therefore, the case should be dismissed because these are discovery abuses. The prosecutors say, hey, shouldn’t be dismissed. Come on. Don’t be ridiculous, but if you need an extra month to review material, we we don’t object to a month’s delay. So the judge has ordered a delay.

And on March twenty fifth, the day that we were supposed to have the beginning of trial, we will find out how long that delay is. My guess is it’ll be two to four weeks and not a lot more than that.

Alright. Lastly, biggest possible picture here. I’m just looking at all this and, you know, there was a moment, I guess, maybe three months ago in December where you looked out at the calendar. And it looks like, man, like, Donald Trump might be in trial a lot, you know, in courtrooms a lot during the general election. I’m starting to feel less like that is the case, you know, with the behavior of Canon, you know, it seems like he will still be in in court in New York at some point, just maybe a little later in spring, how do you kind of assess the the broader legal calendar between now and and election day?

So I think there’s one high probability event that’s New York. I think that’s gonna happen in April or early May instead of in late March, but it’s gonna happen. The second is something that’s not going to happen. I don’t think anybody should plan on a trial in Aileen Cannon’s courtroom between now and the election. And the third is a matter that might or might not happen.

These are the wild cards. One depends on the Supreme Court. That’s the Washington trial. Which I think everybody kind of agrees is the most important case. The judge in that case is clearly interested in getting things done and then quick fashion.

Judge Chuckkin has moved with alacrity, and and I think we’ll move as quickly as she can subject to whatever Supreme Court does. And the other one, of course, the other wild card is Georgia. I think it is likely that neither of these cases will be complete by the time of the election, but both of them could be or one of them. You can’t do two trials at the same time. One of them could easily be ongoing, and the time of the election.

And so I still think the we are likely to have one or more trials, but it may just be one one trial complete and one ongoing at the time of the election. So I still think the premise is right. But it’s it’s different and it’s unlikely that I think we’re gonna have for those who wanna say he’s been convicted in two jurisdictions of x number of charges. I don’t think we’re gonna in a position to say that.

Alright. Ben with us. A bulwark salute to you, my friend, a defender of democracy salute. You have officially been sanctioned by Russia. Our congratulations.

And, we’ll be talking to you once some of these trials finally start.

I’m excited about it.

Thank you to Ben with us. We’ll be back here tomorrow. We’ll look forward to seeing you all that, peace.

It’s not a paid vacation. The sons and daughters, city officials, and demonstration. It’s hardly sink or smell going on as well with the ticket cell. Out with the wimber. It’s not face of glory.

You look down from the temples people never to make it a story. And she’s so marbled. Well, all is love. Tips never. Save my grace would have bad guilt and only go on the quilt to bone the long.

Spread my arms soak up. Congratulations.

The Secret Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brett.