Tucker’s Latest Lies

Welcome to the Bulwark podcast. I’m triple a Sykes. It is March seventh two thousand twenty three. And even though it is not Monday, I’m gonna run my colleague Will Saletan for Charlie and Will Tuesday. So we have a lot of catching up to do Will.

We do. Although, I will say, I this weekend, I had the pleasure of hanging out with one of my favorite people at the principal’s first conference. No. We had a good time there. Didn’t wake.

I think I mentioned this yesterday. It was just great seeing all of the Bulwark types. And even if they weren’t Bulwark plus members, they they were our people. You know what I mean? There definitely.

Yes. Yes. They were our people and it was and it was good chatting with you. So we do have a lot of catching up to do, including the The very dark rhetoric of CPAC, I devoted my morning shots to the the rhetoric of CPAC, the words of feedback. I know it may date me to say things like words matter, but even in the Trump era, words actually matter.

And it was very interesting that Donald Trump, who sometimes just sort of riffs. You know, he had some specific words that he wanted to use. You could tell they were in his prepared remarks, words like retribution, obliterate. We had another guy from the the Daily Wire who’s talking about transgenderism. Instead of saying, we should push back against transgenderism or we should resist it.

He said we should eradicate it. I think the choice of language was revealing. But you know what I wanna start here, Will? What? Unless you have a different preference here?

No. Go for it. I wanna start with the the tucker tapes You know, Tucker got all of those tapes from Kevin McCarthy. Mhmm. One of his big reveals is that Josh Holly was not the only guy to go running for his life on January sixth, which I don’t know about you, but it changes every freaking thing for me.

Well, what’s interesting is you can tell the megabyte is going all in on these tapes. And by the way, there’s a lot lot of fact checking on them. We’re not gonna get deep into it. But Tucker Carlson, I know this is gonna come as a shock to people. Tucker Carlson is lying.

I know Will, you’re shocked. But you know, including about how people got into the building, this retconning it into a tourist visit. And of course, Donald Trump is jumping all over this. What a surprise? He actually put out one of his social bleeds saying, let the January sixth prisoners go, the zoning caps.

They were convicted or awaiting trial based on a giant lie. A radical left con job. Thank you to Tucker Carlson and Speaker of House Kevin McCarthy for what you both have done. New video footage is irrefutable three exclamation points. All in on the intersection.

Yeah. Along the intersection.

Yeah. Yeah. So, normally, in politics, you’re supposed to recognize when you have a loser of an issue and you’re supposed to stay away from it. Right? And so January sixth, physical attack on the capital of the United States, violence, and attempt to overthrow the government.

You really want to move on. Right? That people died Yeah. As you’re attacking the cops, every it’s you’re on the wrong side of lawnnower. You’re on the wrong side of everything.

So the conventional approach would be. Don’t talk about this. It’s a bad issue for you. Talk about inflation. Talk about crime.

Talk about the border. Don’t talk about January sixth, but Trump won’t let go. Well,

now that we’ll talk with Carlson and apparently, he’s decided that it’s not enough to simply move on. He has to go back and whitewash the whole thing, including footage that claims to show Brian Sicknich, who died the next day, was completely okay. There’s no problem. See, that whole Brian Sicknich, who was, you know, bear sprayed and then died. The next day, this had nothing to do with January.

This is all a myth. And Tucker Charlie Sykes very, very concerned with making sure that we have a complete revisionist history, I have here will a statement issued by Brian Syknek’s family. Would you like to hear a little bit of it? Absolutely. Mhmm.

Mhmm. The SickMack family is outraged at the ongoing attack on our family by the un scrupulous and outright sleazy so called news network of Fox News who will do the bidding of Trump or any of his sick of fan followers no matter what damage is done to the families of the fallen. Okay? So you can see where this is kind of going. Right?

The families of the fallen, the officers who put their lives on the line are all who suffered on January sixth due to the lies started by Trump and spread by sleazing outlets. Like Fox. Tucker Carlson claims that Fox has been looking over the video feeds from the capital with full access supplied by our disgusting excuse for a house speaker for the truth. Carlson’s truth is to pick and choose footage that supports his delusional views that the January sixth intersection was peaceful. And that Ashley Babbot was some kind of a murder because she was shot in the process of breaking into the capitol building.

While making a criminal out to be a murder, He is also downplaying a horrid situation faced by the US capital police and the DC Metro police who were incredibly outnumbered and were literally fighting for their very lives. One officer, Brian Sicknack, lost that fight the following day, and several more officers lost that fight in the following week to their suicide. On video, officer Sigmank looks like he managed to shake off the chemical irritants and resume his duties, that he did, but his sense of duty and incredible work ethic were the driving force which sent him back in spite of his injuries and no doubt contributed to his succumbing to his injuries the following day. And then this family statement concludes the Scenic family would love nothing more than to have Brian back with us and to resume our normal lives. Fictitious news outlets like Fox and its rabid followers will not allow that.

Every time the pain of that day seems to have edged a bit, Organizations like Fox rip our wounds open, and we are frankly sick of it. Leave us the hell alone. Instead of spreading more lies from supreme leader Trump, Why don’t you focus on real news?

This is reminding me of a couple of things. First of all, you know, these senate hearings when someone’s accused of, like, Brek Kavanaugh, you’re accused of having abused, sexually assaulted woman or in Clarence Thomas. The Clarence Thomas hearings actually are a good example. They can always bring forward. Right?

