Bulwark Takes - Tim Miller Goes Off on Dave Rubin

Episode Date: March 27, 2025

Tim Miller joins a panel on Piers Morgan Uncensored to debate the Trump administration's Signal group chat fiasco and Rep. Crockett's recent comments on Gov. Greg Abbott.

Hey guys, it's Tim. I took a few months off of debating the MAGAs, but after the Houthi small group text chain, I decided it's time to get back in the game. So I was on the Piers Morgan show across from Democratic Congressman Jake Auchincloss, shout out Jake, and a who got duped by the Russians, Tenet Media, who were investing in MAGA podcasters and MAGA voices, paying a lot of money, paying big bucks. So anyway, they weren't sending their best. Enjoy our conversation. We've got Tim Millers joined us now. Let me bring Tim in at this stage. Tim, I'd like your interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, but it just seems to me and, you know, again, just to stress, if it was the other way around, I'd say exactly the same thing. I don't care which side is doing it. But anyone that tries to defend this or downplay the severity of it

or play whataboutery or anything else, I think it needs to stop. This needs to be accepted for what it was, a tremendous error which could have had tremendously serious consequences. And if it was a senior military person who'd done it, they'd already be gone. For sure. Look, to that senior military example, look, Pete Hexeth has already fired several generals. He's fired several people throughout the Department of Defense. So is Elon Musk, is part of the Doge process. Imagine, you know, we're doing the hypotheticals, what about Biden? I think the more apt hypothetical is, imagine if, you know, we're doing the hypotheticals, what about Biden? I think the more apt hypothetical is imagine if, you know, a low-level general who is involved in this operation had texted the exact time and location of a military strike to an anti-Trump journalist. Now, imagine if that general is one of these woke generals that they're going after.

Maybe it's a black general or a woman. Imagine what Pete Hegseth would be saying today. Imagine what Dave Rubin would be saying today. We know what these guys would be saying. These woke generals, they're the deep state. We need a court-martial. We need an investigation. This person needs to be fired. I think we can all agree that that is what would be happening today. That person, if they were a two-star black general or female general and they had done this they would be fired today i think that's very obvious and so you know look pete egg seth might be might be a mate of yours might be a good person i don't know i've never met pete head seth but to me you read this signal chain and this looks like it got its way in over

his head and this is not if general mattis here it's impossible to imagine general mattis texting emojis and all caps pathetic to like a signal group chain, preparing them for when the strikes would be. It's just it signals to me somebody that's not serious. It's not up for the job. The fact that then on the chain, he says we have 100 percent operational security here and there's someone on the chain he doesn't know. You didn't check to make sure you's someone on the chain he doesn't know? You didn't check to make sure

you knew everybody on the chain? I think it shows just an unbelievable lack of seriousness. And I think clearly, if this was one of the woke generals that Pete Exet doesn't like, they would be fired today, and there would be a DOJ investigation targeting them. All right, Dave Rubin, a lot to unpack there. But I mean, a lot I agree with, I have to say. Look, let's talk about the signal aspect. If they, as you say, and I've seen that report, if they were encouraged to use signal, in fact, it had been put on a lot, apparently, of their phones and so on when they came into their positions. So they're allowed to use signal, which is deemed to be one of the more secure ways of communicating. And you believe, as Pete Hegseth clearly did, that you've only got on there the Secretary of State,

you know, the Defence Secretary, the National Security Advisor and so on. In other words, all the senior members of the Cabinet that would be involved, plus one or two handpicked staffers who are a very high level. If you assume that's who you're talking to privately, then I'm not too phased about emojis and stuff like that. You've got to have some presumption, I think, when you're conversing with people at that level that you presume to be that level, that it will remain private. So I'm not sure I can get too exercised about that part of it.

The thing that still exercises me, though, is just that if it hadn't been Jeffrey Goldberg, but had been somebody who wanted to really damage the administration, they really could have done, and you could have seen American planes blowing out the sky. Sure. Look, there's a couple of things going on here. First off, I think your guest in the center, I'm sorry, I don't remember the congressman's name. I think he said it was

illegal to use Signal in these chats. Now, again, Ratcliffe, who is the CIA director, is saying, as you just said, again, that it was preloaded on their computers and devices. So I don't think that's illegal. But if there's some legal portion of this. Well, just for the record, it's Jake Alkincloss. Well, just to introduce you again, Jake, for Dave, it's Jake Alkincloss, who's a Democrat congressman from Massachusetts. So, Jake, you want to respond to him? Okay, so, well, there's some issue as it pertains to whether signal should or shouldn't have been used.

We can all accept that. Okay, so that's interesting. So, all right, so congress Congressman, just to be clear, it is illegal to share classified information over signal. Is that what you're saying? Yes, the military has its own entire network. They have SCIFs inside the homes of every senior military commander. They have SCIFs co-located with the Secretary of Defense

precisely so that they are not putting highly classified operational plans on commercial messaging apps. It's illegal. Full stop. And Pete Hegseth needs to own that accountability, because if this happened to a corporal or a captain or a general, their career would be over. He shouldn't have this job in the first place. And my goodness, he certainly shouldn't have it now. Dave, I mean, if it turns out that that is correct, and I don't dispute what the congressman just said, then, you know, should Pete Hegseth consider his position? It's a legitimate question, which Republicans would be asking of a Democrat. I don't know. I can only hear the information that you're hearing on the fly the same exact way. If it turns out that they were told you are not allowed to put classified information in a signal chat and they went ahead and did it,

even though it was preloaded on their computer and Ratcliffe testified that he was briefed by people at the CIA about using that stuff, well then there's a secondary problem. And also it should be reiterated, I don't think anyone here is defending the fact that Mike Waltz apparently let this guy into the chat.

