Jamie Weinstein: The Cowardice of Mitch McConnell

Hey everybody. Before we get to a really interesting and maybe a bit long exchange with our guest Jamie Weinstein. I just wanted to give you guys two things really quick. Number one, mentioned this on podcasts, but with regard to the Skotis decision, I was really moved last night by some comments on the Bulwark Reddit. And their takeaway from all this was, it’s always been up to us folks.

And I think when I’m just talking to you guys here in the family, stopping Donald Trump is gonna be up to us. Alright? The courts are not gonna save us. We can keep watching at the George Conway and Sarah Longwell show. Is out today, and you should listen to George’s legal analysis on this, but we’re gonna have to be the ones to stop him.

We’re the ones we’ve been waiting for. And so if you were down, by the Supreme Court news last night. You shouldn’t be. We just gotta beat this asshole. Lastly, our IP to the great Richard Lewis, the great comedian, You know, this guy, he loved his country.

He loved his faith. He was a proud jew, and he used to message many of us that are involved in the anti trump movement from time to time, giving us encouragement. Always appreciated that and was really moved by it. I was hoping we could have him on some time, and I was sad to hear of his passing yesterday. And so I wanna leave you with a little sound.

The great Richard Lewis will dedicate this show to him. And on the other side, Jamie Weinstein. Peace.

It’s a one and all and all in one. It’s a little redundant, isn’t it?

What? Shut

up. Tell everybody that before the day is out. We shall have a wedding or a hanging. Either way, we ought to have a lot of fun.

Hello, and welcome to the Bulwark podcast. I’m here with my old friend, Jamie Weinstein. He’s a producer and creator of finding Matt drudge on IHeart Media. It is a serial about, well, Matt drudge. Wanna talk about that.

He’s a host of the dispatch podcast on Mondays. In a former life, he hosted the Jamie Weinstein podcast, and I I just do need to mention that I consider the interview that he conducted with me about my political transformation, I think the best one that I did anywhere. So now I get to turn the tables on him. What’s up, brother?

How’s it going? This is, wonderful. I I I didn’t know that. I didn’t know that you considered that with the, the best interview did. So I I appreciate that.

Well, I, you know, I mean, there are different kinds of best. But I thought it was the best because you actually made me think and kind of challenged my assumptions about it. I think probably a lot of it was a lot of people that are interviewing me were happy about my political transformation and didn’t really challenge me on it too much. And so I thought that those elements are, but we’re we’re good. So, I go back to every once in a while, I go back to it when or I send people to it.

When they’re like, what what do you think about this? So anyway, You did nice work. People can go find it in the archives. Thank you.

I’m,

I’m gonna give you the business though now. But beforehand, for people who don’t know you, I just kind of wanna level set a little bit. And maybe you can just tell us, like, how do you define yourself politically these days? And what does that mean for you with regards to? Our octogenarian presidential candidate.

Well, I guess the way I don’t I tell people I define myself these days, less ideological than I once was, although I I’m somewhat ideological, but, the way I describe it is, I’m pro democracy in the sense that I think that there’s a threat to the country with Donald Trump. I don’t know if that’s a hundred percent threat if he’s reelected, but it’s, you know, much higher than it was last time. And I I thought it was a threat last time. But I’m also for not teaching my kids crazy things. I guess on both sides of the spectrum, I find issues, but I I like to have conversations, especially with people that disagree with me.

And, I think that brings, if not agreement, it brings clarity to, debate, and I think that’s healthy.

So are you still using the c word? Conservative? Are you still using the c word? Or are you classically liberal? A different c word?

What how are you describing yourself? Moderate. Are you a neo liberal now?

I I’ve used classically liberal when I was in college. I mean, I I guess that’s probably what I’m closest to, but I I still say I’m conservative. Yeah. I I I’m not afraid of saying, I’m I’m conservative.

I mean, you said beforehand, you might be moving to California. So, like, would you see yourself as a Steve Garvey? Supporter.

I haven’t paid too much attention. I it seems like he doesn’t say very much. It’s from what I can tell. He was on some debate stage, and he he seems to know how to just repeat lines as I can tell, but I I really haven’t been following it very closely.

Okay. We’ll explore over the course of those podcast. Maybe we’ll revisit that question and see if we’ve evolved at all. I wanna do state of the Republican party state of the conservative movement stuff. I wanna argue with you a couple things you’ve been tweeting about lately.

And I wanna talk about Matt Judge, but, like, unfortunately, the news gods have forced us to delay all of that just a bit. With Scotis, decision late last night or, I guess, last afternoon, where they announced that they will be hearing Donald Trump’s appeal with regards to whether or not he’s completely immune as president from doing all crimes, a preposterous appeal, and they’ll be hearing that on April twenty second. I don’t know. I don’t know what a San Yolita has to wash his dome or something, for the next eight weeks. It’s unclear to me what the delay is on that, but I was wondering what your top line response was to this and the political implications.

You know, I always thought, you know, these are in the background. Will he get convicted? You know, will something happen there’s gonna be an election no matter whether he’s convicted or not. And I’m not sure the convictions are, if he is convicted. I don’t know how much that will play, good or bad.

It might spur people to come out and vote for him who they think these agreed. Donald Trump’s a little bit like I always think of, the picture of Dorian Gray in a different way. Like, everything goes right for him. Like, there must be someone up there that allows all the chips to fall where they may. Everyone around him falls and burns, goes to prison.

Fall apart, go bankrupt, lose their money. And yet, you know, trump, the cards just always fall exactly right for Trump, where he avoids it all while all those around him burned.

Is that right? I mean, he’s lost a lot of elections lately. I hate, like, this sense of, oh, there’s nothing we can do with Donald Trump.

He just

he is he’s teflon. That’s not really right.

I do think it is a little bit right, actually. Yes. He lost, obviously, twenty twenty. And there were midterms that he lost, but he didn’t really lose. Those were other candidates that lost.

He’s

been indicted four times. That’s not great. I’ve never been indicted.

Yeah. I mean, he went bankrupt three times and yet he still won the presidency. He finds his way back. Everyone thinks he’s gone, and then he’s back. I I mean, I I use this jokingly.

You know, when he left office, he had all these commentators, some of which I agree with. They were calling him the former guy as if Like, he’s gonna disappear and he’s gonna go away. And now he’s gonna win the Republican nomination and one election away from being president again. So, you know, despite all of this, He is at worst the second most likely person to be president in twenty twenty five.

Yeah. Maybe the most likely. So I guess there’s some reset for that. What’s your sense about the Scoda side of this? I mean, we’ve a legal podcast, so people can go check out, George Conway’s take on this, but I don’t think that you have to be, you know, a Supreme Court, a Constitutional law expert to feel like that doesn’t seem like they’re in a rush.

I again, I’m gonna give them a little more I I she Alright. The court, and maybe there are figures on the court that are more ideological. I I do think the court wants to get this right and weighing in one way or the other, it probably has political implications.

And the DC Circuit ruling on this was pretty Yeah. Resounding. I mean, it was rude frankly to the Trump challenge. I mean, it was mocking almost of this notion that, like, the president could order seal team six to kill Hunter Biden and he would be and that would be fine. Like, it’s a rather preposterous appeal.

