Speaker 1: Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You Were
Wrong with Molly Hemingway, editor in chief of The Federalist,
and David Harsani, senior writer at The Washington Examiner. If
you'd like to email the show, please do so at
radio at the Federalist dot com. Molly, did you see
all the crying this week that happened over the Donald
Trump victory? The late night shows, the politicians. I'm not
a big schadenfreud guy, but I do enjoy that.
Speaker 2: I actually am a big schadenfreud app person and really
really enjoyed watching the crying. But I do think it's
worth noting that twenty sixteen and twenty twenty four are
like two totally different worlds, and I wonder if people
are forgetting what happened in twenty six team. You know,
that was a huge shock the Trump won, and immediately
riots and protests broke out all over the country with
these shock troops from the Democrat Party causing violence, you know, shootings.
It was hysteria, and that hysteria kind of enabled a
media coverage that treated Trump's victory as something that needed
to be resisted. And you also saw the people flirting
with really elaborate, insane conspiracy theories like the Russia collusion hoax,
or you might remember that all the celebrities taped that
PSA asking electors to become faithless electors and not elect
Donald Trump at the Electoral College back when doing stuff
like that was not something you got put in prison for,
and it was just mass hysteria and media. I mean,
I remember, like Trump did a press conference. I can't
remember at what point in the transition it was, and
I just remember media people just screaming, and so, yes,
I've seen the crying from mostly older, single white ladies,
and I guess younger single white ladies met, but I
talk show hosts, and then I've also seen oh wait,
you know who is the My favorite one was John
Dickerson crying, oh yeah, his party lost the election. I
liked it. That guy likes to think of himself as
being in any way moderate and he's grown man crying
on national television.
Speaker 1: Well, I didn't want to jump check on there. Yeah, yeah,
I want to talk about that in a moment, but
I just wanted to mention I think there are three
reasons why you don't have the rioting and the reaction.
One is that he won convincingly. It's a solid win.
It's very difficult to pretend anything hinky went on. You can't.
The other is the other part of that is that
most people have gone through a Trump presidency. They realize
that it's not the end of the world. So while
they can pretend he's hitler, they know he's not. And
I forgot the third one, and that's it.
Speaker 2: Well, I just want to say, because I know you're
I know you're not a fan of talking about a
majority vote in a system where we elect people through
the electoral college, and I totally one hundred percent agree
with you on that. There is we don't run this
competition with an eye toward the popular vote, because that's
not how you're elected. It's like if you at the
end of a football game said, well, this team had
the most first downs, so that's you know, that's they're
the real winner. Nope, you're just judged on score. And
so people need to calm down about the popular vote.
But it's also true that that hysteria in twenty sixteen
was enabled in part by them. They were they found
it easier to resist the constitutional order because of that.
And so when you say it's decisive. It was, but
it wasn't like that much bigger than his twenty sixteen win, right,
I can't remember how much.
Speaker 1: Listen, the truth is so.
Speaker 2: When it comes to the percentage of the country that
has rejected the hysteria and the lies of the left,
that really was you can feel that change in the air.
You can feel it with how people are openly wearing
Trump gear, and all the football players doing end zone celebrations,
and all the kids doing their replicate replicas of the
dance the Donald Trump punch dance man.
Speaker 1: He won. He swept all the swing states, which I
think is indicative of a win. I mean, if you
look at it in historical perspectives, there have been far
bigger wins. I wouldn't technically call it a landslide. Everyone
gets so mad at when I say that, but it
is a solid win. My point is that it's there's
nothing really that they can say. You know, it's very
difficult to get conspiracy theories moving here because he won
pretty decisively. And let's be honest. Oh that was the
third thing. I believe most people within the Democratic Party
and in media knew that Trump was going to win,
so they were prepared for him to win. It wasn't
a surprise that he won. I think Donald Trump winning
in twenty sixteen surprised almost everyone. I don't believe anyone
was really that surprised here. You know, I don't make predictions,
but if I had to, and in private, I thought
Trump was going to win this election. I didn't think
he would win all those blue wall states, which I
don't think we really called him that anymore, but I
thought he would win.
Speaker 2: I mean, he's the only Republican who seems to have
been able to tear down that blue wall. So I
don't know what'll happen once he's off the scene. One
quick point on the landside thing, and I think, you know,
people are looking back at some of these huge electoral
college victories that we're seen in you know, under Reagan
or Bill Clinton. Right, he had some pretty big ones.
Yeah he had a big one, even Barack Obama. But
there is this situation where this is if you're just
looking at the actual reality of the situation, how the
country has changed, how populationshifts have occurred, how immigration has
radically changed, the makeup of the country, is about as
big of a win as you're going to see so
I think that also explains why people are treating it
more like a landslide than you would expect relative to
the numbers.
Speaker 1: It's just far on the topic, though, I do think
it's a mistake. I don't like the word mandate for anyone,
because honestly, that's just a made up word. You can
do whatever you can do with the people that you've elected,
and you don't have any kind of special power because
you've won extra votes. And Barack Obama had a huge
victor in two thousand and eight, everyone acted like it
was over, like this is the new reality. By twenty ten,
he was done. You know, I'm just saying he acted
in a way where he thought he had this mandate
to push everyone around to cramp. He was done in
the sense that he lost hundreds of seats lost, Congress
couldn't pass another real law after that that you know,
agenda item, and he acted in a way that was
very you know, he abused his executive power instead. But
what I mean is nothing is static in politics. It's
always moving, and people shouldn't act like this moment means
that everything's changed, you know. For that's just my perspective.
I'm not saying he shouldn't push his agenda through. He should.
He was elected to do that. But I don't know.
Sometimes people get excited by landslides. They think that remember
when they were talking about the forever Democratic majority and
Republicans would never win again. I think in the two thousands,
you know, it changed very quickly the Sea Party, when
the Senate, Congress, etc.
Speaker 2: So I agree with you, but I feel like there's
something else that's there that needs to be talked about too,
which is okay. So where I agree with you, people
always overstate their popularity, how how much the win is
about them versus about dislike of the other person. You
see that with alarming frequency. It's also true that this
election seemed to be much more a repudiation of sort
of like the way things have been run for decades,
because when you look at how every single institution was
aligned against even the possibility of a Trump victory, whether
that's the media, the academy, you know, all of the
sort of NGOs that are out there at the global opinion,
it was treated as if you were voting for Donald Trump,
that made you worse than Hitler, quite literally, and for
people to vote him in on his and he's been
pretty consistent. You know, you were fond upon pointing out
how moderate his policies are relative to a lot of Republicans.
