Bulwark Takes - This is a Bad Place: Republican Enablers Back Trump's Retribution

Episode Date: March 16, 2025

Tim Miller and Sam Stein break down the latest political developments from the Sunday morning talk shows. Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio, defend Trump the best they can. On visa revocations for pro-Palestinian protestors, Rubio’s justification for deporting students based on their political views and their implications of such policies on free speech and government overreach.

It's time to turn your daydream into your dream job. Wix gives you the power to turn your passion into a moneymaker with a website that fits your unique vision and drives you towards your goals. Let your ideas flow with AI tools that guide you, but give you full control and flexibility. Manage your business from one dashboard and keep it growing with built-in marketing features. Get everything you need to turn your part-time passion

into a full-time business. Go to Wix.com. You know where your business would be without you. Imagine where it could go with more of you. Well, with Wix, you can create a website with more of your vision, your voice, your expertise. Wix gives you the freedom to truly own your brand and do it on your own with full

customization and advanced AI tools that help turn your ideas into reality. Grow your business into your online brand. Because without you, your business is just business as usual. Go to Wix.com. Hey guys, Tim Miller from The Bullwark here with managing editor Sam Stein. We're watching the morning shows this morning, Much to get to. But two things that jumped out are two of my old people, two neocons, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio. Both were making the rounds. Lindsey Graham was on CBS's Face the Nation, as was Marco Rubio, actually. And they both had some pretty interesting takes as they tried to rationalize the attacks on free speech coming from this administration. I want to play both clips.

Do you have any top line thoughts? No, let's play it and react. All right, here we go. Let's watch first. Little Marco, big ears. Can you substantiate any form of material support for terrorism specifically to Hamas from this Columbia student? Or was it simply that he was espousing a controversial political point of view? Well, not just the student. We're going to do more. In fact, every day now we're approving visa revocations. And if that visa led to a green card, the green card process as well. And here's why. It's very simple. When you apply to enter the United States and you get a visa, you are a guest.

And you're coming as a student, you're coming as a tourist, or what have you. And in it, you have to make certain assertions. And if you tell us, when you apply for a visa, I'm coming to the U.S. to participate in pro-Hamas events, that runs counter to the foreign policy interest of the United States of America. It's that simple. So you lied. If you had told us that you were going to do that, we never would have given you the visa. Now you're

here. Now you do it. So you lied to us. You're out. It's that simple. But is there any evidence of a link to terrorism or is it just his point of view? Yeah, they take over. I mean, do you not? I mean, you should watch the news. These guys take over entire buildings. They vandalize colleges. They shut down. I'm asking about the specific justification for the revocation of his visa. Was there any evidence? The spokesperson was the negotiator on negotiating on behalf of people that took over a campus that vandalized buildings. Negotiating over what? That's a crime in and of itself that they're involved in being a negotiator. The spokesperson, this, that, the other. We don't the other. We don't need these people in our country.

We never should have allowed them in in the first place. If he had told us, I'm going over there, and I'm going over there to become the spokesperson and one of the leaders of a movement that's going to turn one of your allegedly elite colleges upside down, people can't even go to school, buildings being vandalized, we never would have let him in. We never would have let him in to begin with. And now that he's doing it and he's here, he's going to leave. And so are others. And we're going to keep doing it. And by the way, I find it ironic that a lot of these people out there defending the First Amendment speech, alleged free speech rights of these Hamas

sympathizers, they had no problem, okay, pressuring social media to censor American political speech. So I think it's ironic and hypocritical. But the bottom line is this. If you are in this country to promote Hamas, to promote terrorist organizations, to participate in vandalism, to participate in acts of rebellion and riots on campus, we never would have let you in if we had known that. And now that we know it, we're going to leave. Is it only pro-Palestinian people who are going to have their visas revoked or are other points of view as well? No, I think anybody who's here in favor.

But we want to get rid of Trinidad and Agua gang members. They're terrorists, too. The president designated them, asked me to designate, and I did as a terrorist organization. We want to get rid of them as well. We don't want terrorists in America. I don't know how hard that is to understand. I mean, you have to admit, we'll get to the substance. You have to admit, it's kind of astonishing, just like the size of the ears. It's like a Pinocchio situation. Where do you want to go with this? The fact if you just sit back and you listen to it, he's not even, there's no pretext that this guy even, that Mahmoud Khal was related to Hamas, that he had any involvement with Hamas,

merely that he was part of this protest of the war and that that group that he protested with was generally sympathetic towards Hamas. But that's not, I mean, if that's what we're going on, that's thin stuff. And it's sort of like, you know, this is just the start and we don't want these people in our country. If he had applied, stating that he felt this way, we never would have let him in. I mean, take that to its logical conclusions and it's kind of a little bit frightening, right? Like we're going to police people and have thought police for people entering the country. No diversity of opinion. I get that this dude's radical, Mahmoud Khalil. I don't support what he –

I also understand – like I guess, here's the most generous thing I can say about Marco's answer. Okay. In the most micro, if you were applying for a visa, and when you do apply for a visa, they ask you various things, the purpose of your travel, duration of stay...