I mean, you know, Bush Viggle or the Supreme Court took that up promptly what they didn’t in winter of two thousand. You know, they weren’t saying, well, mate. We’ll look at this in spring. Yeah. I Let’s see what happens.

I don’t have a problem with them looking at it. I I I agree with you. I think, I mean, it should be somewhat immediate. I don’t know why they’re delaying it. And you know, maybe, the George Conaway podcast will have, more clarity on why the court is doing this.

Think I’ll have more harsh words, maybe, on why, but I don’t know more clarity. Okay. That’s fine. I the main takeaway, in some ways, I think there are a lot of people in my life. I don’t know about you and our Slack chain and the board slack chain and my text messages on my social media that were very disappointed about this.

I’m disappointed. I’m annoyed. But to me, a lot of that disappointment was predicated on this notion, the, like, the courts were gonna save us, in this case. And I just kind of never really believed that was true. Like, from the start, I’ve always felt like the voters and those of us that are stated activists against Donald Trump are going to have to save ourselves for this one in November, and I was just never that.

I never had that much optimism about the court side of this. And so it sounds to me like that’s kind of where you’ve fallen on this stuff too. Yeah.

I don’t think the court’s gonna save the country from Donald Trump. I think the one thing that may have done it and think you tweeted about it yesterday, which is a decision that was made in, you know, twenty twenty one in in January to not impeach him and and try him and and convict him. And it was made for the same reason. People called him the former guy. They wanted to get off their plate.

They thought he’d just disappear. Turned out completely wrong. And, you know, here he is again when he ran again. I I thought this would be the easier primary than twenty sixteen. And people were claiming, oh, you know, all these people were gonna overtake Trump Ron DeSantis.

And it seemed to me from the very beginning that Trump was gonna, like, walk through the primary, and it’s kinda what he did. And now he’ll be an inch away from the presidency again. So, you know, it’s depressing.

You can, you can tell your podcast host because you’ve transitioned us into the other news of the day, so which we have Mitch McConnell’s retirement from leadership at least. And, that announcement was yesterday. He spoke on the on the Senate floor. Call it over Clint. And, man, I don’t know.

It’s hard for me to look at the Mitch McConnell thing and feel anything besides just pure rage, as you mentioned, just about his behavior around January sixth. I mean, I I look back at this, and I just think You know, he wanted those two damn Senate seats in Georgia. Georgia had that Senate runoff on January fifth. A lot of party leaders who knew that stop the steal was nonsense were quiet. They wanted to win those Senate seats so they said nothing, sat on their hands.

And then January sixth happens. They knew again what he did was wrong, but they didn’t want to blow up the party. Right? And which is what would frankly happen. So it would’ve been a internal civil war on the party.

Had they convicted him after the impeachment. And so they didn’t do that. My opinion, you tell me is that Mitch McConnell, for all his supposed savvy, In this case, on the one hand, he’s being a coward. He didn’t wanna be the one to put the stake through Trump’s heart. But on the other hand, I think his political antenna was off.

I do think he really thought Trump was dead, and so he didn’t have to kill him. Right? I think that he did not recognize what you recognized what we did that that he could rise from the dead and and win a Republican primary after what happened at the Capitol. And so instead he did nothing. Is it TDS for me to say that that is really kind of overshadows everything else of the longest running Senate leader?

Well, let let me answer that, but to go to the the previous question,

I I mean, it would be crazy if he did not. I mean, and and it’s possible he didn’t, but all the people that thought that Trump could not leave office and then come and run again and be in a position of how I mean, even at that moment, he was at worst the second most likely person to be president. Twenty twenty five. The idea that he’s just gonna go away and, you know, pains never hear from again. So You know, maybe he thought that I think it was what you said, cowardice, not to give Trump too much credit, but Trump recognized us when he entered the race in two thousand fifteen.

That all these leaders in Washington, they talk a tough game, but their spines are made of jelly, and that he exploited that. And he continues to exploit it. And he’ll continue to exploit it right now with all these guys that talk a tough game. They’re slowly gonna endorse him, as it goes to

John Thune has endorsed him. Oh, it’s all relate. I missed it relates to the January fifth, January sixth thing. Right? Like, there’s always a reason why not to challenge Right?

We shouldn’t challenge the stop to steal stuff because we gotta win the leftler and Purdue race in the Georgia runoff on January fifth. John Thune. I I could endorse the Kihaley. Obviously, I like that. Kihaley better, but I wanna be leader.

I know Mitch is gonna retire, so I wanna be leader. So I’m gonna endure. Right? Like, isn’t that what comes down to?

Yeah. I mean, I think you’re right. I think for Mitch McConnell in that moment, it also I think if he impeached him, it would probably be, you know, it would be very hard for him to continue politically ins in in many ways. So why? Yeah.

Isn’t that

his whole thing? Also, isn’t isn’t his whole legacy Supreme Court? Yeah. He did it already. I guess he wouldn’t have been the longest running Senate leader, so you wouldn’t have the Cal Revkin record.

You’d be whoever’s second for the most straight gameplay is Lou Garig. He had a pretty good k career, I think. Some JBL can check me if that’s right. It’s been a while since I did baseball trivia. But, right, that’s it.

He’s not like he did anything. It’s not like he was he, like, had this big agenda item he wanted to do the last two years.

Tim, what is amazing to me? And it still is, and I and I’m still in awe that is the number of people that are either powerful and could get a great job after leaving wherever they are now or already wealthy like, bending over and humiliating themselves in order to stay in good graces with Donald Trump. I mean, look at Vivek Ramos. I mean, the guy’s a billionaire and yet he’s, like, what can I do in order to, like, suck up to Donald Trump? And, like, I don’t get the value of that.

You think that At some point, these people say, you know, f u, this isn’t worth it. My dignity is worth it, but in Washington, it seems like dignity is very low on the totem pole. Of what matters. And I just wanna mention one more thing. Like, I hope Nikki Haley rises somehow and beats Donald Trump in his primary.

That would be wonderful. And I think she she’s way better than than Donald Trump. Sure. The odds that she comes and endorses Donald Trump after she loses this primary are greater than fifty percent.

Not greater than ninety on this podcast. I don’t know. I mean, I don’t wanna take anybody’s hope away. Yeah. You know, hope dies last, but it’s greater than ninety on this podcast, I

I’m starting to be convinced that maybe Chris Christie won’t do it again, but I’m not a hundred percent convinced that Chris Christie doesn’t come out and endorse Donald Trump, in the end. He’s really trying to make it clear. He’s not, but

Yeah. Back to McConnell for you, Steve. So you, you didn’t get to the TDS question. You have my level at of Trump arrangement. Like, Mitch McConnell first paragraph of the legacy is this.

Right?

I was thinking about it. And I think the answer is we don’t know yet, and it depends what happens in the future. Right? If Donald Trump wins, and especially if it’s as catastrophic as the worst case scenarios, of course, that is the first paragraph in his picture. And if it’s written by certain papers, it will be no matter what.

If on the other hand, Trump loses So, you know, it didn’t matter to all that much in the end other than, you know, he wasn’t able to get another a a Republican that could actually win to be the nominee. I think it will be the Supreme Court. I think it will be a master of senate maneuvers who helped create a Supreme Court that’s conservative for a generation. So, I mean, the answer I think to that is depends on what happens. But you and me both know the risk that he took by not doing that should probably be preeminent And even if Trump doesn’t win, he still took a great risk that put him in that position to win, but that’s on how I think these things happen.