A whole bunch of other women who don’t claim to have been sexually harassed or physically assaulted by the nominee. And here, what you have in the Tucker Carlson video is hey, look at all the hours of footage of people just walking around and taking pictures of the capital. The ones who weren’t physically assaulting police, the ones who weren’t breaking windows. Ones who weren’t smearing feces. That’s always going to exist, but it’s, you know, it’s just kind of an almost irrelevant denominator.

But the other thing is, you have to be really careful in politics of who you end up on the wrong side of. Remember, like, the little sisters of the poor, where you had Republicans saying that Democrats and their zeal to protective abortion rights were attacking nuns. You don’t wanna be on the wrong side of nuns. Here what you have in January sixth, and this Tucker Carlson footage is Republicans on the wrong side of police. Right?

We are the ones claiming that police that the officer who died wasn’t really injured in this attack. We’re the ones who claim that they’re exaggerating the injuries.

But it’s a political loser from the beginning. Maybe this is a backhanded acknowledgement by Tucker Carlson that he knows that the reality of January six is a huge blot on the Mago world and then that it is a uniquely disqualifying moment for Donald Trump and the somehow he needs to do something about it. The old no problem with all of this. And again, we’re gonna go back and forth. And, you know, the truth is gonna have a hard time catching up with the lies, particularly when they’re the selective video edits.

But January six was not about that day. It was the culmination of a long and elaborate plot by the president to use his power to defraud the American people to overturn an election and to seize power undemographically. And we need to keep reiterating I mean, there is the and I I hate to use this word because it’s so overused, but we’ve kind of just normalized the whole process And, you know, part of the responsibility that we have is to is to constantly remind people, do you know what is right in front of your nose? Do you know what happened Do you know who this guy is? Do you know what the record shows?

And despite all of the bullshit being thrown out by Fox News, remember all of that because there is a record and it is, you know, facts used to be stubborn and things.

Right. And the whole Republican Party largely would like to move on from this would like to not talk about it. Let me say one thing about Tucker Carlson and why this is happening. With him in particular now. Tucker Carlson, his whole model of TV, his business model, is he’s counter programming counter programming virtue.

Okay. This is good. Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah. Whatever you think is true, he’s gonna claim his false and vice versa. Whatever you think is good, he’s gonna claim his bad. He’s been doing that the whole time. And that makes him politically dangerous to his own side because instead of recognizing that this is an unwise place, an unwise issue, on which to take the other side.

He just reflexively does it. He doesn’t care that law and order is on the other side. He doesn’t care that police are on the other side. He doesn’t care that this reminds everyone of exactly what you said, the number one reason why Donald Trump must never be president again that he literally attempted a coup and a violent attack against the capital of the United States. Tucker is just gonna take the other side.

He’s gonna say, give me that footage that shows all of the violence. All of the mayhem. And I’m gonna argue with that footage that the opposite is true, that the sky is not blue. And his partner in this, lest we forget, is the Speaker of the House

of Representatives Kevin McCarthy, who gave him exclusive access to security footage that has not been released to the taxpayers, the public, other members of Congress as far as I know and certainly not other news media. Which is getting extraordinary because what you have here is a thoroughly dishonest piece of propaganda, but it is aided and abetted by Kevin McCarthy who is doing this on behalf of Tucker Carlson and obviously with the, you know, the plots from the Peanut galleries of the Orangard King. Right. And McCarthy is betting somehow

that this won’t hurt him. He’s betting that he can control an agenda in the house that is somehow unrelated to this, but that he can put Marjorie Taylor Green on the homeland security committee and make her his best bet. He can give the stuff to Dr. Carlson and Carlson will run with it, but that won’t be McCarthy. I think that that is going to fail.

I think that the entire party is going to get branded with the extremism of people like Marjorie Taylor Green and Tucker Carlson. And McCarthy is gonna go down with it. Yeah.

Well, I don’t know whether that’s the bet he’s doing. I I just think that he’s playing the only cards that he has, which is that, you know, he is not leading this he is following it. You know, he is he’s Fox’s bitch. He’s, you know, he’s he’s the extremist caucus bitch, and he’s gonna continue to play it that way. Okay.

Cancel me if you want. Alright. So let’s go back and I played this briefly on the podcast yesterday, but I I wanna go back. To this very, very, very dark speech that Donald Trump gave. And listen, I think the only, like, the fourth event that he’s spoken at, right, since he announced four four president.

And John Hendriksen in the Atlantic said that the address was among the darkest speech he’s given since his American carnage inaugural address. You know, Trump warning United States has become a nation to decline, a crime ridden, filthy communist nightmare. You know, he talks about an epic battle against sinister forces on the left. But let’s play this key line. And the reason I’m doing this because I know that there are some people who who think, we should just ignore him.

We shouldn’t give him any attention. I think this is a fundamental mistake. I think people need to stopping in denial about this. He actually is surging in the polls. And right now, barring something very unusual, something we haven’t seen before.

He is, I think, the strong odds on favorite to be the Republican nominee for president again. So I think I personally will. Think it’s advisable to pay attention to what he is saying and the messages he is putting out there. Let me play for you. I think the money shot here from that speech is seabed.

I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed. I am your retribution. I am your retribution.

The deep state. I will fire. Literally. Where can this up? I will fire the unelected bureaucrats and shadow forces who have weaponized our justice system like it has never been weaponized before.

Sick. These are sick people. I will put the people back in charge of this country again. The people will be back in Charlie Sykes, some people will be, will sell it down.

So this is authoritarianism. Right? This is the core of it. I am everything. I am the warrior.

I am your justice. That’s an amazing statement. Right? Because America’s built on the idea of rule of law. There’s a justice system and no man is above the law.