But what those proposals are which are carrying through from
the first administration, are pretty popular. And I think people
feel that this is not just an election to a
four year term of a president, but maybe more like
a chance to really get America back. Like did I
mention this? One of my family members was saying that
if Trump wins, he wants to move back to America.
He lives in America, but his point was he feels
like maybe America, like the America that we all love
and feel very proud about, that that could come back.
And so, while you are absolutely right that people overread
a mandate, it's also true that people very much want
just some normalcy, some love of America, those things like
you read the Declaration of Independence and it's this certain
spirit that it captures of this American individual independence. And
something has happened in recent years to try to crush
the individual and to go after people who are successful
and to make it harder for successful people to invent
and to dream and to dream big and you're seeing
a feeling of like one of things that's great about
in America is not just that you can rise, but
that you can fall, right, like the whole flux of it.
Just because you're born in a certain way doesn't mean
that you're going to stay there. And it has seemed
more and more that sometimes like if you're born into wealth,
you just get to stay there, and if you're not
born into wealth, it's this more difficult to achieve dream
and so I think people just want to return to
that freedom and the market place of ideas and the
marketplace of success. And so maybe it's impossible to achieve
in four years, but there does seem to be that,
like they're just tired of the suppression of the of freedom.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I don't deny them their feelings, I think, and
I think I agree with actually a lot of that.
But I just remember the OBAMAI ers remember him winning
and they felt like this was they were going to
change everything. I actually don't.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean they did, like they they Yeah, I.
Speaker 1: Mean they did, they did. Yeah, they did in many ways.
I mean I think a lot of our.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, that's a good reminder that what you what
you're hopeful about could turn into something very dark.
Speaker 1: And I just want to I tweeted this out, and
you know, I just whenever a lot of people are happy,
as a huge group of people are happy, it makes
me very uncomfortable and I get restless, and I want
to I want to make sure that they're not as happy.
I want to take away a little bit of their happiness.
So that is why I want to remind people that
they should put so much hope and so much of
their personal hope into a person. It is a mistake.
They will always fail you. And whether it's Donald Trump
or Barack Obama, I don't care. I'm not saying this
isn't people take are very sensitive when you talk about
Trump because other people, I admit, are over the top
all the time criticizing. I'm just saying he's a politician,
he's different than most. But you shouldn't put all your
hopes into the government. And you need to build locally,
build your community, and need you know, if you really
want to make America great again.
Speaker 2: So do you know that psalm put not your trust
in princes nor in the son of man in whom
there is no help.
Speaker 1: I've heard it. I've heard it.
Speaker 2: Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for
his help? Whose hope is in the Lord his God. Yeah,
I don't know why people put I mean, I guess
it's like a long time problem that we've had that
people put there for sure faith and.
Speaker 1: The less religious people are, the more they do it,
and the worse it gets. I think the reason I think, yeah, yeah,
of course.
Speaker 2: Please On that point. One of the things I've liked
seeing in social media is people saying, Okay, we're done
with this pronoun stuff, And to me, that speaks to
what you're saying in a good way, like this is
not about one man, this is not about a political party.
This is really about reclaiming a spirit of tolerance and
freedom of speech and rejection of absurdity. Like the more
that can sift its way through the American people, the
better I think.
Speaker 1: I thanks for bringing that up. So I was going
to say to me, my favorite president. One of my
favorite presidents is Warren Harding, and I I think he
was better president than Trump and all that, But I
do think Trump reminds me, or his movement reminds me
a bit of this return to normalcy. Let's not forget
that Harris Kamala Harris was probably one of the worst
presidential candidates there was, and Tim Walls was probably the
worst vice president presidential candidate in history. However, they are
a product of their movement, and the left has gotten
very weird. They speak in the social science quackery jargon
that people don't like, They believe in things that people
turn off people. And as much as everyone you know
bashes Trump in the media and so on, he is
one of the most normal candidates we've had, I mean
the sense of the things I call I think he's
more of a normy than a conservative in the sense
that I could he reminds me more of a nineties
Democrat than he does a movement conservative. He's not ideological,
and I think people feel safe within that kind of
political you know, philosophy, and they're not really turned off
by it as much as others would hope. Now people
there are going to be people who vote Democrat no
matter who's running, and vice versa. But I think Trump
that's why he expanded the appeal of the party. Again.
We can talk later about whether that's going to last
or not, but that's why I think it happened. I
wanted to make fun of the crying guys because I
wanted to give you the four reasons a man is
allowed to cry in public. One it is death yours,
death of yours, yeah yeah, death of a relative, birth
of a child, your favorite team winning a championship, and
the death of a dog. Now those are the only
four reasons. Everything else you have to cram down. You
don't do it. Too many men are crying in our society.
It drives me bananas. I don't like it, all right,
that's all I don't know.
Speaker 2: I'm I was raised by a very stoic mother who
I only saw cry once I think related to the
death of her death of her brother. Dad is very
emotional and kind of very manly, but very emotional. Like
he can watch a soup commercial and he'll be like,
oh the kid, what they did to him was wrong,
you know, Like he's just very much wears his heart
on his sleep. And also, my mom's a libertarian and
my dad's like a blue collar Democrat type or was
before the party went insane. But my husband, I think
I've only seen him cry once, which was the death
of his sister. Yeah, so that checks out. Yeah, he's
so he's so unemotional that even the rest of it
did not yield tears.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if you feel like crying, you have to go home,
go into the back. Like when my daughter's left for college.
I went into the bathroom, I gave a little cry
by myself, and I got out and I moved on.
You cannot crying for these people. You're supposed to be
the rock, you're supposed to be defend them, you know,
and they can't see you crying. You want to talk?
Do you want to Would you like to talk about
the Senate race for leadership or would you rather talk
about Trump's appointments? First?
Speaker 2: Well, I think the Senate race. We're recording this in
the morning while the Senate race is going on. Now
do we have an answer yet on what it is?
So when people are listening, they'll already.
Speaker 1: Know, Well, do you have a favorite?
Speaker 2: Not really. I mean, there's a reason why all of
the Conservatives seem to be behind Rick Scott in that
he's proposing a less dictatorial Senate leadership position. So the
lay of the land is that Mitch McConnell has been
running things for quite some time. He has many strengths
but also many weaknesses. The two cronies of his that
are running to replace him are John Cornyn from Texas,
John Thune from South Dakota, and then Rick Scott is
sort of the challenger, and he did challenge McConnell last year.
Was it was that two years ago?
Speaker 1: Yes, I don't know.