We have memories

Especially because he knew. And the risk to me, it’s like he’s told us he knew. Yeah. Like, he said it on the center floor. It’s not like it was, oh, he was too dumb.

Or you didn’t see the threat from Donald Trump clearly, or he didn’t he was under the impression that Donald Trump didn’t do anything wrong, like your boy Dan Crenshaw. He’ll get to in a second. I wasn’t I give you Like, he went on the Senate floor and was like, no. You did this. It was your fault, but I can’t do anything about it because we had to go on vacay after Christmas and we need to take a couple weeks off.

And then you were gone, and I guess we can’t convict somebody’s gone technically by some rule I just made up. Right? Like, that’s the most telling part of

it. We we get a lot of these really powerful speeches against Donald Trump. We get, you know, Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz at the convention. All these righteous speeches and every concession speech. Yeah.

It’s all BS. In twenty sixteen. All BS. Like, they’re not like that. That upset about him.

No one actually has that strong of position because it all fades, like, three weeks later.

Alright. So here’s my one more Mitch panel thing. We need to hash out to see you can you can grade how deep into the you know, resistance kool aid I’ve gotten, since leaving the Republican party. But, some of my old friends get mad at me when I say that, like, functionally, you stole a Supreme Court state. I mean, he didn’t, like he didn’t literally steal one.

Like, functionally, we had it was a situation where in a normal working system. You you would have ways that you appoint judges. There would be norms. You would both sides would respect them. And you know, the rules would be the same no matter who’s the president, which party’s president, which party’s the senate.

Like, didn’t really happen. Right? Like, the there were two situations. They’re exactly the they weren’t even exactly the same. In the one case, the the justice left, like, many months before the election.

In the other case, the justice died right before the election, And he was in charge of the Senate, and he did things differently for two different nominees based on no real principle, except like a made up principle. About election year, you know, appointments. And as a result, the, you know, conservative side of the bench got an extra seat. So Stoll is like an okay word to use. When I say stole, conservatives get really mad.

Really mad. They’re like, oh, Tim. Like, this is Joy Reed, MSNBC stuff. And I’m like, I don’t I don’t really think so. I mean, functionally, she stole one.

I I don’t I’m not gonna get upset at you, but I think the reality is that the the Supreme Court fights had been existential in a certain sense because of Roe v wade. And I think the Democrats ratcheted it up to begin with, you know, starting with Bork and other places. And, you know, the attacks on Elito that attacked his character for being a racist, I think, was very thin. So you have these escalating ventures, and I believe the Democrats would have done the same thing in the same position, all over Roe v. Wait.

And I did You do? Yeah. I did do. And I

think You you do you think that this Democratic party, he’s like Chuck Schumer, these guys that, like, haven’t even brought Jared Kushner up for a hearing? Do you think these guys would have held a Supreme Court seat for ten months?

I don’t know anymore because I do think the interesting question is now Roe v Wade. Is overturned. That court case was in many ways kind of this escalatory impetus, for these Supreme Court fights. So I I do believe that that in that moment, the Democrats would have Probably done the same thing, whether it’s right or wrong. And I think in the end of the day, the the Democrats why did Ruth Bader Ginsburg stay as long as she did.

I mean, there there’s so many questions that you could ask. The Democrats could have better control of the court than they do. Sure. But, yeah. I mean, he’ll be viewed as a hero by Republicans in his obituary, especially if trump’s a a fated member and he doesn’t win again.

And and he’ll be viewed as a villain by Democrats for for what he did on the Supreme Court, but that will be his legacy. So not stole for you. I no. I I wouldn’t I I mean, you

know, what what word are we gonna use? Can we use it’s gonna use the word aggressively seized maybe? Of honest Supreme Court. Legislave the maneuver. You know, I I have to go back in time to read,

you know, the the arguments for and against. I at the time, I think it was pretty clever. But then again, you could argue in the same way it would be clever to put more seats on the Supreme Court. I I guess. So Right.

I I think it would be good not to to I just

get a little flummox. It’s fair. I I’m I’m gonna let you wiggle out of that one. It’s just I get a little flummox when it’s like accepted really on the right to be like, the treatment of Kavanaugh radicalized me. Like, that’s a common I, like, like, the demo way, democratized me, and, like, pushed me towards Trump’s side.

Do you hear this from from people? And, like, I actually wasn’t really so keen on the Kavanaugh treatment, but it was like, Kavanaugh was on the Supreme Court Merrick Garland fucking things up at the department of justice. So so, like, I don’t know how, like, you know,

the sometimes, I think that the outrage side

of this stuff gets a little performing

I mean, I do think there are people that say that’s how they came back to it’s usually like the the moment they came to Trump. And the other one, you know, how they supported Trump. The first time is the way Romney was treated, radicalized them.

No. No. I can’t even do this. I can’t even do that one. That one makes me so mad, Jamie.

When, like, somebody is like, I’m a blogger for the federalist. And Mitt Romney’s treatment radicalized me. And I’m like, why did it radicalize you? It didn’t radicalize Mitt or Ann Romney in a radicalized you. Yeah.

Like, a mean super pack ad? What about the birtherism? Did birtherism radicalize you into being a I just I I hated some.

Well, I think you, you know, so a, I I do think he was mistreated, but b doesn’t justify, like, like, going all in for I don’t I don’t get the the correlation there, but that is the argument that they realized they can’t play nice anymore, so they needed a mean guy like Donald Trump. But to me, the meanness was never the main issue with Donald Trump, so I don’t get, that justification.

Alright. I wanna move on. You did an interview. That reminded me to reach out. I was listening to driving around Los Angeles a couple weeks ago with Dan Crenshaw, and it not nearly caused me to take the car off the road.

So I encourage people to listen to it and it’s full on your Monday dispatch podcast.

Well, just at the top line, you probably don’t wanna insult

interview guests which I understand. So I’m not gonna I’m not gonna put you in that place. So I’m just gonna speak about my perspective of it. I his whole tone to me in this discussion, which I was very fair. It was not you’re not being overly aggressive.

That was reminiscent to me of how I behaved in like ninth grade when I was in trouble with my mother or a teacher, and I was like, screw you. This is stupid. I don’t have to do this Bulwark. I know how to do this. Like, he, like, he just he had a very kind of, like, condescending too cool for this.

I’m not having fun. I don’t enjoy this. And I say that not to insult him, really, but because I think the context of this is important because right around the time you did that interview, Mike Gallagher, you know, who is another in this kind of more traditional, whatever you wanna call it. McCain Bush, Reagan, Republican, Republican, Vane, left Congress at age thirty nine. And I listened to that crunched eye interview, and I was like, this guy didn’t seem like he’s having a good time.

So, just at first blush, like, you’re when you’re talking to you, so it’s just doesn’t that you don’t have to go with the with the childish ninth grader comparison. But, like, don’t you think that, like, there’s a sense of frustration with people in Congress that do actually want to achieve task?