Trump is saying, I, this man, I am the law, and I am your retribution, so I will I will lead my people against domestic enemies. And who are the domestic enemies? Why it’s what he calls the deep state? I will totally obliterate the deep state. What he’s talking about is eradicating the civil service.

And this is something that he has said in a couple of speeches quite recently. In a second Trump term, it will not be the same as the first Trump term. Because Trump has learned, and what he has learned is that there were people in the United States government who were not loyal to him, they were loyal to the United States, to the constitution, and they got in his way. And taking a cue from Steve Bannon, Trump intends to purge them if he gets back in power. So it will not be the same as a first term where he was unable to get things done.

He will start by getting rid of these obstacles. And Lord knows what will happen after that. So Americans need to be very aware. We are not protected if we elect this man from having our institutions pushed aside and becoming basically an authoritarian country like many others.

Yes, I am your justice. And for those of you who have been wronged in betrayed, I am your retribution. So as I wrote in my newsletter this morning, Ronald Reagan proclaimed its morning in America, and Trump is declaring I am nemesis. And I think it’s worth pointing out this is not normal political rhetoric, at least in English. Right?

But it gives you an indication of of what’s coming, what we are talking about. What I thought was interesting was his choice of the word retribution, the fact that he was so pleased with it, he were heated it twice. What is he getting at? Why retribution? There’s a lot of softer ways of saying that.

Right? I can make sure you get justice. I want fairness. You know? But retribution is essentially saying, you know, elect me because vengeance is mine, throughout the Trump.

Pure threat. He

he’s betting on a dark view of American character. He’s betting there are enough voters out there to elect someone whose stated mission is to hurt people, to hurt your domestic enemies. Yeah. It’s an alarming message, and it’s gonna be really, really alarming if it works. Can I mention a couple other things in the speech that along this theme of authoritarianism?

And and, you know, sometimes you and I and the Bulwark, we we get accused of obsessing too much about this. But people, it’s right out there in the speech. Right? So in this speech, he talks a lot about Marxists. We’re in the United States of America.

Donald Trump said in this he used the word Marxist quite liberal. He said that the leadership of the FBI were Marxist radical left. Right? This is a key part of how fascists on the right come to power in a lot of countries. We know this from Latin America.

But he’s doing it in the United States saying that he’s gonna protect us from the Marxists.

You mentioned that he’s gonna talk about obliterating the deep state and that he is signaled that he would fire a lot of, you know, barricades and government employees and, you know, people would normally protected by civil service. But I also hear Kim’s specifically targeting the justice department, the justice system that he’s talking about the FBI, the Department of Justice, US attorneys. Ron DeSantis is already trying to, you know, make his jobs by firing prosecutors. Right? Firing Ron DeSantis seems to be a new thing around the country on the right.

Go after the prosecutors who are, you know, not doing your bidding. And of course, Donald Trump has a very, very different view of justice than I think the traditional mainstream American. He has a different view of what judges are supposed to do. He has a different idea of what juries are supposed to do. He has a very, very different idea of what the supreme court.

And I think he’s signaling that he’s he’s prepared to do an all out attack. And also just one more point here. I was on a panel, a TV panel yesterday, and that was Peter Struck, I think who made the the point. This threat is not just about what he would do in twenty twenty five if he was president. This is a threat for right now.

He is threatening retribution right now for anyone that crosses him. He’s threatening the prosecutors, the Department of Justice, the juries, he’s threatening any Republican that might push back against him. He’s basically saying, look, I am retribution. You know, this is going to be a vengeance tour, define

me at your peril. And we should mention that in the speech, in this speech to CPAC, Trump explicitly referred to a recent Washington post story about dissension in the FBI over the search at Mar a Lago and — Yeah. — that story by the way said exactly what you’re talking about. It said that the people inside the FBI were reluctant to proceed with the investigation at all of Trump’s classified documents, much less the search of his property because they feared exactly this is retribution, the blowback from Trump and his supporters. So Trump already knows that this rhetoric of retribution, that his style of threatening his enemies, anyone who would oppose him, has worked.

It has worked within the FBI, and he perhaps believes it will help him avoid an indictment or fight an indictment. Man, I think that strategy is perfectly clear. I I also think that with regard to

January sixth, and I I think I’ve said this before, you know, he’s beyond the the denial phase and he is now fully into the damn right I called the code red. You just can’t handle the truth. I call the code red and I’ll do it again, not subtle about all of this. And meanwhile, Ron DeSantis wasn’t there, he was giving a series of other speeches. He met with a club for growth.

He gave a speech out of the Reagan library. Did you have a chance to track what what DeSantis is saying? What what his counter programming is? If he’s got any? Yeah.

Well, I mean, DeSantis is is basically talking like a normal conservative Republican.

Right. He’s yeah. No. He’s he’s he’s I mean What passes for one now? Yes.

Yes. Yeah. Okay. Low bar, but but compared to Ron DeSantis is just trying to sound relatively sane. Ron DeSantis goes out, he speaks at the Reagan library.

It’s much closer to Reaganism than the people who claim to be speaking for Ronald Reagan at CPAC. Ron DeSantis there is basically talking about his record in Florida. And some of it is that, you know, the people are doing well economically in Florida, but some of it is that he’s got this agenda for freedom. But when he parsed his agenda for freedom, I mean, DeSantis talked in his speech at the library about how he’s protected the rights of people not to have to get COVID vaccination. Right?