Speaker 2: Anyway, that challenge of McConnell eventually led to McConnell stepping
down as Senate Minority Leader and saying that he would
agree to a let that he would have elections, which
is what's going on this week. So the general situation
is that you have to be really sly and savvy
to run things but also to push your agenda. So
you look at Chuck Schumer and I don't think people
in the Republican Party give him as much credit as
they do Nancy Pelosi, who's also really shrewd about how
to run things. But Chuck Schumer has been Senate Majority
Leader multiple times. He's really done a good job of
accomplishing his mission, whatever it is, given the circumstances. He's
probably got the best record for confirming judges of anyone
in history. But he also pushes forth the other parts
of the Democrat agenda. He thwarts any Republican plans, and
he works really well at getting sort of like the
establishment part of the Republican Party to go along with
him in thwarting any traditional Republican voter agenda. So he's savvy,
he's shrewd, but he's kind of friendlier to all the
members of his caucus, whether they are on the more
moderate side of things, like a Christen Cinema or Joe
Manchin or the Elizabeth Warren Bernie Sanders sort of portion
of the Democrat voting conference, whereas Mitch McConnell rules with
an iron fist. And so if you so, you think
back also to Nancy Pelosi, she says, you do whatever
you need to do to get elected, and if that
means that you're going to spend your entire campaign trashing me,
I have no problem with it. You do what you
need to do to get elected until we get the numbers,
and then we we ride. And Mitch McConnell is more
of the idea that if you don't bow down to him,
he will not give you money, he will not give
you committee assignments. He will I mean, I have stories
which like hopefully someday I can tell, but we're told
in confidence about some of the really like he has
a long term memory about any slight toward him and
he will never let it go. And so I think
people are looking for a change from like I heard
was it Ron Johnson today on the radio saying, just
they're really looking forward to no matter who it is,
it'll be a less dictatorial situation.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I don't have a strong opinion on it, because
I think you need someone who, yeah, he has the
right politics, but also operates in a very efficient, incompetent way.
There's a lot of you know, this is a bureaucracy
in a way, and there's a lot you need to
know how to do and do right and not get
you know. You know. So I don't know if Scott
Is is the guy seems a little weird to me.
It's a weird dude, a little bit right.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, actually, so I feel like this has been
the year of the autist, and I assume he's sort
of on the scale. I don't know, but he's a
very successful businessman and I think he does have that
scene minded focus of there's a problem and we're going
to overcome the problem, and then we're going to You know,
I saw that he had like a PowerPoint about what
he was going to do, and I was like, that
is so Rick Scott. Are there are things to be
said for all of them, but there's I mean, the
reason why Conservatives like Rick Scott is because I think
he's the one candidate who doesn't hate them. It doesn't
mean he is totally one of them. And they want
the Senate to be a great deliberating body and not
just like a one man shop that decides everything that's
going on. And so these senators, which they're now fifty three,
they really want they really want it to be a
deliberative body that tries to tackle the problems facing the country.
Speaker 1: And we'll see probably when this runs, will know and
that will be that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I want to ask you who you thought. But
like it's going to be old news by the time
this airs.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I have no clue. I feel like
I feel like Scott's not he's the sort of the outsider. Right, Yes,
it's most likely going to be one of the other twos.
So Cornyn in Texas, right, I don't like because of
his support of the gun laws that were the gun
bill that was pushed by Murphy in Connecticut, right, he
was a champion at the red flag laws and so on.
I don't like, I'm not a huge fan of either
any of them. Honestly, I don't think you're a great fit.
But we'll see.
Speaker 2: Probably Scott has the best voting record. But the thing
I was thinking about with Dune is that he was
the very first Senator to lead the stampede in twenty sixteen,
when the Access Hollywood tape came out. He was the
very first person to be like, well, we have to
change horses this late in the race, and it almost
I mean, I think a lot of people were really
suspicious about how quickly he jumped on that and that
it was him, and how much of an effort that
was coordinated to sabotage Trump right ahead of the election.
So anyone who kind of goes soft at that moment
a few weeks before a pivotal election is you know,
that's something you file away. Cornyn obviously has a horrible
track record on all sorts of issues. You know, calls
anyone who does not support his crazy neocon warmongering a
Nazi literally, and he's got the horrible record on the
other bills, guns, immigration, et cetera. But he's up for
reelection in two years, so probably Republicans only have two
years here this round of things anyway before they lose
control of multiple things, or at least the House. Maybe
I'm being too Maybe I don't know enough to say
that right now.
Speaker 1: But I actually think Democrats are going to have a
tough time of the Senate next go around.
Speaker 2: But if they don't have the House, that's enough to
kind of so it's enough to.
Speaker 1: Put Supreme Court justices and other judges on the bench,
which I'm very happy about.
Speaker 2: But yeah, but Thune might have more of an incentive
to work with all parts of the party, particularly the
Republican voting part of the party, if he's just got
too years before re election. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we'll see.
Speaker 3: Did you know eight out of the last eleven creative
jobs never really existed? The watch Dout on Wall Street
podcast with Chris Markowski. Every day Chris helps unpack the
connection between politics and the economy and how it affects
your wallet. Over the course of the past year, the
Labor Department has revised the Jobs report by over a
million jobs. In case you forgot the Federal Reserve was
using this info and making their policy decisions. Whether it's
happening in DC or down on Wall Street, it's affecting
you financially.
Speaker 1: Be informed.
Speaker 3: Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Let's turn to the Trump announcements of his not just
cabinet but other you know, advisors and stuff. You want
to just go through the list. Give me your thoughts
on these people. Does that sound good, Susie Wilds, Is
that any Miles?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: I think Ellen's awesome. She was She's Pat Smmer Awl's
the football announcer's daughter. I didn't even know that. It's amazing.
Speaker 2: This has not been a secret, but for some reason,
people only seem to realize it this week when she
was named chief of staff. I think she's amazing. I
love how much she has done and does not care
at all about credit really, and there was no drama,
very little drama that made it its way out of
the campaign into the corporate media. She is just she's
good and she's got a really good track record in Florida.
You know a lot of elected officials. She is responsible
for their successful campaigns, including Ronda Santis's first campaign. I
do think about all those like little things that changed
the direction of history, and Ronda Santis firing her was
probably one of those things that really changed the course
of history. Maybe I'm overstating it, but she seems to
do a really good job of working with President Trump
and being farm indirect and not angering him, and a
lot of people have failed at that or tried to
make it too much about them and not understand their role,
and I think it makes That's one of the things
I'm most happy about, actually, is that Susie is in
that position.
Speaker 1: A quick grant on something here, just quickly. I think
it's very important for the Senate to be an independent institution.