Yeah. I mean, he doesn’t seem like he’s enjoying himself. And I asked a variation of a question. I almost asked it more directly that, you know, you’re getting attacked, viciously by certain wings of the party. You’re you seem upset that you can’t get actually bills through the house is it worth it?

Do you wanna stay? And you said he’s gonna stay? But then as we’ll mention, it gets on January sixth. And I wanted to go looked in. You’re not very convincing with that you’re really enjoying making this argument.

Like, do you wanna do this for four years again if he’s reelected? This will be for four years. You’re gonna get this. Every time you’re gonna get questions on Trump You see me don’t wanna talk about Trump. Why are you signed up for this?

I mean, you can get a pretty good job. I’m sure you can after this. You’re a former Navy CEO who was in Congress. Why are you doing this? Yeah.

That’s I got the sense that this is not something that he’s particularly enjoying.

And you didn’t give a satisfactory answer of that. So my other question, which I guess is less about Dan and more about the bigger, you know, kind of party, is the exchange you had about Tucker. And the line from Crenshaw that really stuck out to me was he says, I don’t consider Tucker to be a Republican. He sort of vamps about how, you know, his views about foreign policy are weird. And then as of his economic views are closer to Elizabeth Warren than Republicans, and then you write what you kind of push back at him and they’re like, well, Tucker though could be a VP choice.

And so I guess I wonder what, like, is your assessment of the answer to that question? Like, who is more of a Republican these Dan Crenshaw or Tucker? What’d you think about his engagement on that question?

There are still Reagan conservatives, people that, you know, Imagine themselves in the party of Reagan who still want to believe that the majority of the party is is that? And I don’t know what ideologically the party is to some degree because I don’t think it’s an ideology at this moment. It’s Donald Trump and supporting Donald Trump and Donald Trump can pretty quickly sway most of voting Republicans to whatever position that he decides from time to time that he has. And most of the people that go to vote on election day, the primary voters are not there for you know, the Dan Crenshaw’s to use certainly, the Reagan Ron DeSantis, and they’re not there even for the American first steve Bannon, like, ideological framework or even the Tucker Carlson ideological they’re they’re for Donald Trump. And whatever Donald Trump’s view is, that is what the Republican Party is today.

And it might not be forever, but but right now, and it has been, since Donald Trump became the leader of the party, he is the party, and his views and ideas are what animated, and Dan Crenshaw is not gonna be the vice president to Donald Trump.

Yeah. No. Let’s do a thought experiment on that. I’m not sure that that a hundred percent right. And I I clearly, the party is the cult of Trump.

And if Trump woke up tomorrow and was like, the number one issue that matters to this party is that, like, we need to have daylight savings time forever. And, like, that’s what I’m gonna truth about every day, then, like, that would be a one hundred percent issue. No doubt. But I don’t know. If Trump woke up tomorrow and was like, you know, I’ve been having some conversations with my friend, Jamie Diamond, And I really do think we need to kind of move to a globalist no label z type platform within the party.

And I’ve liked scales have fallen from my eyes on trade and immigration and foreign entanglements. Do you think people would snap back? To him.

Yeah. Because I On that.

I because I don’t know. I do think that there’s some of that. I guess my point is that I think that that a lot of voters do prefer that.

Yeah. He wouldn’t frame it that way, obviously. I mean, he would say, like, we beat China they’re on their knees. Now it’s the time we’re doing this from a position. Now we’re lowering the tariffs to get, you know, or he would say that, you know, he he would come up with some some reason where he already his policy is one.

So now we have reached a point where we can recalibrate where our policy is. I think for sure they could go to a free trade. I mean, if you’re talking about free trade, I don’t I don’t I don’t think that is deeply held by the voters that vote for him, he made it a significant issue, I think, to most of the Republican Party because it was actually a pretty free trade party before that. And I think he could reverse that. Sure.

Yeah. No. I think he can do pretty much anything.

Okay. Yeah. Let me okay. So let me ask the question another way then. Let’s say, I’m I’m from the future.

We’re back to the future here. I’m Michael j Fox. Okay. And Donald Trump died. That’s too bad.

And so, it’s twenty twenty eight, we’re in January, and I just I just flew back to Jamie Weinstein’s house with a churchill picture. And I’ll let I’m letting you know that the Iowa caucus in Hampshire primary has just happened, and the clear front runner is either Dan Crenshaw or Nikki Haley or Tucker Carlson or Vivek. I am telling you that the front runner is somebody running on an America first Steve Band in his platform, or it’s somebody that’s running on a Dan CrunchOSH platform? Like, what would you say is it more likely? Kind of outcome following Trump’s death.

Yeah. When did he die in this scenario?

In this

scenario, he died he died this year. You know, he lost the election to Joe Biden, and then he died over Christmas because he had, you know, his egg dog was spiked. Yeah. It does a lot of concerns at the deep state spike the eggnog, but that’s kind of a side issue.

So I do think that Donald Trump is a unique figure that is not replaceable And and therefore, I do think the party could go back to a different policy orientation. So it would not shock me in that scenario if it was Dan Crenshaw versus Nikki Haley. Really? Yeah.

Or Vivec might have slightly different positions. Like, you

know, Vivec is not set on his positions. It depends at the moment what is politically viable. So I could see him in that mix as well, but having positions on certain issues that are are very different than he has today. So, it’s not really answering your question. Like, what is the most likely?

But I would say I would not be shocked. In that scenario if the party is, you know, moved away from Donald Trump. Yeah. I wouldn’t say you’re

on your podcast, you used to ask people. Do you think what explains Trump is more like his force of personality and will or more his policy orientation? And it seems like your answer to that question is the former Like, that that it’s less about the policy.

I always ask that question, but I think it’s obviously the former, the his personality. It was shown time and time again. You would have Anne Colton. When Steve Bannon left, people are gonna be like, oh, this is gonna be bad for I mean, he was the ideological force. People are gonna be really angry.

No one in the Republican Party other than, like, six people knew who Steve Bannon was. I mean, it was just a DC centric thing. Like, None of those people that went to go vote for Donald Trump knew who Steve Bannon was, other than a very small, very politically online involved force. It didn’t make any difference that Donald Trump kicked Steve Band into the curb. It didn’t make any difference when Ann Colter started tweeting against him.

It doesn’t make any difference when these people leave and attack him for not being so true to the American first cause. It just doesn’t matter because they’re voting for Donald Trump.

I don’t think there’s a zero percent change you’re right about that, but I kind of respectfully disagree. I think they work in concert together, and I think that the global movement of parties, if concert right wing parties in this direction is telling in this account, like, my interviews with the people at turning point and that these events is telling, but it’s a compelling point that, like, it might all just be cult of Trump that that might all just disappear. I don’t really think so, but it’s interesting.

But but Tim, so I had Charlie Kirk on my old cast. Okay? Charlie Sykes has changed his positions to model himself off Donald Trump, like a hundred percent. Will he keep them when Donald Trump’s not on the stage? Seems like Charlie these days is, like, for immigration himself, who’s ever, like, in power.

So, I mean, maybe his views will model whoever is, I mean, Nikki Haley’s the nominee maybe cult. Yeah. Maybe he’s maybe he’s now, you know, echoing Nikki Haley. You know, I think things change rapidly. And if Donald Trump’s not on the stage, I don’t think there’s anyone who can fill his shoes.