And he named a couple of things that he did protecting them from having to get vaccine certificates. And also, protecting them so they could be hired without having to get vaccination. But if you actually look at those measures that DeSantis signed, one was an executive order, one was a bill, they were interference by the state government in business. These were employer mandates. If you wanna work for this company, you need to be vaccinated or you need to have some kind of certification.

But that’s Ron DeSantis style. Yeah. He’s exactly the after private companies. He’s talking about freedom, but what he’s really saying is It’s a little bit like Trump. I’m your retribution.

You know, I am your weapon against private enterprise — Mhmm. — because you are my people. You people who refuse vaccination or my So I will make sure that no private business can restrict its employees or its customers on the basis of vaccination. People

need to understand what a complete reversal this is from, like, five minutes ago where, you know, five minutes ago, every conservative in America was saying, we can’t have too much government regulation of private business. Private business should be able to choose what they do and what they don’t do. Private business should be able to determine whether or not they make a cake for a gay wedding. Right? Or what sort of birth control they provide?

Now it’s like, no, you know what? We can use the power of government as a cuddle. To beat you up if you are woke or if you, you know, have diversity, equity, and inclusive programs. Or like Disney, if you criticize legislation that I have just signed and, you know, his attack on Disney, which plays well with the base, is one of those amazing things like like, wait. Really, that’s what we want governors and politicians to do go after private companies to punish them for their content, punish them for their political speech.

This is the new small government Ron DeSantis. Right. Right. So I was pushing back against her. He was more like Reagan.

That’s like, shit. No. I mean,

you can’t get less like Reagan than some of what Kerry Lake and others said it’s a c pack, but let me say one thing about, you know who this is gonna kill you? This is gonna kill me. You know who was really, really good at CPAC on exactly this message of traditional conservative principles, limited government, keep the government out. Mike Pompeo, Mike Pompeo actually gave like a conventional Reaganite Republican speech. He said we shouldn’t have the government interfering for our people because then the government will interfere for their people.

And it’s it’s bad. We don’t believe in it. He spoke out against election denial. He spoke out for morals. He spoke out against Trump’s cow telling to China.

He spoke out against Trump accumulating more national debt.

Did he say his name? Did he say Trump’s name? I believe he did say. I’ll I’ll check the transcript. I believe he

said — Okay. — the Trump administration added eight trillion dollars to the debt. And those of us in the so I believe he spoke his name, although not criticizing him directly. But Pompeo’s speech is what Republicans used to stand for.

Yeah. And probably he was speaking to what about twenty people, you know, standing in the in the in that cavernous hall. That kind of message though doesn’t get the kind of rock as cheers. You know what somebody says? We should eradicate transgenderism.

That’s chewing, jumping on the chairs and everything. Somebody who talks about, you know, smaller government not adding to the national debt. That’s really ho stuff. Okay. You mentioned Cherry Lake.

So CPAC was very much a carrier like kind of event. She actually won the straw. I’m gonna think about this. This is an election denier who failed spectacularly was defeated for election in Arizona, refuses to acknowledge that. I mean, the woman is delusional keeps putting out this Bulwark, various conspiracy theories.

And yet, these folks looked at her Ron DeSantis, yes, we should put her a heartbeat away from the presidency if the nearly eighty year rule Donald Trump gets back into the White House. So let let’s play some of the things that Curry Lake had to say at this PARTICULAR CONFERENCE.

AND

I

GOT A MESSAGE FOR JOE BIDEN TONIGHT. JOE, IF YOU ARE NOT STRONG ENOUGH AND IF YOU ARE NOT SMART ENOUGH TO SIT PUTIN, and Zelensky down at the table and broker a piece deal. Then I’ve got a friend who can do just that.

How would that go?

His name is Donald j Trump.

And then, of course, Carrie shares her deep thoughts on how the Donald brought peace to the world. Right? Just, you know, through strength, just like Ronald Reagan said, as Let’s put that second bite.

It’s called peace through strength. Right? It was a term coined by Ronald and perfected by Donald. And we need to do that again.

Oh my god.

Okay. So it is not exact the same thing for Ronald Reagan to see mister Gorbuchow take down that wall. Donald Trump wanting to build a wall on the southern border and then sucking up to Vladimir Putin. I think one of the under covered stories of the weekend is that Donald Trump continues to praise Vladimir Putin, continues to say that, you know, his his friendly chumminess with this genocidal war criminal monster somehow is an asset. And, you know, the crowd that CPAC you know, applauding.

You know, I mean, how do you have Ronald Reagan’s name in your mouth when you’re doing that stuff. In

addition to which, this was literally the Ronald Reagan dinner that was what this event was called, this part of a a a c fact that she’s speaking at. So you can just hear Reagan turning over in his grave at this. So the Republican party is trying to deal with this problem of They used to be the party of peace through strength. But now they’re the party of isolationism because they went with Trump. Right?

So how do they still look strong? So what you hear in this speech is Carrie Lake trying to redefine strength How does she redefine it? That Trump is strong enough, but Biden is not, to make Zelensky sit down with Putin and broker a peace deal. Right? So the strength is in capitulation the way she’s describing it.

So that is not peace through strength. That is peace through appeasement. Right? Now, it’s fine if you wanna be a pacifist, if you oppose a strong military and you think that just by being nice, we can get somebody like Putin to to agree to an acceptable peace and then not invade the next country in Eastern Europe. But that is not the position that she is articulating here, which she’s trying to suggest, is that She’s not actually calling for capitulation.

She’s calling for some kind of courage, some kind of courage to capitulate.

It is absolutely perverse. The courage to capitulate. Well, remember when she famously said that she thought that Ron DeSantis had BDE Big dick energy. She’s backed away from that, I’m guessing. Right?