I don't care who the president is, so I wrote
a comment about that. People got mad about that. On
the other hand, though, Donald Trump needs to put people
into his needs to hire people who are on board
with his agenda in the executive branch. Senate's job isn't
to make him happy, but he is. Last time, he
hired a bunch of people who didn't believe in his mission,
who undermined him, who kept firing people. I know he
was a neophyte, and maybe that's why, but it feels
like this time he's putting people in there who are
both so far you know, who are both confident and
want to help him succeed, not you know, be there
to try to stifle him or teach him how things
really work or whatever. So anyway, I just wanted to
mention that, well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I saw this really funny tweet from I think
it was Mike Solana about it was looking at a
headline that said Donald Trump begins to fill his top
posts with loyal, loyal defenders, and he said, wow, crazy
that he's breaking with the long standing tradition of hiring
people who hate your bleeping guts. Now it's weird too. Oh,
he's filling his cabinet with people who are going to
help him get done what he said he would get done. Wow,
that's so. I'm so glad that that's a headline in
the New York Times.
Speaker 1: You know, it's not weird at all. I do think
it would be important to get you know, to have
people there who are going to maybe challenge your worldview occasionally,
but it should not be the majority or most or
even you know, anything, but a person or two. You know,
so he is elected, he's allowed to pursue his agenda,
and he should put people in that role in the
executive brand should do that, and I think he has.
So that brings me to oh.
Speaker 2: Wait, wait real quickly, I want to say, because I
thought when we were talking about Senate wasn't going to
be leadership. It was going to be about this issue
of the independence of the Senate. And I don't think
the question is whether you want the Article one branch
to be Article one. You know that you want it
to be its own thing and retain its authority. I
think the question is whether you want it to be
completely independent of anything but Washington, DC. Like, the problem
in the first Trump term really was that the Republican
Senate and the Republican House did a lot to help
sabotage and undermine the Trump presidency. Just take for example,
they completely went along with the Russia collusion hoax and
even like worked to protect it. You don't need to
be independent of Trump, I mean you do, you don't
need it is not the same thing as saying you're
dependent on Trump to just resist that kind of horrific, unconstitutional, unaccountable,
unelected bureaucracy instead of just going along with it. And
so I think what people are hoping to see in
the Senate is an awareness of the seriousness of the situation,
how some aggressive things might need to be done, and
how they should be a partner in that effort rather
than just be an obstacle. And if I can read
something that I always like to think back on from
twenty fourteen by Neil Freeman, who's this wonderful writer and
person at affiliated with National Review, and it's after Mitch
McConnell promised to crush the tea Party and had succeeded.
So he's like, Mitch McConnell is a man of his word.
He said that he would crush the tea party, and
he did. He not only got himself renominated in Kentucky,
but he helped renominate fellow Geope senators who are facing challenges.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: He goes on to kind of describe the situation, but
he's saying, look at this moment in time, So twenty
ten to twenty fourteen or twenty nine to twenty fourteen,
imagine if you would a prayer breakfast in Washington, attended
by the leadership of the GOP monsieurs Bayner, McConnell, Prebus,
and their associates. They dropped to their knees, bow their heads,
and invoke divine intercession in the country's troubled affairs and
in the party's parless condition. Would it be too much
to ask him to deliver unto them a mass political movement,
self financed and benignly led, god fearing and well mannered,
almost all of whose members believed in the literal version
of the Republican platform, and almost none of whose members
wanted anything from the federal government but constitutional restraint. Yes,
it would have been too much to ask, but yes
it has been given unto them. Anyway, the Tea Party
arrived in vast friendly numbers and said to the GOP
were not from the federal government, and we're here to help.
What happened next was not pretty or smart. The GOP
brass responded with insults, attack ads, collaborative media trashing, and finally,
over the past six months, the charge of McConnell's geezer
brigade to quote unquote crush the Tea Party. And here
we thought Congressional Republicans were too prone to compromise, too
quick to split the difference, and so I think this
moment is what people get very frustrated with, is they
get asked to deliver victories to the Republican Party, they
secure those victories for the Republican Party, and then the
geezer caucus in the Senate is like, like what Mitch
McConnell said two weeks ago, he was planning to fight
Republicans more than Democrats. This is incredibly frustrating to the
average American voter, particularly the average Republican voter, that it's
so self indulgent and so not focused on helping the country,
and so they hide behind these like process questions or
suddenly develop a newfound love of the Constitution that they
haven't displayed for years. People want the Senate to stop
being stupid, and they want Republicans in the Senate in
particular to stop being less than one worthless well.
Speaker 1: I definitely think McConnell has a mixed history. I think
he's did some great things. I think he did his
attacks on the Tea Party, I did not like. I
was a big fan of the Tea Party all that.
But I don't care what people want, and I care
it's just me. I agree that the Senate is elect.
If the Senate is elected to push the push forward
the Republican agenda, they should do it, or voters should
vote them out. But if you have leaders picked by
the president say they need to say how loyal they
are to the president and all of that, you have
a big problem because then the leader owes his job
to the executive branch and not the voters and not
the Senate. That's, for me, is problematic. And i'll give
you in a quick example of what makes me nervous.
Donald Trump in twenty seventeen demanded that the Republicans get
rid of the filibuster over the Obama over trying to
overturn Obamacare. Miss McConnell said no. But if he has
someone there who's scared to say no to him, you know,
we can have bad things. Donald Trump is a politician.
Almost every executive branch, when they get frustrated, they try
to exert executive power. This is why we have separations
of power. And that kind of thing worries me. I
know that it doesn't worry most people, but it does
worry me.
Speaker 2: That's fine, it's not a constitutional issue. You know, you
can have reasonable people can disagree Obviously, philibuster is not
in the Constitution. You can choose to have it or not,
and it's been used much more recently in a way
that has bothered certain people on either side. It seems
like I saw Jason Willocks saying something about how the
agreement seems to be. Next time Democrats are in power,
they'll get rid of the filibuster and Republicans won't do
it until that moment. But then they'll both you know,
both sides will use this.
Speaker 1: When they do it, it will backfire on them, as
it did when Harry Reid got blew up the judicial filibuster.
It was a disaster for them. I think, you know,
I hope they don't do it. I hope it comes
to their senses. It's the only thing allowing federalism to
exist anymore. If we didn't have a phil if he
didn't have a filibuster, I'm sorry. If a filibuster was
gone during the Republicans, if they killed in twenty seventeen,
the first two years of the Biden administration would have
destroyed America. They would have passed, they would have gotten
rid of all elect overturned state election laws. They would
have who knows what they would have passed. It would
have been insane. So I mean, it's important to remember that.