Donald Trump junior might think. I think he probably thinks he can step in after Donald Trump leaves the stage. It’s not gonna work. Yeah.

Yeah. I agree with that. Okay. One more thing on the crunchyroll interview. Let’s just listen to didn’t even ask him about January’s sex, actually.

He just started talking about it.

I I was I wasn’t planning on going there. I thought it’s already been done with him. You know, I I didn’t feel like having that conversation, but he he brought us to that conversation. Okay.

Here it is. Let’s listen to it. I I wanna give Bill Crystal a heart attack mostly because I tried to get him to listen to it and hear we’re gonna play it right now.

In the

end, it was a peaceful transfer of power, and and that was it. You know? I mean, like, I was there, and I was pissed about it. I was, you know, pissed about how that mob got whipped up. But in the end, you know, I I don’t call it an insurrection.

It’s just by definition, that’s not what it is. It was an angry mob. They got really out of control. And, like, they relied you. They relied you in the sense that they were told that they could affect change.

And when people think that they can affect change, well, they’ll they’ll get really passionate about it. They’ll go and they They thought that that day was the day to effect change because they thought that that process you’re engaging in in Congress could actually change the presidential election, of course, it can’t. That’s a very different thing than than, like, trying to raise an army to stay in power. It’s a very, very different thing.

Fair enough, not at the end. I mean, I don’t think generous sick sorts of procedures. I mean, he he filed court cases that he lost. And then when those failed, I mean, he attempted to wasn’t procedural. I don’t think at the end.

I think you’ll agree on that congressman.

Well, no, I don’t. Because it’s so what’s the what? What did he do? He tweeted at Mike Pence. Did it instigate?

Like, did did did it kinda make all these people crazy and make them do crazy? Yeah. But in the end, he tweeted it like that. Now I think that was wrong.

And he stayed inside and didn’t didn’t didn’t initiate help to Mike Pence and do all sorts of things.

Yeah. No. You can criticize you can criticize the morality of it all day long, but you can’t call it this this sort of South American style poo.

Okay. So boy. It’s just a lot of post hoc rationalization happening here. I think that He has a psychological need for this to be true, and he’s kind of convinced himself that this is true. The Donald Trump didn’t really do anything that bad.

Just got a little light, a little light trees. What do what’s your take?

Here I mean, here’s the thing. The January six stuff to me, I I remember and, like, it’s still in my mind, that was, like, the worst thing that happened domestically in my lifetime in terms of you know, the government. It was shocking shocking. I couldn’t believe what was I live right near the VP’s residence. I heard, like, military helicopters.

I I thought, like, You know, I thought maybe the the the article twenty five was being enacted. I thought like there might be I mean, it was pretty crazy. And this is amazing that all these figures knew it at the time, how awful it was. Even Nikki Haley, remember, like, she she said I could never support him and then kind of started backing away. And now back to it again.

But everyone knew. And as time goes, Trump has maintained his power in the party. They all have to rationalize it. As not as bad if they’re gonna stay within the Republican party. Because for the the head of the party, Donald Trump, when he started his campaign, he had a choir of the January six like, musicians or something, to to just to to speak them.

And and not only do they have to do that now. They have to compare that, the the prisoners to Navalny in order to stay in good graces. I quoted to Crenshaw what, Zelda said. And I got the sense he likes Zelda. So he’s like, oh, I don’t know what exactly he meant there.

You know, maybe it’s

a joke.

Maybe it’s maybe it’s a it’s not a joke anymore. It’s like, the the party line is, yes, Russia has political prisoners, and so does America. And either were similar or in some cases, they’re better at the way they handle they handle their political prisoners. They’re not So the other thing

that drives me crazy about that, Krishna, in any conversation with anybody in your life, public, or private figure about this, you know, is, like, they they wanna do the whole, like, well, you know, the media, every you guys all overstated, and it’s like, you know what I mean? It’s just his words. It’s just the mean truths and it’s just his words. And it’s like, I just wanna be like, if we got back in the time machine now going backwards to twenty fifteen and showed Dan Crenshaw just a picture of January six, And then, like, here’s the trump flags. Here’s the confederate flags.

Here’s the smoke. It’s the capital. And we’re like, this Will Saletan, and you will defend it. You know what I mean? Like, he would be like, come on.

You’re an idiot. Never. Right? You know what I mean? And that’s like the thing.

Like, like, that that’s how the goal Yeah.

And and I’m sure if he was here, say, I’m not defending and you’d say, I but he’s minimizing it. He’s certainly minimizing it now. And Donald Trump and I brought this up to him. Was, like, how long was he, like, not responding? Watching TV.

While the Secret Podcast were, like, trying to rescue Mike Pence, his his vice president was, like, life was being threatened and didn’t care. So, I mean, yeah, I agree. He Donald Trump is not the greatest planner. And thankfully, he might not be able to execute things that well. But he’s also a guy who had the power to try to save his vice president for five hours and and shows not to lift a finger.

That’s kind of Yeah. Like, as damning as you can get. And I mean, I know this is kind of superfluous, but, like, it’s kind of important point. Like, anybody who’s ever worked around him, Like, say he’s the worst human being of all time. And yet, that’s where we are.

You’d think that would be a data point that people would consider. Maybe. Yeah. I know. And I can figure you implied this earlier, me.

There’s not a hundred percent chance that, like, the democracy ends if he wins again. And I’m also on that. But, like, my point always to these to people like Crenshaw is, like, Like, what did you you think the chance is? Doing there’s a one percent chance? Two percent.

Right? Because it’s like two percent is really bad.

Yeah.

Previously before twenty twenty, we hadn’t really had an election where you thought that one of the two candidates, there’s a two percent chance that the American experiment would if they want. That was a zero percent chance for both sides question. Like, no matter how bad of a planner he is, like you would think that would be you know, cross the red line.

So in my piece where I, I wrote in twenty sixteen, I think I wrote Hillary’s malaria and trump’s Ebola. That’s why I I’m a support of malaria over of over over Ebola. And I but in in that piece Our

listeners will really appreciate that. Yeah. I will be the malaria net in my vote for Hillary. We appreciated your hill already though.

But in that piece, I said, you know, look, I don’t think Donald Trump is gonna overfill the government. But is there a ten percent chance he’ll try? To, like, maintain power and overthrow the government, that’s ten percent too high. Like, that that, like, like, I can’t vote for someone. There’s there’s that percentage chance.

And I can’t

remember conservative commentators at the time saying it’s just so hyperbolic that people think that boy he’s gonna try to maintain power and be a we did it. And and now we’re now we’re saying, like, he probably won’t get actually think you probably won’t I mean, won’t again, and say, term limited out. But, I mean, it has to be at least the same percentage chance as the high before when he did it. Like, why are we, like, we’re taking that risk? I guess we’re taking that risk.

I I don’t know.

Alright. I’ve got some other topics we gotta get through. Okay. Wanna talk about Israel. I got some unhappy reader email about, my conversation with Brian Boitler on Tuesday and and Aglesias about Gaza.

They thought that he was a little over overstated in his claims about Israel’s actions. So, now I wanna give you a chance to discuss this. It was just something you sent Recently, you said this before, but remains true. The sadistic October seventh massacre was the easiest moral test of our time. But since so many people are failing it, it has become the most clarifying moral moment of our time.