I’m guessing there are no lines in her speech about Rhonda Andes’ big dick energy because there’s apparently only one big dick in the party. She said that Trump

also brought peace to North Korea. I mean, he did not Trump gave away a summit with Kim for nothing for nothing at all against the advice of all the Hawks. Then he had all the love letters with Kim. So Trump has never been strong in foreign policy. He has been about appeasement.

He has been about capitulation. And to call

that strength is an insanity. Well, you sat in on my conversation speaking of of foreign policy. You sat in on my conversation on Saturday with former ambassador John Bolton who who I asked, what were you thinking when you weren’t to work for Donald Trump? I mean, what were you imagining he was going to be like? Because he’s like, Well, I thought we could discipline him and I quickly realized that he has the attention span of a nap.

And, you know, the critiques of the insiders just don’t even seem to register with with Magba. What what do you think of ambassador Bolton and his many rationalizations? I saw you jump it up in your see. You were engaged. I thought in the middle of this.

Oh my god. Will’s gonna jump up and start yelling at it. First

of all, for anyone who missed it, just get yesterday’s Secret Podcast. Get the Monday forward podcast. You’ll hear the whole interview of Charlie because Charlie asked all the questions that you would want him to ask and did all the follow ups he would want. And he exposed a number of things. And one of them is that Bolton is one of the many self styled hawks.

Who worked on the Trump administration or who are leaders in the Republican Party, they’re very, very vigilant about and very concerned about authoritarian leaders in other countries, aggressors in other countries. But somehow, when it comes to the United States, all of these hawks turn into doves, And specifically, there was a coup as we’ve just been discussing against the United States by an incumbent president trying to stay in power. If this had happened in any other country, John Bolton and all these other Hawks would have said, this is a very dangerous man. You must Bulwark of him. You certainly must not let him back into power.

And yet, in his interview with you, Charlie, after talking about foreign policy and all of the regimes he wanted to change, you asked him about then January sixth. And he said that you gave Trump too much credit. That Trump had no idea what was gonna happen on January sixth. He said he’s not capable of thinking it through. He’s a very limited man.

This is after the January sixth committee has laid out all of Trump’s conspiracies. How we inside of the attack on the capital, how we engineered the pressure campaign on, like, Pence, to overturn the election, how we tried to get DOJ to say the election was corrupt, how he’s calling up Brad Ravensburger in Georgia. He’s discussing Charlie, he’s in the White House discussing with Mike Flynn and Sydney Powell. The idea of using the United States military to seize voting machines and and redo the election. How much clearer could it be, and yet John Bolton says you gave him too much credit.

Yeah. I I could have gone down that rabbit hole actually, you you said I asked them all the the questions that that you need to be asked. And of course, that’s not the case. You always have that day after, like, I should have asked in this. Let me know, part of it was, and I I have to say that I was struck by the irony of the fact that I’m talking to this guy who decided to write a book as opposed to testify about what he knew about Donald Trump.

In front of a big sign, it says, principles first. Like, I should have turned over and says, we are sitting here talking about principles, and I wanna know about your principles. And I did ask him about this. The way he sucked up to Donald Trump before he got the job was defending Donald Trump’s meeting in the in the Oval Office with the Russian foreign minister and the ambassador defended the fact that Donald Trump was leaking Israeli intelligence to the Russians. Or in Hamburg at the g twenty summit.

When Donald Trump kicked all the aids out of the room and had a one on one with Vladimir Putin and then took the notes away from the translator. It was John Bolton who rushed on to Lou Dobbs to show on Fox News to say nothing to see here, and in fact, the aides who breast concern about that should be fired. And you would think that now knowing who Donald Trump is and what he is, you know, to have expressed all that confidence, well, no, we should absolutely trust Donald Trump alone in the room with Vladimir Putin. Why would we think that it was dangerous or that it’s concerning? That Donald Trump is giving away intelligence, and yet he wouldn’t say that even in retrospect knowing all those things, that he would take back, you know, his call to have the whistleblower’s fired.

And his argument was and I have to tell you, it was a lot like Paul Ryan. This ingrained belief that, well, you know, somebody had to be the national security adviser. Somebody had to be in the room, you know. If it wasn’t me, it was gonna be Steve Mann and And in retrospect, when he said, well, somebody had to be the National Security Advisor, what I should have said was, but why did that have to be you? Why were you campaigning so hard for this job when you clearly had a guy in in office.

There was plenty of you know, evidence of who he was and what he was about. He ran on an America first platform. He ripped your other bosses he ridiculed the George Bush administration. He attacked everything that you advocated four he attacked Mitt Romney who you advised, and yet there he was. John Bolton spent a year on Fox News kissing up to Donald Trump to get that

job. So this whole idea was somebody had to take the job, you know. Right. And there was no one better positioned to take down Donald Trump during his term than John Bolton. As we all know from the Ukraine episode, John Bolton had eyewitness testimony.

About Trump doing the quid pro quo in Ukraine and he didn’t testify. He was no longer national security adviser at that point. He was out he had no such obligations. He did not come forward when he could have, and that will forever be a blot

on him. I think so. And also, the irony or maybe the lack self awareness when he says the Democrats committed impeachment malpractice. Look, I I actually am willing to agree with a lot of the criticism the Democrats rush that through. They should have done other things.

But one of Bolton’s main complaints is that they should have broadened it out. They should have included other things like Trump’s obstruction of justice when it came to, you know, Erdogan from Turkey. And as I said to him, that’s ironic coming from you considering that you know, you had evidence of all of these things. You put them in your book, but you wouldn’t share them. And then you attack them for not pursuing them.