Speaker 2: I totally agree. I also think, I mean, I totally
agree about being worried about not having filibuster, and it's
this major protection for minority rights and that tends to
help the Republican Party. It's also true what you just said,
which is, the next time they get control, they're going
to do everything. They're going to pack the court, they're
going to destroy constitutional governance. So do you just like
wait for that to happen.
Speaker 1: We do a good job and keep getting elected. I mean,
that's the only way to do it.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm just saying I think it's complicated.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is. I understand there's idealism, there's the Constitution,
and then there's power in the real world, and those
are two very different things. But I hope that we
can strengthen the guardrails, you know, of the Constitution. I
think it's important for us to try to stop Democrats
want to destroy the Constitution in the future. Anyway, let's
move on to some of these other folks. Deputy Chief
of Staff Stephen Miller, obviously a guy who is fully,
fully in on the Trump agenda, especially I guess border issues,
right or something that cares about quite a.
Speaker 2: Bit well, and it did really good work during the
first administration and so and you know, in the White House,
so he's well positioned to keep the winds coming.
Speaker 1: I wanted to talk about Secretary of Defense Pete Hexseth.
Is that how you pronounce it. He's a I've seen him, Yeah,
you probably know him, works at Fox. This is the
one that you know generated the most kind of sneering
and mockery and listen. I don't know enough about the
guy to know if he's going to do a good job,
but I know that he I learned that he is
highly educated, that he has two Bronze Stars. I believe
that he served for a long time, that he's an
advocate for veterans, and that the people I trust say
he's a really good guy. So I don't know how
you feel about it.
Speaker 2: Well, I know and love Pete Higsith. He's a wonderful guy,
like a really great guy, and cares deeply about the
people who fight the wars. And traditionally, the Secretary of
Defense has been someone from the military industrial complex, like
a literal arms merchant or lobbyist for military contractor arms seller,
and that explains, I think, in part, why our military
has been operating the way it has been operating. So
you've had not just a problem with the execution of wars.
So something happened, and this obviously is not new. Eisenhower
warned about it in his farewell address that a military
congressional industrial complex was threatening the security of the country
because it cared more about having wars being run and
have them being run for a long time to maximize
the amount of money coming into the system, then to
have a military posture focused mostly on our national security
and what's in America's interests. And so I honestly think
this is a really big task. I mean, this is
not a small organization. The Defense Department has a lot
of moving parts, a lot of people, a lot of
procurement issues, a lot. It's a really big role. And
so I think whoever it is should have a good
team of supporters who understand the agency and department. But
I was excited that it wasn't someone from the military
industrial complex. That's a good sign.
Speaker 1: Okay, next person on the list, we have Homeland Security
Secretary A Christinome. I find her to be sort of
a coward. I think she was a coward on protecting
children in her state. I forget what the bill was about.
I just remember not being annoyed with.
Speaker 2: Her, Yeah, protecting girls and just opposing the radical transagenda.
Speaker 1: Right. So this is a big organization, obviously, it's an
umbrella organization of sorts. It seems like a big job
for you know. I just I feel like there are
probably more serious people that could have taken this on.
I mean, I'm not angry about it or anything. I
just I feel like it's a myth choice. I don't
know if you agree with that, I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm keeping an open mind. I John Davison
wrote a piece for US about how nobody should be
nominated to run the Department of Homeland Security because the
Department of Homeland Security shouldn't exist, and that is, you know,
it's a really bad, sprawling department that does not accomplish
its mission. It's also true, though, that we're preparing for
mass deportations, and someone who's the Cabinet secretary should probably
be stronger and less susceptible to media pressure than she
has shown herself to be. I don't know. Again, trying
to keep an open mind, and I do think probably
I don't care about this at all, and it annoys
me that people care about it. But they're probably looking
to have some women as cabinet secretaries, you.
Speaker 1: Know, CIA Agency director. Yeah, is good one. I'm a
fan of myself. I just want to say today a
story just broke. I don't know, you know if you
saw it that there was a leaker within this CIA
who sent Ron, he sent Iran information about Israel's attack. Now,
can you imagine there there is obviously a whole culture
in there of you know, undermining America's interest in our
allies interests. That place needs someone who is no nonsense,
who's gonna do it's best for America. I watched a
clip of John Radcliffe going after some Russia collusionist I
forget who it was, but just ripping them apart. And
this was around twenty eighteen when he was a congressman.
Just very impressive in that way. And he was very
impressive to me, if I remember correctly, During the Hunter
Biden cover up over his laptop, he came out and said,
that is not Russian disinformation? Right? Am I right about that? Okay,
so yeah.
Speaker 2: Also he also got out the news that the intelli
Jen's community knew that Hillary Clinton was purchasing and running
a Russia operation, that Russia knew that Hillary Clinton was
running a Russia operation. So when you hear all these
other people that were in Intel saying like, oh, we
know this was a legitimate investigation, and we just were
going where the facts, let us that's a lie. And
Radcliffe was the one who showed that Obama had been
personally briefed that Hillary Clinton was ginning up a Russia
collusion hoax, and that was really important stuff.
Speaker 1: Obviously, I like his outlook and of the outlook of
other people we're going to talk about. The thing is, though,
there needs to be a culture change, training, the swamp,
whatever you want to call it. There really has to
be not just a temporary leadership change here, I think,
but you need to put people in positions of power.
We're going to change the culture in these places, I hope.
Which brings me to Secretary of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Now,
I don't know, do you like this pic?
Speaker 2: Well, first of all, it hasn't been publicly announced. I
kind of wait until I know that it's been widely reported,
but always, no matter who the president is, you kind
of wait for the official announcement. But that goes triple
for Trump, So I don't mind it. I think it
could have been stronger. But I don't have like a
problem with Marco riview, And in fact, I think he's
shown like I got a lot of good growth in.
Speaker 4: You.
Speaker 1: Now you're making me nervous because I am happy. I'm
happy with that pick if it happens, because I like,
I mean, it tells me that the many of the
paleo types within the Trump camp do not have the
final say almost I don't think. I don't know. I
don't think Tucker Carlson would like Marco Rubio there.
Speaker 2: I know, I think you might be. I think people
might overstate. You know, there are there are all sorts
of different camps in foreign policy, and it is annoying
to have it reduced simply, as we've talked before, to
neocon or the absurd claim which almost nobody is although there,
I mean, there are a few of isolationists. There are
all sorts of different camps along the way, and Donald
Trump has always had a people have tried to write
him into their own foreign policy, whether it's Neocon or realist,
and to me, it's just this very American way of being.
Bridge Colpley talked about this in his podcast that he
did with Tucker Carlson. But there's like a long history
of American understanding of when and where to use our military,
which is not never, but it's just designed around the
American interest. And so there are some bitter clinger Neocons,
and those people would definitely be out on the outs.