You wrote that. Talk about that a little bit more on what you mean by

Well, there have been sadistic attacks before. I think the Yazidis is probably up there in the ISIS attack on the Yazidis, from what we know. But we’ve not had one as sadistic that’s at that level that has been filmed. We we’re able to see the sadism. We’re able to see the the level of just, you know, stuff’s not murder.

It it was joyful killing, because they were attacking Jews and people that were, you know, working with Jews, fellow Muslims that that lived in Israel that that coexist with with Jews. And it it was from an organization that controls Gaza, the managers of Gaza, who, were founded upon a document that not only calls for the murder of Israelis, but the genocide of Jews worldwide in its founding charter. Now what is the the response that is proportional to that threat? After you know that they can which was shocking to me. I mean, totally shocking.

Having been to that fence and having written about it for years that it had a hundred percent success rate in shopping terrorists and filtration. What is the proportional threat to the threat of elimination, the threat of genocide? It has to be to destroy the group that wants to do it. It just so happens that this group has spent aid money that was supposed to go to help the people of Gaza, and and their fellow citizens, I guess, you would say, because they’re the leaders of Gaza, and built the most elaborate tunnel system that the world has ever known to hide under the population so that in this conflict it will be even more bloody than it would be if they were fighting, another way. So order to defeat this organization, there’s no way it can be, not be bloody, unfortunately.

Because that’s the way they made it. They made it so that would be the case. So I am not a military expert. I’m not in Israel’s position. I would understand if they said, you know, there’s no way we can actually do this, a ceasefire is necessary to get our hostages back.

But I don’t see how this cycle that we’ve had with Gaza ends going back and forth in these wars unless Hamas is totally defeated it. And and by defeated, I mean, its leadership totally eliminated and and its foot soldiers to the extent you can killed or captured.

K. The first ninety percent of you that answer, I was with you one hundred percent of the way. So, you know, I think that we have a little bit of a area worth hashing out about kind of what to do about it. Right? And one of the things you didn’t get it to that.

I’m I’m sure we agree on when you talk about the people that failed the moral test, The folks that were posting hang glider memes on Instagram, you know, at my alma mater, there was glory to the martyrs projected onto the library. We could go down the list of of people that that were literally pro Hamas in there. Response and then kind of expand that circle out to the people that were silent in the face of folks that were literally pro Hamas at their organization, be it a college or political organization. You know, there are folks that have tried to create moral equivalency. Gross, horrible, and infecting too many of our American institutions, a hundred percent agree with that.

But I I think we get to another, like, moral question, though, event, which is like, okay. Is there unlimited? Are there no, you know, rules of war that Israel has to abide to? Like, do do they get unlimited ability to kill in response? And the the usage of the two thousand pound calms in civilian areas.

There was just a story this morning. Civilians, it’s formed around newly arrived aid trucks in the hope to get food when Israeli tanks and drones started shooting at people. Israeli officials is not coming from Pao center Gaza told CNN that they did use live fire on people surrounding the aid truck because they felt like the crowd were approaching the forces in a manner that posed a threat to the troops And I get it, you know, people waving white flags. It doesn’t seem like there’s a real plant. Yeah.

I it’s sixty to eighty percent of the structures in Gaza have been bombed. It’s like, okay. We kill all of the Hamas leaders to what end. Right? Again, so that is, like, just this giving carte blanche to BB in this sense I think a lot from the pro Israel side a lot of times that if anybody raises concerns about this, then they’re giving aid and comfort to the Tara, you know, that’s that’s where I start to kinda part ways with people.

Well, I would say there’s no question that there’s a lot of death and destruction. I think actually Israel has enormous standards. And it’s, you know, the the standards that they act due to launch attacks is is well known and documented. Now I don’t know all the things that you mentioned. A lot of these things that are reported at the time often turn out not to be the case when the dust settles.

I I go back to two thousand two, the Janine Master shirt.

I’ve I just I will say on this point, I wanted to be very specific. I only used examples of things that the IDF has coped. Right? Because I do I agree with that. There’s been a lot of news out there and a lot of, you know, false news taking kind of the you know, angle from, you know, at that face.

Yeah. Yeah. I’m not

and I’m not accusing you of Detroit, but I but I remember, like, in two thousand two, the Janine massacre. They called it a massacre MS NBC was flaring this massacre that, you know, Israel, like, killed five hundred people. It turns out the the troops went door to door to make sure they killed as only the terrorists that that were in there, and I think fifty people died, not five hundred. It wasn’t a massacre, twenty three. Israeli troops died in the same battle.

Instead of doing a a campaign above to just drop bombs on it. So a lot of times when the dust settles, some of these claims of massacres, often turn out not to be true I I’m sure that there could be cases where some Israeli soldiers are not following protocol, but I ask a lot of people this who who have a similar position. How do you get Hamas leaders that have deliberately decided to hide under civilian infrastructures in tunnels? I mean, that’s not a scenario that I know has happened in any other war. Israel’s in a position to root out this genocidal foe that has burrowed itself underground.

And by the way, with the aid that has gone come from the world to help the the Palestinians, they use that money not to build bunkers for the Palestinian’s in case of war, not to provide food, but to to hide underground. And the question is if any country is in that position, It’s a terrible position to be in. So how do you do it? And and I think the reason they’re in that position is because Hamas deliberately knows that once civilians die, that there are these calls for ceasefire, and that’s their exit plan. That’s how they’ll survive.

Once it’s over, or or there’s a ceasefire, you know, they’re come out of of their bunkers with a victory, v for victory, and plan and plot to do this again.

As they

said, they would. That’s what they wanna do. They wanna keep doing it. So it’s deeply tragic, but I do believe the blame for it goes to Hamas and to a lesser extent to a lot of international aid organizations that were giving money and not following where that money was going. And and instead of instead of giving it to the people, it was enriching Hamas to do these type of things.

Yeah. Our views about Hamas and their culpability here are completely sympatico. I I think the question though is, There’s a lot of things in life where you don’t have good choices with our gray areas, right, where you’re being treated unfairly. Right? And, like, does not steal Israel have some response ability in the leaders of Israel, some responsibility say, okay.

I mean, we need to root out Hamas. We need to kill them. But in order to kill all the Hamas leadership, we’re gonna have to totally decimate Gaza, all, you know, so that it’s unlivable afterwards. We’re gonna kill some x number of innocence that’s gonna number into the thousands. And then at the end, we still don’t really have a plan for what we’re gonna do.

I don’t maybe we’ll occupy it, I guess. Maybe there’ll be a couple non terrorists that can take over. We don’t have a good option though. Like, the Palestinian authority is hollowed out and corrupt. Amas is the thing that people voted for.

Okay. So, like, in the face of those bad options, like, is it not okay for there to be people that to say to Israel? Okay. But I maybe we should need to start, you know, going back to the drawing board. I don’t know.

Like, maybe there’s a lot of space here between just mass slaughter and doing nothing.