So any So a tale of two governors. We just briefly talk about this because I I thought this was interesting dueling interviews over the weekend. Larry Hogan from Maryland and Chris De Nuneau from New Hampshire. Larry Hogan from Maryland was thinking of running for president. I think it was expected to, decided he wasn’t gonna get out, didn’t wanna clog up the field.

But he’s asked, would you support Donald Trump if he’s the nominee and Hogan drew the line? Hogan said, no, I’m never gonna support returning that man to power. Cristannuno, on the other hand, who has said all kinds of things like, yes, Donald Trump crazy. Donald Trump is doing all these nutty things. When he is pressed on the question, says that he would support Trump.

If he’s the nominee. He rationalizes it by saying, well, he’s not gonna win. He’s not gonna be the nominee. But ultimately, he will support him. Which seems to me, well, when you say, knowing everything we know about Donald Trump, knowing everything that Christianu knows about Donald Trump.

When he says, If he’s the nominee of my party, I will support him for president. That is literally putting party over country. I mean, it is breathtaking. When you think about how stark it is, my partisan loyalty trumps the fact that we’re putting this unfit seditionist, narcissistic liar back in the White House. Right?

I mean, Sunu is saying what he thinks will will help him politically

or won’t hurt him. He’s trying not to alienate anybody. Right? And in this contrast between these two guys, between Hogan and Sunuña, you see how sick our political incentives are. The guy who is willing to say, I won’t support Donald Trump because I put my country first.

Gets out. Yeah. He gets out of the race and he gets out not only because he he doesn’t wanna do that, he also doesn’t wanna clutter the field. And I think Larry Hogan said on his way out, if we want to prevent Trump from getting the nomination, the best way is to have fewer candidates. Not more.

And I’m just sort of dividing up things up. Right? That is an entirely practical selfless, patriotic way of thinking. Conversely, in sinu, you have a guy who is thinking about himself, a very conventional politician. And so he who will not renounce Trump.

Is the one who stays in the race. So our political system keeps in the running the people who do not put their country first. Well, I mean, you know, look look at the

republican party, what it looks like right now. You have Liz Cheney in Adam Kinzinger, who have been completely excommunicated, whereas you have Marjorie Tela Green and Elise Stefanica who continue to rise rise to glory. Right? I mean, this is the the world we live in. And also, I mean, just a word about Larry Hogan.

I mean, Larry Hogan is a smart decent principled guy who was a successful governor of a major state and was very popular. He was a Republican governor in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, and he had extremely high approval ratings despite being a conservative. And yet, I think what he’s acknowledging now is that the Republican party as it exists today has really no place for him. Right? Has no place he doesn’t that Larry Hogan who’s proven you can win in places like Sarah Longwell, who’s been an effective governor, who’s a principled Ron DeSantis guy realize I’m the odd man out.

There’s no place for me. No no lane for me.

I should say, I am a Larry Hogan voter. I live in Maryland. Right? I vote Democratic, but I voted for Larry Hogan. He is the kind of Republican who can win somebody like me and and win in a very blue state.

But the Republican Party obviously doesn’t have a place for him right now. And I think that my job as a sort of middle of the road person is to continue to punish this version of the Republican Party through successive defeats until it decides that it is willing to resort to somebody more like Larry Hogan. And I will point out that both Nikki Haley and Mike Pompeo at CPAC made the point that Republicans have been losing elections. There are a lot of Republican candidates out there denying that they lost elections, denying that the party has a problem, but there are some who are willing to tell the truth, including Haley and Pompeo, and they’re not willing to do it of their own volition. It’s not because they’re particularly moral people.

It’s because the evidence has piled up to the point where it can’t be denied. I believe the statistic is seven of the last eight presidential elections they’ve lost the popular vote Republicans have. So my job and I implore anyone listening, your job is to make sure that this version of the Republican Party keeps losing elections convincingly until they become sane again. And you’ll know they’re sane when they come back to somebody like Larry Hogan. I don’t even know if that’s going to work for

them. By the way, at the the principal’s first conference over the weekend, I had a chance to meet Larry Hogan’s successor, Wes Moore was a rising star in the Democratic Party. And interestingly, Wes Moore spoke at this conference. He was there. Larry Hogan was there as well, but I think that’s an indication that there are some Democrats who recognize that, hey, there are some political orphans out there, and I am willing to talk with them.

Right. Okay. So while we’re talking about the language and the vocabulary of CPAC, Donald Trump talking about retribution, obliteration, you know, the sinister enemies that we are going to destroy. I don’t even spend any time on the fact that Don Junior called John Federman a vegetable and then doubles down on it. Right?

Instead, he should be begging groceries. Yeah. It’s a reminder that Trumpism isn’t just post truth and post shame. It’s also post even a shred of decency. But also, there was a big controversy over one of the biggest applause lines of the weekend.

Many of you may not know Mike Knowles, who is a commentator for the Daily Wire. One of Ben Shapiro’s guys used to be BFF of Ted Cruz. I think he was the host of Ted Secret Podcast. And he speaks to CPAC and declares there can be no middle way in dealing with transgenderism. And transgenderism, obviously, big freaking issue at CPAC and among the mega base, but listen to the language and it became very, very controversial.