So, if you said on that visa application, I intend to come to America because I am going to start protests on the campus, you know, where I will organize in defense of foreign terrorist groups. We can quibble over whether that's what he's doing. But then you wouldn't get a visa, right? Like we're not like handing out visas. I get that yes right so so like in the in the very narrow i i understand that but it's like what that that does not give any rationalization for the treatment of him at like

post-talk it's also it's also sort of uh what's the word it's it's dealing in absolutes right obviously he wouldn't say hey i you know i support know, I support terrorism, and I'm, you know, blocking, you know, I'm causing disruptions, because I want to genuinely prop up Hamas. And also, there's less, you know, clear examples of protests where you start getting in that slippery slope, right? I mean, what if someone was just on the campus, and they were, you know, holding a sign, but not disrupting a student's entry to a building i mean at what point do you say okay you're acceptable or not and i i personally am not comfortable with the line that they've drawn but my question is um is marco rubio in his heart i

think he is actually i think there's i think that there's another clip of him uh defending the tariffs on champagne uh where he sounded he sounded a little less compelled. I think that Marco has convinced himself. What is the level of protest that Rubio is comfortable with? I think that Marco believes that we should only be allowing people into this country that love MAGA,

that love America, that think America is great, that want to, that don't think, that want to wear back-to-back World War Champs t-shirts and like whatever uh you know i think that's a good question though if someone came in and they were supporting the democratic socialist party right like would he say that's not in america's foreign policy interest i mean these are obvious questions that this conduct raises and would you use the power of the secretary of state to deny someone a student

visa who was part of a socialist institution on campus yeah i mean possibly with him and we'll see because we're gonna have more of these yes that's the thing we'll see the most alarming things for me number one the shit like he's clearly saying yeah we're trying to chill your speech so you're here on a visa don't consider yourself to have free speech rights this is china if you're here on a visa like treat it like china if you're an american maybe it's different we'll see how things shake out next year um once we once we get rid of all the visa people um the other thing that you can get into this interview which the last time we got together we talked about this on the pod on thursday i had not yet seen the video of ofil's detention. Have you seen it?

Yes, where his wife is shooting the footage and just asking him for a name. Let's actually, in case some people haven't seen it, I'll just dump in a little clip from that right now. You're going to be under arrest. So turn around, turn around, turn around, turn around. Okay, let's not. Okay, he's not resisting. He's giving me his phone, okay?

I understand. He's not resisting. Don't worry about it., okay? I understand. He's not resisting. Don't worry about it. You're going to have to come with us. I'm coming with you. Don't worry. No one's resisting. No one's getting worked up. You guys really don't need to be doing all of that. It's fine. It's fine.

Happy Viki for the other cent week. Take the name. Call the name. Okay. Hi, Amy. Yeah, they just, like, handcuffed him and took him. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I don't know. Nor.

Let me ask. Can we get a name, please? Can we get your name? I understand the lawyer is asking for your name. Go back, please. Go over there. We don't give our name. the lawyer is asking for your name. The lawyer is asking for your name. He's saying they don't give their names.

I'm sorry, can you repeat that? I'll be taken to immigration custody at 26 Federal Plaza. She said they're taking him to 26 Federal Plaza. Can you please specify what agency is taking him, please? Excuse me. Nobody, they're not talking to me. I don't know. I don't know. I looked at the wall. Excuse me. The lawyer would like to speak to somebody oh my god they're literally

running away from me so to me it's just like even in the generous view of what marco is saying which is that which is that we're gonna have some new rules you know people that have associations with foreign groups we're not gonna allow into this country i'm not for that but even the most generous thing then like there's ways to go about it. It's like, okay, we're going to take your visa. You have time to challenge that in court if you want. If you lose, then you're going to have to go back to Algeria or Syria where your residence is. At least that would be a defensible argument that they would be putting forth. This is insane.

This is Gestapo shit like they they sent a plainclothes guy in an avengers tee wouldn't tell the wife who you who they were right wouldn't tell you putting him in the back of an unmarked car then taking him and then flying him to louisiana and then when the judge says why did you fly him to louisiana they're like well there were bed bugs in the new jersey uh holding cell. It's like, this is fucking ridiculous. And let him stay in his home. You know what I mean? Like, what is the risk here?