Well, I

just don’t I I’m not gonna say it’s mass slaughter because, I mean, if it what if if Israel wanted it to be mass slaughter and there would be you know, a hundred thousand dead, it it could be mass slaughter. I I I believe they are targeting to the best they can, the terrorists there, but it’s not an easy job when people have created a system of tunnels underground, to hide from Israel after committing the worst massacre since the Holocaust. I I think people have to understand Benjamin and Yahoo, I wish he would resign. I think he’s been there too long. I think the failure to to prevent what occurred on October seventh is gonna be a damning legacy to him.

But he has not been a particularly violent or someone who wants to engage in in wars. Like, this is not what he wanted. What I mean, he was They’re more hard liners

in the and there are people trying to push him to be

more aggressive in in the government. Sure. But even he was avoiding kind of this issue until October seventh. And I don’t believe if you replace Benjamin Yahoo today with someone in the else in the Bulwark cabinet, you would have a policy that is that much different in terms of war and Gaza. You might have someone who is more likable, and easy to deal with with with the US administration.

But I do not believe you would have a a very much different situation in the struggle, the fighting Gaza because I think after October seventh, the view in Israel, and I’m not Israeli, but I don’t think they can tolerate the existence of Hamas. And there is a solution. There is a better option to this. And that is for Hamas to give back the hostages and surrender. Or at least come to a deal where they give back the hostages and get a ceasefire.

They can do that. I mean, this was a genocide as some people claim, Like, I’ve never heard a genocide in history where the the solution to stop the genocide is to just return the prisoners, these hostages innocent civilians that the the person losing the battle has captured.

Few ways to light flag, we stop the genocide. Yeah. It’s a fair point. I concur that there are many of my colleagues that are good. I’d I’m just I don’t know.

It’s starting to make me uncomfortable. It’s been a long time. I was essentially where you were during October, then early November, And it’s late February. And if anything, it seems potentially, well, hopefully there’s a deal this weekend, but BB is sending signals that’s potentially escalatory signals if the deal defaults through. So We’ll see.

But you make a compelling case. I do not think that you’re supporting an ethnic cleansing, but I think that there is maybe some space between Unfortunately, the only views I’m I see out there is, like, Meti Hassan’s view, the completely opposite side of that. I’m trying to stick some room between. Okay. I wanna argue with you about one other thing.

Our friend, I don’t really wanna make it about him. Adam Rubin, wrote, for the Atlantic. I was a heretic of New York Times. People can read that, in the Atlantic. If they haven’t, and they want context.

He was on the opinion page at New York Times, when the Tom Cotton, Brouhaha, happened about publishing the Tom Cotton op ed, and, you know, he stayed there for a while. After that, is that weekly standard alum. And, you know, his argument basically says that as a conservative or center right person at the New York Times, that he, you know, felt, I think, separate from very much separate from the culture there, ostracized and, that he was treated poorly, and with regards to kind of the oversight and the review of how the Tom Cottonop Ed was handled. And I just I wanna say in the micro, I, like, basically, agree with everything that he said, and I think that he got screwed over. But, like, I think the the part that I wanna hash with you.

It’s not like so much about his specific case, but about what that case says about our current discourse and media landscape. Because I read the story, and I was like, okay. The Times is culturally liberal, and you got screwed over by your colleagues. That sucks. But that’s like a dog bites man story to me.

Like, I just I don’t they’re culturally liberal outlets or culturally conservative outlets. They’re liberal companies, culturally conservative companies. People get screwed over and enter office fights all the time. I I don’t think that this is a crisis of it, proportions. I don’t think we need massive movements and organizations dedicated to this.

Other people disagree. Where where do you fall

on that?

Well, I think part of it his piece is a micro, but really is a macro, which is the the opening anecdote, which for people who haven’t read it, He was in an HR meeting with a bunch of other employees, and they asked him a question just to kind of break the ice with everybody. Like, what’s your favorite sandwich and His initial thought in his mind was, I guess, a very expensive sandwich I’ve never heard of. But he didn’t wanna do that because he thought people would not like it. So he said, you know, spicy Chick fillet chicken sandwich. And the HR person said, you know, we don’t eat Chick fil a in this place because of the Hey, Chick.

Yeah. No. Cause the, Chick fil a’s, the the leadership of Chick fil a’s views on gay marriage. And then everyone started snapping. Okay.

That is not culturally liberal.

That is an insane asylum.

That is a scene in in the same asylum. And and where I would say the macro in that is is that this is the paper of record. If if that is the staff reaction And that is going on, and that’s, like, not seen as an insane asylum.

This is an epic that bothers you. It’s just an epic. You’re you’re more of a clapping man. Just feel uncomfortable. Maybe this is more about your age, you know.

I don’t know. Snapping is just more in vogue. I don’t know. I thought

it was like the beatniks in the nineteen fifties or something. But, you know, I think that’s kind of a painting an insane asylum, and this is supposed to be the paper of record. And look, I feel bad because I know people there or friends of mine. I mean, a great reporters. So I know, like, because I know people in media.

Like, when I read this, like, okay. There are some, at least, some really great writers times. It’s not all like this. I can trust their work. But if you’re, like, just an outside person of the media, doesn’t know the media world, and you see this, like, I don’t know.

Should I be reading the times? Like, this is this is absolutely a crazy environment. So that’s a micro which I think is a macro.

So, okay. That’s fair though. But again, that’s about the time’s gone. Like, the times is culturally liberal and is staffed by people that are elite and culturally liberal. Like, This has been true since the beginning of the New York Times.

Right? He published his story in the Atlantic. You know, not exactly a lunch pail magazine. Okay? That is a culturally elite magazine.

It’s very good. I look at the Washington Post. The Washington Post editorial page, as far as I’m concerned, has conservative white man affirmative action. Like Hugh Hewitt, Mark Tieson, Jim Garrity, Ramesh, Ramesh isn’t white, but, Ramesh, Ramesh, Ramesh is great. I’ll I whatever you think about any of these people, like, Hugh Hewitt, if he was a liberal white man, and that he was putting out the quality of columns that he puts out, would be writing letters to the editor.

Okay. He would not have a perk. At one of the top magazines. So, like, this idea that conservative thought is being stifled in these organizations Sure. Yeah.

Some at some places. Right? But, I mean, I’m sure somebody that, like, works at Fox News, that puts their pronouns in their bio would say that they get mocked and treated poorly and that that’s rude. I I just I guess, like, why does this matter? To convince me that this matters

at all. And I don’t think this is actually a cancel culture question, but I do this is why I think it matters, even more than, I mean, I’d have to think about the canceled culture aspect, but I think what it matters is Well,

it’s cancel culture in the sense of, like, the ideas are being silenced culturally because maybe they’re not being canceled, but they feel uncomfortable sharing though. I think the notion is that if I can’t mention that I I eat a spicy chick fil a sandwich that I’m sure is hell not gonna mention that, like, I think abortion should be banned in the first trimester because or or whatever. Like, So I think that it’s related in that.

But here’s why it matters. I think even beyond the canceled culture aspect is that and I had this conversation on my old show with with Ben Smith. When you staff a paper, with all like minded people from like minded places. As you just said, they’re all, you know, probably Ivy League graduates, who feel comfortable snapping, to to to, you know, I never saw that at my at at when I went to Cornell twenty years ago, so maybe it’s new. But look, they’re all comfortable in the same Milu.