But there are also people who just kind of grew
up in an environment where the only way to be
was a Neocon and they didn't really reflect that much
on other positions, and as they encountered them, they saw
the beauty of them, or or they just learned from
the disasters of certain Neocon wars. So there's I think
people get too reductionist on these things. And so there
are definitely people that might like better than a Marco Rubio,
like even the other Tennessee Senator Hagod Parity, someone like
that who's been maybe a better leader on some of
these issues.
Speaker 4: But it's all kind of it's I don't know, I
think there's been an over correction because of the Neocon
thing where any kind of you know, there are people
who find any kind of military action.
Speaker 1: You know, they recoil from the thought. I think that
we occasionally need to show people that they can't mess
with us. I think people are taking liberties with us
in a lot of places in the world right now.
I'm not saying we should be in these long wars.
It's not even really the wars. It's the nation building
of the neocon establishment that I think is the worst idea.
But whatever I think Marco Rubio, first of all, I'm
happy to get him out of the Senate. I think
DeSantis can pick someone who is pro capital. His foreign
policy is I love, so for me, that's just a
great pick. So I don't know.
Speaker 2: And Mark Rubio is actually who I wish were the
next Senate Majority leader because I like that. I actually
like his moderation. I like that he gets along with
people on all sides of things. You don't want to
have as your Senate Majority leader someone who's beholden to
one fringe or extreme of the caucus or another. But
he's out.
Speaker 1: I guess.
Speaker 2: Oh. Actually, on that note, who do you think Ronda
Santis will pick to be the replacement?
Speaker 1: So if he picks someone, that person serves for a year, right,
and then some two years two years that you serve yeah,
I'm sorry, two years, and then Rond DeSantis can run
right for the Senate because can't be governor anymore.
Speaker 2: I think he could, but I don't know if he
wants to. You know, he was a member of the House.
I mean, first of all, couldn't he pick himself right
now if you wanted to?
Speaker 1: He said he will. I believe he said he wasn't
going to know. Maybe not.
Speaker 2: I already said anything about it. He's abroad right now
on a trip to Italy a business, you know, trying
to drum up business for Florida. So I would love
I think, Well, I don't know. I don't know if
Ron de Santis likes being in a legislature. I think
he's a good executive, so I'm not sure if he'd
want to appoint himself. But the thing is, there are
some really good members of the House, but you can't
really lose any more members of the House. A Cat
Camick who's from Castle Rock, Colorado, great place to be from, uh,
you know, Byron Donald's. But I think I think they
both supported Trump. I don't know if that is the
problem for decantists or whether he's going to pick a
loyalist himself. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I think he should pick a loyalist in the sense of,
if he does want to run, someone who won't run,
who just wants to sort of sit there for two years.
If he doesn't want to run, he should pick the
best person available.
Speaker 2: Oddly enough to sort of trust him to make the
right decision. But all of these picks, like Mike Waltz
getting picked from Florida to be National Security Advisor, that
one kind surprised me. It's not that I didn't know
he was in the running, but I don't know I
could have seen him more in a defense defense sec
or defense.
Speaker 1: Are you worried? Are you worried that a lot of
these folks aren't as I know, they voted against the
last funding bill for Ukraine with Israel and so on,
which was just a political stump by Democrats, I believe.
Are you worried that they're a little more too inclined
to continue the policies of the Biden administration as far
as Ukraine goes.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I feel like both Marco Rubio and
Mike Waltz were naturally inclined to join the next interventionist war,
but that they aren't totally insane about it.
Speaker 1: So I don't know.
Speaker 2: I Donald Trump had John Bolton as his national security
advisor at one point. Who that's insane.
Speaker 1: That is an interesting point you make about Bolton. Did
you hear him on Rogan say that he would just
break up bring out Bolton to scare everyone, you know?
Speaker 2: Yeah, and then hey, I reported that in my book. Okay,
from an interview.
Speaker 1: But yeah, So it feels like his foreign policy staff
is a little more to the you know, I know,
you don't like the word, but the hawkers side than
he is, and he will be the person who makes
the final decision. So he's, you know, it kind of
is a you know, tempers the instincts of a Marco
Rubio or someone like that. Maybe, you know, I don't know.
Speaker 2: I think he's looking for people who understand that it's
his agenda and that will help him advance his agenda
as opposed to what was happening earlier, which is he
would say we need to pull our troops out of
Syria and they would just say, oh, well, there's no
way we can do it, and you'd have to keep
saying it. I remember there was a CNN story about
all the different ways that his first I think it
was his first sectef had thwarted the will of Trump
to keep the war going in Syria. So I think
he's just looking for people who won't play those stupid games.
He can kind of deal with the fact that they
all might have different natural views. The job in an
administration is not to have your own policy that you
were not elected for because you're not elected. Your jobs
to implement the policy of the person who was elected.
And I think John Bolton and John Kelly had trouble
understanding that the American people had not elected them. I
don't think that's going to be an issue with any
of these.
Speaker 1: People, Waltz Rubio. These are serious people who I believe
have seriously thought about foreign policy and have their They
see China's our biggest threat. I think that reflects Donald
Trump's views on foreign policy as well in any way,
So I like it. I mean, I think this is
the most pro Israel cat you know, foreign policy group
that has probably ever been in the White House. I
would say, obviously that's going to get a lot of
conspiracy theories going. But I think Bbie is going to
call in and say cool it. Like after Mike Hackabee
as a bassador for a guy who says there's no
such thing as occupied territories, who says, what did he say? Oh,
there's no such things as settlers. There are just towns
and houses with Jews in them, Like like, I'm just
flabbergasted that we have such excellent people, you know, as
far as Israel. Those by the.
Speaker 2: Way, to me, this is a perfect example where people say, oh,
he's putting in all of these people who are friendly
to Israel. This is not in any way a conflict
with Trump or Vance, who have been explicit about their
support for Israel, viewing it as a key ally and
a key agent of peace in the region. I mean,
we lived through the first Trump administration, we lived through
the Abraham course, this massive effort as people were like, oh,
he's putting in all these Israel friendly people. Yeah, there's nothing,
you know, but they're agually it's some kind of disappointment
from what they were expecting. And it's like, if you
were expecting something other than that, you were not paying
attention to what these people said, including jd. Vance at
the Quincy Institute when he laid out a foreign policy
that showed a strong relationship with Israel.
Speaker 1: So I think you're right about people what you said before,
about people fooling themselves into believing that this person's going
to just be a imbued, imbue government with all their
hopes and dreams, you know. And there are you have
to admit, there are on the right a bunch of
paleo people who don't like that relationship with Israel. But
Trump has been the best president for Israel. And you know,
I'm just as a person who cares about that very much.