I wanna get your take on it. His choice of words. We’ll do that on the other side. Let’s Michael Knowles. There

can be no middle way in dealing with transgenderism. It is all or nothing. If transgenderism is true, if men really can become women, then it’s true for everybody of all ages. If transgenderism is false as it is, if men really can’t become women as they cannot,

then

it’s false for everybody too. And if it’s false, then we should not indulge it. Especially since that indulgence requires taking away the rights and customs of so many people. If it is false, then for the good of society and especially for the good of the poor people who have fallen prey to this confusion, transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely. The whole preposterous ideology at every level.

Eradicated now. I just before we get into this, you know, he was accused of using, like, whoa, that’s elimination as genocidal language he threatened lawsuits and indignantly and says that I’m not talking about eradicating people. I’m only talking about eradicating transgenderism. And the Daily Beast actually changes headlines, so that he’s not talking about eradicating the community. He’s talking about eradicating transgenderism.

And he said, Nobody’s calling to exterminate anybody because the other problem with that statement is that transgender people is not a real ontological category It is not a legitimate category of being. So, well, you know, you and I take language seriously. It struck me that eradicated is a distinctive word with this distinctive connotations and associations. And I’m familiar with Knowles’ Bulwark, and I’m willing to pay him the compliment of thinking that he chose that word carefully and especially for this occasion. I mean, the guy could have said, we need to challenge transgenderism or confront it or oppose it or push back against it.

Instead he chose the word eradicate your thoughts?

Well, if he had meant eradicate people, of course, that that would be a kind of genocide. Clearly, yeah. But Let’s assume he didn’t mean that he just meant to eradicate the idea of transgenderism to deny that anyone actually is transgender. Let me just step back from this particular issue because this is a really good illustration of a larger point. This all or nothing view of an issue like transgender is exactly wrong.

It’s exactly wrong. In the real world, something like transgender definitely exists in some people. May exist in others. And then there are other people who think they might be transgender, but who turned out not to be. Right?

And this is true of sexual orientation. It’s true of lots of things. There are people in the trans community who get upset when you say that there are teenagers who think they’re trans and who talk about beginning some kind of therapy and it turns out later on that they that they were wrong. They changed their mind. But those people exist.

Okay. You can make that argument. If you wanted to be a conservative party, you could say, let’s be sure that we don’t have kids starting this before they know for sure that they are transgender, that they don’t go into therapy. Right. This eliminationist position that you’re hearing from this guy, this eradication is extremely dangerous.

And if it were implemented, it would be horrific. Marjorie Taylor Green at CPAC. She said, I have a bill that will make it a felony to perform anything to do with gender affirming care for children. That is not that this is excessive. That that is not an argument that some kids shouldn’t have this.

That is even if you know for certain that your child is transgender, your child is certain, and you, the parents, are certain. If your whole family is in agreement, that will be outlawed. It is an illustration of the horrific results of this eliminationist mindset. Well,

is it an eliminationist mindset? Because, I mean, he’s just saying that I’m being treated very unfairly. I was only talking about getting rid of an ideology. I actually spent some time thinking about this, and I read about it in my newsletter today. Two things.

I mean, he tried this thought experiment. I’m imagining somebody says, Jewishness must be eradicated from public life, or Judaism must be erratic catered or zionism must be eradicated from the Middle East. I think people would understand the connotation of all of that. Right? Meaning, he could say that, okay, I’m not talking about the extermination of actual Jews.

I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about something else. But I think people would understand where he’s going here. Because I’m in the word eradicate. And look, Michael Knowles knows language.

I actually have him in the footnote in my book. He actually wrote a really interesting piece back in two thousand sixteen. About what of the alt right was about. This guy gets it. He knows.

Back then, he was willing to say they were racist. They were anti Semitic. They’re not Christian. They do these various things. Now he’s feeding the words that he knows the fever swamps wanna hear.

But I mean, the word eradicate. I looked it up. I mean, here’s some synonyms. Extriminate, eliminate, destroy, annihilate, extracate, obliterate, kill, wipe out, liquidate, decimate, abolish, extinguish. So he is intentionally using this eliminationist rhetoric.

And I don’t think that he’s talking about killing anybody. I I don’t I don’t think that. But I also think that Michael Knowles, he knows what the applause line was. He knows how to feed the beast and the beast likes this extreme violent language. And I don’t know where it leads to, but it’s not good.

It’s not a good place.

No. I mean, at best, at best, if we just suppose he’s not trying to eliminate actual people, He’s trying to eliminate the idea that you can express this aspect of yourself. It could be your Judaism. It could be your sexual orientation. It could be your gender.

Right? So when he says that this has to be eradicated, he’s certainly telling all of the trans, let’s suppose that a half a percent. Half of one percent of the United States is transgender, which is a reasonable estimate of people who are definitely transgender. He’s telling all of those people, you can’t be who you are. Right?

You’re gonna have to go into the closet, like we said, to gay people for so long. Yeah. Right? You could tell Jews the same thing. Right?

You you cannot be born Jewish, but I don’t wanna I don’t want you I don’t want your Judaism in my face. Right? This is first of all, it’s a violation of human rights. It’s atrocious And the implementation of this idea in any way legislatively would be an absolute abomination. And it would just destroy people, it would destroy families.

Imagine the suicides, if you people who are gay or transgender are not allowed to be themselves. I

actually think I wanna go back to something you said. I think you put your finger in it Will Saletan bit earlier talking about the language that Donald Trump was was using. When you think about retribution, eradication, obliteration, all of this, it’s all about hurting your enemies. It’s all about who is going to be meaner and more cool and more and more confrontational? Who’s gonna be more Velakos about?

All of this. I mean, it is not a bright and sunny, optimistic, forward looking thing. It is about what pain can I inflict on this group or that group? And it may not be specific. I mean, there may not be a specific agenda here.