They all have kind of same cultural reference points, probably similar ideological outlook And the problem is when you’re covering politics and and the New York Times isn’t known as a liberal paper, at least it doesn’t present itself as a liberal paper. Right? It might be viewed as that by conservatives, but does not present itself as a liberal paper.

Oh my god. It’s the

paper of record. When you ask questions of politicians, you you start having asking it from a certain framework, and you brought up abortion. Right? There’s a way to ask an abortion question if your if your view is that it’s a human right to have a a abortion. And there’s a way to ask a motion question of a politician.

If your framework perhaps is that it’s, you know, murder or something’s less than that, something that should have some restrictions. And both ways to ask a question are actually probably good questions to ask of different senators depending on the on the sender if you’re trying to be neutral. The New York Times isn’t asking know, I think the classic example, is a Democratic senator, you know, when is a baby alive? Is it?

Sure. But who cares? I guess who cares? What do

you mean he cares?

Like, aren’t there other reporters out there that can ask those questions? I mean, we are we are living in a time of abundance. To me, I’m just, like, Really, like, people are feeling stifled. There’s so many outlets. There’s this preponderance of outlets.

Ben Smith now runs when he has Sema four. Like, like, there is the the axias. There’s politico. There’s the AP. There’s Reuters.

Washington examiner has people there. The dispatch has people to vote. We just stole somebody from you and and he’s gonna be at the White House. Andrew, like, isn’t everybody’s view represented and isn’t the fact that New York Times’ view is all of the same. You, isn’t that just down stream from our our polarization of, education and our politics.

And, like, it’s not also kind of Donald Trump’s fault. Like, who do you want the New York Times to hire somebody that likes Donald Trump?

No. I didn’t quite say that, but you might know this better than me, since I think probably at one point in your career, you imagined being the podium looking down at the reporters for the White House Street.

I didn’t imagine that once. No no longer.

Who is the front row there?

Yeah. It’s the Bulwark. ABC, NBC, CBC CVS. It’s AP. Yeah.

You know? It used to be Helen Thomas. Yeah. But it’s introduced looks like he’s in the front row now

most days.

Maybe it’s

in the second row sometimes.

There you go. But it it’s all outlets that say they are not biased. They they say they are mainstream, and and, you know, I’m not saying they are, they aren’t. But if they all have people from the same mindset, they are put on a different pedestal than the Washington examiner getting a question about one of these these topics that we’re talking about in one of these Hunter Biden’s laptop. Yeah.

So I I do think it matters when when you’re talking about outlets that are considered non biased mainstream, non ideological. They’re the ones that tend to get, debates you know, more often than not, or at least they used to. I don’t know if that happened. I don’t know if that’s gonna be the same case anymore. But it used to be ABC and CNN.

If you’re all staffed, and I’m not saying they all are, but but I think in the case of what we’re seeing in that New York time piece, it looks like a lot of the staff is has the same snapping. Yes. Snap.

Everybody’s snapping. That’s a problem. Yeah.

So I I do think it’s an issue if if you’re staffed, with people from one perspective. And I actually think that’s the this perspective that people argue for the importance of diversity at companies in different places. When when everyone has the same perspective, you might be missing out on something else.

I’m for it. I’m for it. I think the near time should hire people that you know, went to state school and whatever. But, like, I just I think at a time when we’re seeing increased education polarization, like, there’s something that you have to go to college. At the New York Times, I think.

Right? Like, maybe not. Like, somebody, I guess, could be a college dropout and also be a New York Times reporter. I’m not saying that that’s impossible. But, like, generally speaking, if you’re gonna be a person of letters, you kind of need to have graduated college.

And if eighty five percent of college graduates are for one party, because the other party is appealing to racist biggest by putting a reality TV show Befoon as their presidential nominee for three cycles. Then I’m kind of, like, I I don’t know what to do. I think that the New York Times should try harder at Viewpoint and diversity. I do. But I just don’t care that much about it.

I don’t think that it’s that big of a deal.

Again, I went to, undergrad at Cornell. I went to grad school at LLC. So I’ve been to some of these institutions that are supposedly elite and, like, super liberal. Like, Not everyone who’s even left of center and votes a Democrat is, like, snapping their fingers and, like, at the at the Chick fil A thing. Like, we’re acting like this is, like, I I don’t I don’t know people that do that.

I mean, and and I know a lot of people in the media. I mean, they’re friends and and none of them, very few of them share my center right ideology. Okay.

This is it comes down to the stamping. Alright. We’re gonna do a whole hour on this. We’re we’ve gone way over. Katie is gonna be so mad at me.

Don’t cut this, Katie. I want people to know that you’re mad at me, when they listen, but, we need to talk about finding MetDrive really quick. In order to be finished, I guess, I should reveal that I was interviewed for the finding that Secret Podcast. And so I guess I have a little bit of skin in the game here, but, he’s a super interesting character He’s a extremely influential, still influential. You know, maybe not, at his peak, like he once was.

And the podcast digs into his influence and his history, but also trying to literally find him because he’s missing. And so it’s, you know, a little bit politics, a little bit. I don’t know. True crime or something. I don’t know.

You pitch it better than me.

Well, it’s kind of the political version of, finding Richard Simmons. Yep. And, we we are literally trying to find him while trying to, you know, tell to his story and answer some of the questions that are still mysterious because he why did he become increasingly reclusive when he used to come to the DC White House correspondence dinners and have a TV show. Why, did he turn against Donald Trump after supporting him? The questions

way to go, Matt. I’m snapping him back giving him snaps for that turn.

And then there’s some people that believe that he doesn’t even own the site anymore. So the show tries to, to answer those questions, and try to get him in the final episode to sit down for an interview. So we we are actively at Have you had any luck? Well, I’m I’m heading out

Do we have any leads? Do we have any hot leads?

Well, I’m heading out to a city, tomorrow, and we have an invitation to him that we have a seat will be open for him at a dinner, and we’re hoping, that that he’ll come join us. That will be part of episode eight. So, you know, hopefully we’ll be able to tell you that he did come and we had an interview. I don’t know. I don’t I don’t know who he’s gonna sit down with us.

He he kind of in the past, when authors wrote books on him, there’s a recent pretty good biography of him from twenty twenty. He plays a lot around with it, like, lets people know that he’s listening. But he didn’t give an interview to the author. Our last episode that just came out on on Wednesday, episode six kind of goes into why he turned And then we have a big big episode that’s gonna answer a lot of questions about Trump next week where we have a former employee, the first employee, perhaps, coming out on the record talking about Matrunch. So I think we’re gonna learn a lot from that.

And I hope that he sees that we’ve kind of tried to do a fair job on this. I mean, we weren’t trying to make an ideological case against him or for him. And you know, love for him to sit down. Our tagline is, how can you be the most powerful man in media? And we know so little about him.

And to your question, he’s still quite powerful. I mean, we tried to talk to a lot of people that did not wanna talk because they still still are dependent on those drudge links.

I’ve been listening. It is a great podcast. People should check it out. Finding Matt Drive. Jamie Weinstein.

Thank you for being in the hot seat today and hope we can do this again soon, brother. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Landed and they

come by some movement. There are

on Hillist, civil society, the options we ask. Those the only thing ever Don ways to mind on nursery rhymes, fairy tales, blood as homes. Other rounds, I saw myself doing through business. How come space and

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