I'm excited about about these choices, you know, So it
works out.
Speaker 2: On the Hawk could be one and I'm not you
know where he is theologically. But is that a new
approach to the ambassador to Israel? Like is it normally.
Speaker 1: Jew or it is approach? Okay, Friedman was the last guy.
I yeah, Usually you'll name some j Listen, this is
gonna get me some Mail, I think. But American Christians,
Evangelical specifically, but others as well, have been better for
Israel and more pro Israel and understand the importance of
Israel more than most American Jews do. Hawkabi understands that
situation in a moral sense better than most left wing
Jews do. And I think it's great we didn't talk
about borders czar. They should stop using the czar word.
I think it's a bad grassation sent exactly. But even
before I hated it with Obama. But Tom Holman, who
that guy is? As the kids say, off the hook
or do they say that anymore?
Speaker 2: But at so many people who just like keep looking
for clips of him talking to people, and they're loving
his answers. So on sixty minutes when his debater was saying, oh,
it's going to cost this much money to deport and
he's like, I don't know where that. I don't know
where your numbers came from, which is just I love
the response of just immediately questioning whatever the claim is,
because who knows where they came from and how they
developed those numbers. But then he's like, what price do
you put on national security? And then when she says,
you know, what are you going to do about if
you're deporting? Like is there any way to is there
any way to keep families together during this deportation process?
And he's like, yeah, they can all be deported together.
Speaker 1: Isn't it. It's so weird that people are upset that
someone is going to uphold the law that's written and
that everyone including Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer supported not
a few years ago. I think love that way. Yeah,
oh sorry, no, no, go on.
Speaker 2: Please the AOC when she's interrogating him about deportations and
she claims that it's not against the law to break
the law to be here legally or to cross them
or legally, and he's just reciting the statutes that have
been violated. I love it.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know how they're going to do it.
I think marching police into how you don't need to
do it in the way that the left imagines. You know,
there are many ways to when you catch people, you
send them back each time. You don't need to march
through the streets with the army to collect people.
Speaker 2: Okay, this is another thing that Homan was talking about.
There are already people who've gone through due process and
have received deportation orders, and I think it's like one
point five million or something, some astronomically high number. And
he says we'll start there. And what I like about
that is, if it's people who are say already detained
or not detained, you're going to have and they've already
gone through due process. For Democrats to fight this, they're
going to have to literally like stand themselves in front
of a jail and say, don't take this lawbreaker in
here and deport him. It's going to be a very
difficult move for them. They will have the help of
the propaganda press, but we're also seeing that the propaganda
press is kind of confused about how they have nowhere
to go. They spent the entire campaign saying that the
world would end if what happened happened, and it didn't end,
and so they're going to have a hard time keeping
the hysteria up.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, I personally believe that most Americans don't
like what's going on with the legal immigration, they don't
like the anarchy, they don't like any of it, and
they'll be on board. EPA administrator is going to be
Lee zeld In, who had like a fourteen percent rating
from the Sierra Club or something, so he's perfect for
the job. I think that's another good pick. Then there's
the Department of Government Efficiency with Elon Musk and vivek
Rama stage.
Speaker 2: It's not actually a department, it's just called the department.
But yes, yeah, it's more like I'm like blue Ribbon
commission to look for ways to change things.
Speaker 1: I think Elon Musk is built for this kind of thing.
He didn't he fire like eighty percent of Twitter staff
and they're still running even better than ever. He's done
that in his businesses before. I think he's a special talent,
you know, in history. I don't really get the VVAX stuff.
I know people love him. I don't know why. I
don't know what he's ever done to deserve this, But
I'm fine with this. The problem is that as many
efficiencies as they find and it will all be great
in the end, the debt bomb will go off. We
don't actually make big structural reforms to entitlement programs. But
I don't want to get into a boring devisation.
Speaker 2: Is it like a David X run thing, never let
a crisis go to waste?
Speaker 1: No, it was the ram and Manuel I think said
never let it.
Speaker 2: So I actually think we're in that situation with the
debt situation. So it's a whole They're going to have
to raise the debt ceiling, but it's an opportunity to
make huge demands in exchange for raising the debt ceiling,
and things do have to be changed wildly. We're, by
the way, at the two year anniversary of the night
Twitter died, which was a night when the corporate media
we're talking to all their sources inside Twitter and Elon
Musk had said that people had to sign an agreement
to actually start working and doing their jobs and showing
up at work, and if they couldn't sign the agreement,
then they would get three months severance. And many people
would not sign the agreement, so they were leaving, and
the people who were leaving said they didn't think Twitter
would make it through the night, and they were reporting
that it was just going to break, or it might
like coast for a few days and then break. And
that was two years ago, and it is increased dramatically
in size and strength since then.
Speaker 1: That's bigger than any other social media there is. Like
I was looking at this chart the other day. Its
influence is massive. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So as it relates to government efficiency, I do
think one of the problems we've had is that we're
always having people work on this who need to keep
keep working in DC, So they're always looking for ways
to not actually totally solve the problem, or they're unwilling
to consider the types of things you might need to
do to kill off the administrative state or to make
a serious dent, because they still want to work in
this town and they're not going to get good jobs
if they actually solve the problem. And so having two
people who are billionaires who are outsiders lead the effort.
They will need, however, people who know where the bodies
are buried, who understand how these agencies work, who understand
the statutes in play, and can make really good, strong recommendations.
Same goes for a Pete Hegseth, Like, that's a massive
department to run. You have to procure billions of dollars
in weapons and products and services, and you have to
have a worldwide defense strategy, and you have to negotiate
with allies and push through authorization and appropriations bills. And
he doesn't have a lot of that kind of experience,
and he'll need people who do in order to be effective.
And so same thing with the DOGE. They have no
experience in that way. They have really good experience where
it matters and I think Elon understands that he wants
to put men on Mars, and he wants to do
really big things, and he needs a functioning country and
a functioning regulatory state in order to do what he's
streaming of doing. And so he has the right kind
of incentive. It's not like personal financial so much as
he just understands the country needs to work for mankind
to throw for sure.
Speaker 1: And obviously you're right, you know, sometimes you need people
with fresh eyes. I mean, it's kind of a cliche,
but even in the Defense department, having someone who's not
in the swamp all the time and sees it from
a different perspective is important. And Elon, obviously, I think,
is the right guy for that. I don't know how
the process would work. I guess they would have reports
that come out and then the executive branch or actually
Congress would probably have to act. Is that it was
there anything?