They get that, well, I don’t mean to hurt that person. But the overall vibe of all of this is to attack, to punish because the cruelty is the point.

Yeah. What you’re bringing to mind for me is Nikki Haley, who is trying to be an optimist. Right? She’s trying to say Democrats, Liberals, try to tear our country down. I’m affirmative.

Then she does exactly what you’re talking about, Charlie. She goes to the what is now the sort of Republican red meat about we have internal domestic enemies and they’re tearing our country down, they’re destroying our country, and we have to fight them. So it’s very difficult to be an upbeat, optimistic party and be talking constantly about internal enemies, whether they be Liberals or transgender or whatever. So

what did we not talk about that we were supposed to talk about? Because I just feel we’re in that moment where there’s just so much going on so quickly. What are you keeping an eye on now this week? So, you know, Donald Trump lost

an election to go away and he’s running for president again. Right? But he’s far from alone in that. Right? We have this whole lineup now of Republicans who refused to accept that they lost elections.

Kerry Lake is one of them. Remember we had Christina Caramo who lost badly for. What was the secretary of state in Michigan? Now she’s running the state party. We have Doug Mastriano

who runs

another January sixth guy who lost it. The losers are coming back. And so, you know, like, normal politics. Right? The losers They go away.

They lost. Like, get somebody who can win. Except when you have this party that’s so full of denial, it’s in a culture of denial. You have these guys coming back. So Carrie Lake is a featured speaker at CPAC.

Trump’s running for president again. Christina Karemos running the Michigan GOP and Mastriano is talking about running for the senate so he can lose again in Pennsylvania. It’s just unbelievable pathology.

You can just imagine Pennsylvania Republicans waking up today and, you know, opening up paper and Doug Mostriano thinking, yes, I’m I’m asking God for his advice on whether I should run again to go, oh my god. No. Oh, one big story that happened to us since you and I spoke last was the issue of Washington DC’s criminal code and the fact that Republican bill would overturn it, and the administration had opposed it. But then, over the weekend, president Biden said that he would sign this, citing the fact that this legislation would have reduced the penalty for car jacking at a time when that is a very high profile crime in Washington DC. Democrats in congress are incandescently angry about all of this.

Did you make the right decision? Because, I mean, clearly, you have The Biden administration says it favors home rule for Washington DC. On the other hand, they’re saying, yeah, home rule, but this soft on crime measure No. We’re we’re gonna go along with with overturning

it. Did he make the right call? He did make the right call and he should have made it earlier. Biden waited until House Democrats walked the plank on this and voted for home rule and on the long side of the crime issue, then he bails out the senators by saying he’s gonna sign this thing and therefore they they can support it. The way I feel about this DC crime thing, Charlie, is the actual reform in DC.

Not only did it sort of get rid of some mandatory minimums. Right? So you’re letting judges have and discretion. It imposed a constraint on judges on the upside. Right?

It reduced the maximum penalty for car jacking for robbery. Mhmm. And that is a pretty much in defensible position because at the very least, you ought to let the judge decide whether the crime merits more than what was twenty four years for a

car jacket. Well, it’s also political. I think that in the wake of what happened in Chicago, I think the Democrats would be extremely naive not to realize how big an issue crime is going to be. Now even with this, the Republicans are going to, you know, go after the Democrats are saying that they are soft on crime. But even though they’re making that case does not mean that it’s not something the Democrats ought to pay attention to.

I mean, look what’s been happening. Around the country. Look what happened in Chicago. And they’re gonna have a big election there that I think is gonna have tremendous national significance between Centrus Democrat and a much more progressive Democrat on this issue of look what happened in San Francisco. Look at the ferment around progressive prosecutors in places like Philadelphia.

This is not an issue that Joe Biden wanted to roll into twenty twenty four on the wrong side of. And so it was a prudent political decision on his part. I’m not sure that all Democrats get the crime issue, but Joe does. We need to make that distinction. Joe Biden understands the importance of not looking soft on crime.

And he’s willing to stand up to the the progressives in his caucus who wanted to go along with this bill, which by the way would have given Republicans a mass of issue next year. And to any liberal out there who’s upset about

this, and I understand the principles of home rule and all that, but think about the issues Would you like to have Joe Biden for president rather than a Republican for the next four years? If so, here are three issues Republicans are obviously running on. Inflation, the border and crime. Right? Inflation has been coming down.

If Biden can bring it down further, then it will remove one issue the Republicans have. Crime is another one. The taking the wrong position on this DC bill would have given Republicans that issue. Biden is taking it away. Third issue is the border.

What is Biden doing on the border? He is actually bringing back a lot of those Trump policies that Liberals hate, but they will reduce the influx of people. They will deter some migration. If Biden can control those three issues, inflation, the border and crime, he wins. Will, when you are right?

You are right. Thanks for joining me again. We’ll do this again next next Monday. Alright? Thanks, Charlie.

And thank you all for listening to today’s Bulwark podcast. I’m Charlie Sykes. We will be back tomorrow, and we’ll do this all over again. Bulwark podcast is produced by Katie Cooper, and engineered and edited by Jason Brown.

We’re all juggling life, a career, and trying to build a little bit of wealth. The own ambition podcast with host, Mandy, and Tiffany, the Budget Nesta can help. Randy and I just say made, so she came out, she really popularized natural hear via braids. Until all of us had braids, it’s written into dress codes and like schools, and even some workplaces where braids, locks, are not considered appropriate and needs to be like written into the law. You cannot discriminate against us for hair, brown ambition, wherever you listen.