There's no flight risk. He's trying to stay. In fact, yeah. You're trying to get him to leave. He's trying to stay. What's the flight risk? And you've provided no evidence that he's violent. It's absolutely insane treatment of this person and and so like that to me is where like

marco is just really alighting like the most is doing everything he can to just focus on like this one narrow thing about how he wants to change the visa rules which i think we can have a debate about uh and just totally alighting the horrific way that this guy has been treated i totally agree i come back to two things one is like if it were on the other foot i mean i'm just painting hypotheticals the democratic administration going after you know right-wing kids on campus who are here on visas because they're too closely associated with white nationalism how about or how about like abortion rights you know like they're going to yeah pro-, like they're going to pro-life rat. They're going to pro-life.

And they're being a little bit aggressive. And, you know, it's like, hey, get them out of the country. You would freak. You would freak out. Yeah. Rightfully so. Secondly, I just think, you know, look, if the goal here is to marginalize Mahmoud Khalil's viewpoints, this is about as dumb a move as you could possibly make. You've turned him completely into a cause um you we're talking about it we see all the videos all over the place people

are rallying behind him like maybe and that might be it they might want this fight they might like this fight i'm pretty sure they like this fight because it's the same thing with the with the aliens uh enemies act that they're doing right they're going after venezuelan guys they're saying they're all gang members. They want Democrats to engage in this fight and say, oh, no, don't deport the gang members. But I just think it's chilling. Okay. I have one nitpick with you on this.

I've heard you make this point a couple times about how he's going to become a rallying cry and all that. You don't think so? Well, maybe. Maybe he is. I do notice, though, it is notable to me that the big genocide joe protests like the big protests that were happening against biden and against kamala still not really seeing that i mean like there are some protests about their protests are you seeing any seeing none

yeah i mean very there's i don't want to sound like there's nothing happening, but very minimal. Yeah. And I don't know. I think there's something maybe revealing there about the fact that the folks who are very excited to protest Joe Biden. Maybe they're excited for Trump Gaza. Maybe that was the end result there. So TBD, I'll be monitoring you, protesters. Protest on Matt McAleelka, and then we can agree on something. But don't intimidate Jews while you're doing it be monitoring you, protesters. Protest on behalf of Khalil. Then we can agree on something. Don't intimidate Jews while you're doing it, if possible, please.

Lindsey Graham. Let's go to his clip. This is just to set the scene here for people who haven't paid that close of attention to this. There are these two law firms in D.C. that Trump has gone after. Three now. They're private law firms.

They were either representing the Jack Smith. They're either representing the whistleblowers that went after Trump in certain cases. They have associations with the people that were investigating Trump. Steele dossier stuff, things like that. Yeah, some of them were related to Steele dossier. So it's the bad lawyers, the lawyers that Trump says

we're going after him, the ones he doesn't like. He's gone after both of these law firms, or excuse me, all three now, and revoked security clearances, banned them from having meetings at the White House, basically trying to intimidate them and trying to hurt their businesses so they cannot represent clients.

Yeah, the big one is Perkins Coie. And that one he said, if you're a government contractor and you hire Perkins Coie, you're going to lose your contract. And of course, if you're a law firm and you can't represent government contractees, that's like a death sentence. So that one is really – Just insane behavior. Especially when you compare this to – A, it's an attack on the free speech rights which me and david french got into on the pod if you missed that go listen to that but um it's just like again this government like going after enemies and picking friends in the private sector it's getting just completely anathema to uh the way

that we do business here in america or should like they were having tesla sales on the white house lawn and meanwhile we're targeting law firms that that trump thinks have been too mean to him here in America or should. They were having Tesla sales on the White House lawn. And meanwhile, we're targeting law firms that Trump thinks have been too mean to him. Right. If you like Trump, you get his business. And if you don't, you get his ire. It's crazy. Authoritarian behavior. So you might think that Lindsey Graham might have some issues with that. Okay, maybe not. Let's watch Lindsey. The orders from the president this week targeting some of the country's most prominent law firms, including Paul Weiss. He wants to restrict business activities of the firm, despite a federal judge ruling in a different case that it's unconstitutional.

The president suspended security clearances at the firm. He stripped clearances from lawyers over at Covington and Burling as well because they were involved in representing former special counsel Jack Smith. Do you support this? Yeah, I think all of these things. I think Jack Smith was politically motivated. I think the Russian hoax, a lot of people should have gone to jail and they didn't. I think the idea that President Trump was an agent of Russia was manufactured. The Steele dossier was based on lies and falsehoods coming from a source that said he

never meant it to be used in the fashion it was used. I think Jack Smith's effort to prosecute President Trump for January 6th was politically motivated and people who engage in trying to destroy President Trump, I don't mind him going after them in a lawful way. I don't mind restricting. Is this lawful? Is this good for the U.S. legal system, Senator? Because the president's trying to use government power to punish private business because he didn't like some of the work they had been doing.