Speaker 2: Well, we talk, no, and we need to move on.
I need to I need to get back over to
Fox for my next hit. So I'm going to talk culture. Yeah,
did you watch anything good?
Speaker 1: I watched one of the worst movies I've ever seen
in my life. It's called Infinite with Mark Wahlberg. It's
like a science fiction movie directed by the guy who
did It's a great Denzel Washington movie with Ethan Hawke.
Speaker 2: Oh, I love that one Training Day.
Speaker 1: Training Day, same Torend. This movie was so bad in
so many different ways. It was. It was kind of
a copy of The Matrix. But Mark Wahlberg I like,
But he needs a good director because if he's just
out there with bad lions, they come off even worse
in his the way he is than they are. So anyway,
I hated this movie in every way. It was so
bad I couldn't finish it, which is very very rare
for me. I usually get through there. And the only
other thing I wanted to mention was Grover Cleveland was
the only other president who nonconsecutively served. And there's a
book by Troy Seneca, Troy.
Speaker 2: Sek, my former colleague. I love Troy. It's a great book.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, it's called A Man of Iron. Such a
good book, really well done. I did not know much
about Grover Cleveland, you know, there were some presidents I
just didn't know a ton about. And this is just
a really engaging and compelling read. I recommend its super readable.
It's great, Yeah, great, Yeah, how about you.
Speaker 2: I watched the Martha Stewart documentary.
Speaker 1: While I was growing have that on my list.
Speaker 2: And I would recommend watching it. I don't even know
what to think about it. I think our girl is
a bit crazy and not very self aware about it,
and particularly as it relates to relationships with men. I
think she seems very difficult to live with, but unaware
of how difficult she is.
Speaker 1: There's that clip where she's she's talking about how her
husband cheated on her, and they're like, well, didn't you
have an affair like early on? And she's, you know
what I'm saying, like she didn't. She judged her husband
about her. She is allowed to do whatever, you know,
she has licensed.
Speaker 2: Exactly so like one of the early stories. And it
was such an interesting directorial approach to include this story
because it's not major. Is that on her honeymoon and
I think she had like a five month honeymoon when
she was probably nineteen when she got married, and it
was in Europe and it really opened her eyes to
all this beauty and art. But she was in Florence,
she was in the cathedral on Easter. She married a
Jewish guy and so he wasn't with her. And it
was the Easter vigil, I think, and just a crowd
of tourists and she saw an attractive guy and she
made out with him on her honeymoon. And the interviewer
is like, was this infidelity? Weren't just naughty? And she said, nia,
there is just like a moment of passion that it's
not infidelity and it's not naughty and everyone should have
such a moment. And I'm like, oh, she's crazy.
Speaker 1: I at least saw the trailer and she's just like
demeaning housewives and stuff I don't like. Stuff I don't
I didn't like.
Speaker 2: No, she doesn't. That's not that's not accurate, that's not
in fact, I would say the opposite. She was. She
was praising the work of the housewife. But then later, yeah,
she's complaining that her husband wasn't satisfied at home and
that he was cheating on her with all these people.
And that's when they interfere this but you know, you
did it first, and she's like, what are you talking about?
And he's like, when you were a stockbroker because that
was her first career, and she's like, oh, that was
that was nothing. It was like an Irish guy and
it was very It did not mean anything.
Speaker 1: It would not the Irish.
Speaker 2: I'm like, whoa, what, so, yeah, this feeling very wronged
by other people without taking responsibility for what you've done yourself.
But having said that, it's utterly fascinating. And I you know,
when I went through my Bible reading last year, I
just kept being struck by how all the great men
throughout Scripture are also these disaster people who've committed horrible sin.
And you know, you look like an Elon. He's operating
on a completely different level and does not have the
values I would seek in a husband, the virtues I
would seek in a husband. And likewise, Martha, it built
an amazing empire, and I think a lot of what
she did is stuff that were more familiar seeing men
do and the attitude that men have there. But most
interesting to me is that the super villain of the
entire documentary. Have you heard about this? No, the super
villain is James Comy, and I mean those roy him
and they destroy him for exact exactly the things that
Trump defenders were upset with James Comy. About twenty years later,
fifteen years later, he did not have a case against her,
so he charged her with lying about the case that
he couldn't bring. And he really wanted a high profile
kill because they weren't really doing anything to deal with
insider trading, so they just decided instead to have a
high profile victim or high profile target. And I don't know,
it was just interesting to see how they talked about
his preening and his self righteousness and his trying to
get people to say things that weren't true. And he
really comes off. If I didn't already have the lowest
of esteem for him, he would even lower.
Speaker 1: I've always inside of trading always seemed like a weird,
elastic kind of charge that allowed prosecutors to use their
power in a way. And I remember, I don't remember
all the specifics, but I do remember like I thought
she was railroaded. I will watch that. I'm interested in
that and documentaries like that, all right.
Speaker 2: And then I also finished Only Murders, Yeah this season,
and I thought it was the last season, but it
ended with another murder, suggesting that there will be another season.
Speaker 1: I've come to not to dislike that show. I find
the writing is so all if I have a mystery
and a murder mystery. I want clues. I want it
to be structured so I can try to guess who
did it. If you're constantly bringing in new characters and
all kinds of new things and doing flashbacks, it's not
allowing me to participate in the experience.
Speaker 2: I'm just you know, you had to have guessed this
one though, right, I don't.
Speaker 1: Even remember who did it now, and I watched this like.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm not going to say it.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I remember, Yeah, I don't know. It's just
like Martin Short, who I like, and Steve Martin, who
I like, being cutesy, and you're you know, and uh, anyway,
I don't want to be I'm trying to be less negative.
This is my new my This is going to be
my New Year's resolution. Be more positive. Don't always be
an e or.
Speaker 2: You're going to fail.
Speaker 1: Just see now you're being the eor. And then I
have a book coming out, Rise of Blue and on
the Democratic What is it How the Democrats became a
party of conspiracy theorists? I She'll be talking, Yeah, do.
Speaker 2: You like that they're devolving into conspiracy theories? Right now
as your book is coming out. I mean they are,
and it's very convenient for you.
Speaker 1: Yes, but if they had been, if the election had
been closer, it would have been bad for America, but
excellent for my book, because I think that it's the
it's the gap and the and the solid win that
that makes it almost impossible for them. But they're working
on it. I I've seen people say that the election
is stolen and stuff like that. I think we'll be
talking about it for a few minutes next episode. Other
than that, I have nothing else. How about you, Molly,
You're good. I'm good, all right. Well, I hope everyone
else is good as well. And until next week. He
lovers of freedom and anxious for the fray