Private business aided government power in a fashion to destroy Donald Trump's life. You know, on our side, nobody in your world gets it, but our people believe that the Justice Department was used as a weapon to destroy Trump's campaign and his business interests and to ruin his family, that they made up bogus charges and they proceeded in a fashion that was designed to destroy him politically and they proceeded in a fashion that was designed to destroy him politically and personally. I believe that if these people involved pay a price, they got nobody but themselves to blame.

But these are lawyers working on cases that you're making it sound like the work that they take on is somehow part of a conspiracy and they should be punished for it. Yeah, I think these law firms were pushing legal theories that to me were designed for political outcomes more than legal outcomes. You know, we can have a debate about, you know, holding a lawyer accountable for his client's actions. I generally don't like that. But these but these law firms, that's what this sounds like. Jack Smith using the power of government incorporating these law firms in my in my view, we're trying to disrupt and take down the Republican nominee for president, that this was an orchestrated effort and Biden only regretted

they didn't do it sooner. So it was politically motivated and everybody with their fingerprints on it. I hope they pay a price. I mean, like, look, it's just what is there to say? Again, I wonder if he really believes this shit, because I hope he doesn't. The idea that a lawyer would be held responsible for their client and then be punished for it is totally at odds with how we've conducted our business and should, honestly. Everyone deserves representation. Lindsay's point is, well, these were political cases. But yeah, I mean, that's also part of the law and you have to accommodate that. And just as there are firms that represented those clients, Jones Day, other firms, Sullivan Cromwell, they represented Trump. Would Lindsay be okay if in the next democratic administration, those firms suddenly were kicked to the side and got no

business and were shuttered because contractors were forbidden from working for them? It's crazy. And it's statism. And look, I happen to like people in the in the business in dc in these law firms and it is like they're freaked out they are legitimately freaked out they're wondering if they should uh help i mean obviously perkins cooey wants a big show of solidarity but there are lawyers in town who are just like if we do that if we go and represent perkins cooey if we show solidarity are they going to come after us now william Williams and Connolly, another big firm, did take the case. They did get a big ruling in their favor. But then Trump then responded by going after another firm, Paul Weiss. So we're in a really bad place. Like, this is a really bad place. These firms,

I don't want to pity big law you know like well i talked about this with dave french you know it's like okay sure the the big law the the rich lawyer in dc is not a sympathetic case but if you're a whistleblower in this next trump administration you're regular or you're a regular person or you're somebody that the government is targeting right right now right they're just a regular person and you need to get you need to hire lawyers that have expertise in this yeah and it because there's a chilling effect so the like a you can't hire these firms because they might because the government won't work with them and then the other firms might trump firms yeah or they're trump firms or they might be scared to

hire you because they don't want to target it they'll get't get targeted. No, it's crazy. And look, I think the through line here is just everything is run on retribution. Like that is all he cares about is retribution. Even this, like, you know, going after DC's budget in this, in this bill,

hopefully it gets reversed, but like all he cares about is just going after what is, who is perceived enemies are. There's no, there's no pretense to it. That's it. And so it's, it's the through line through all of this stuff.

And I watched the Sunday shows this morning. I looked for instances of Republicans speaking up and I found none. No one seemed to have any bother over any of these things. Yeah. The one quote for the Lindsey Graham, but I just want to just drill in on really quick is people who engaged in trying to destroy president trump i don't mind him going after them in a lawful way um but in a lawful way yeah but even still is that right i mean we want like it's hard to think of a precedent for this like when it's

when you're talking about domestic is there a precedent yeah it, where it's like somebody's like, I want the president to go after his domestic political enemies. I want that. There have been certainly cases, obviously going back to Nixon, but even in every administration, W with Alberto Gonzalez. I'm sure there's some democratic examples of this, of administrations targeting political foes on over various things but it's always like we're going to try to create a patina of a rationale for this right you know what i mean like we're not just doing this because of politics like we're also doing this because of this like this is not this is just like no i want i want the president to use the power of the white house to go after his domestic and then he shows up and Trump shows up at the Justice Department and basically is like,

yeah, I'm going to go after them. They went after me. You're next. And it's just, yeah, we're in a bad place. Bad stuff. Okay. Thank you, Sam Stein. Happy Sunday.

Thank you, Tim Miller. Everybody else will be back here tomorrow. Subscribe to the feed. Subscribe to the feed. Maybe something will happen in the meantime and I'll see you then. Otherwise, we'll see you with Bill Kristol tomorrow. Peace.