So there is some intellectual consistency here. And it's up to Trump. Trump has to decide what he wants to do right now. Does he think this is a big enough scandal and it's worth firing a guy that he just brought into NSA or not? It's not up to Trump. See, this is the problem with the way Republicans,

this is the problem with the way Republicans are acting these days, is they act like a board of advisors to the president as opposed to a separate... Democrats just had four years of a president with dementia and a completely unqualified cabinet and virtually everyone that had anything to do with it. So tell me more about the Republicans. The Republicans act like a board of advisors to a CEO as opposed to a separate and co-equal branch of government. They have abdicated their responsibility. Mike Johnson acts like a courtier. John Thune acts like a courtier. They're the ones who confirmed this junior varsity squad of people who are getting out-competed by the Kremlin and

out-negotiated, who are being laughed at by the Chinese Communist Party right now as they prepare to blockade Taiwan. This is threatening the safety of the American people. These people are not fit for the office that they hold. And all Republicans in Congress can do is shrug their shoulders. It's pathetic. Did Joe Biden have dementia? And we had four years of him. Do you think Joe Biden was mentally competent to be president for four years? Do you think Joe Biden knew things that he was signing for four years? It's amazing the whataboutisms. Why don't you bring up Hillary Clinton too? Why don't you? Do we want to talk about Barack Obama's tan suit as ISSUES. WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON?

WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON?

WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON?

WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? WHY DO YOU BRING UP HILLARY CLINTON? Biden was mentally unfit for office. Let's accept that. As we've been talking... One of us isn't accepting that. There is a report now that Pete Hegseth and other Trump administration officials are being sued by a government watchdog group for using Signal to discuss the military plans to strike Houthi targets in Yemen.

American Oversight alleges in its lawsuit the chat on the unclassified commercial app that mistakenly included the Atlantic's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, violated federal records law. So that does appear to be something that is now an active lawsuit. Tim Miller, just to bring you back in on this, what do you think should happen? I mean, in terms of accountability, at the moment, there's a sort of Trumpian playbook of them all doubling down, launching a lot of water battery attacks back. But nobody wanting to actually say it's a fair cop gov and I better stand on my sword. Yeah, look, I mean, I think that there should be an actual investigation into this.

I don't really have any hope that the Pam Bondi or Kash DOJ or Kash Patel FBI will do will take this seriously. But I think there should be. And I also think that sure, Mike Waltz should be, should be accountable for this. And Mike Waltz was on Fox last night. This is crazy, Pierce. Mike Waltz was on Fox last night, suggesting to, to Laura Ingram that Jeffrey Goldberg might've gotten on this signal chat deliberately. That's what he said. He said, it might've been deliberate. I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist. That's our national security advisor. That's a very serious accusation. He's saying that a magazine editor might've committed illegal espionage. And so, but he just doesn't want to actually take the accountability.

Well, then he says, yeah, but then look. To find out whether or not that was true, you'd need to have a real investigation by DOJ or by special counsel. And they don't want that because he knows it's him. So he just wants to throw out those lies willy-nilly. And it's kind of an absurd lie, really, actually, if some boomer magazine editor was able to sneak onto the chat illegally. That, I think, speaks even more to how incompetent the administration would be other than the true story. Yeah, I found it slightly more disconcerting that his second explanation, because he had quite a view on the Laura Ingraham interview, was that somehow this Jeffrey Goldberg's number doesn't know whether everyone's name in his contacts list is attached to the right number

and can therefore be communicating with God knows who without any actual knowledge that they are who he thinks they are, is frankly terrifying. I mean, when you think about who his contacts may include, I mean, Brandon, can you find any explanation for this that makes any sense? This guy's the number one security guy in the country.

Yeah, no, I mean, look, I think it's not a great situation. And I think that the messaging that's been put forward by him at this point has not made people feel terribly confident. But again, at the end of the day, I maintain the fact that it could have been a bad situation. I think people, I think at fact that it could have been a bad situation. I think people, I think at this point it should be investigated. I think that obviously communications are going to be tightened up. They will learn from this experience. I don't think anything like this will ever happen again, probably shouldn't have happened in the first place. I do agree that from what we know so far, it doesn't seem like any laws were broken by using signal. I don't think that we

have any evidence at this point that the information being discussed could be determined as classified. I don't think that's been definitively determined. Come on, come on, Brandon, Brandon, come on. Let's come back to planet Earth and reality, right? It is, I literally cannot think of anything that could be deemed more highly classified than openly talking in a group of people

on a platform where you're apparently it is unlawful to talk about classified information and I take the congressman's words for that and certainly this lawsuit seems to reinforce that that is the case or they wouldn't be launching it but the idea that that these specifics that they were talking about, times, weather conditions, type of aircraft being used, who they were attacking, and they're giving a running commentary on how it was going with emojis, punching the air and American flags and so on. The idea that that doesn't constitute classified information

makes me wonder what on earth you think would. This is before. They were doing this two hours before an attack. What could be more classified? I mean, I'm prepared to be educated. I just can't think of anything more highly classified than that information. Can you?

No, I can appreciate your position, and I can appreciate how passionately. Well, what's your position? I can appreciate. My position is that I would like to wait for an investigation to determine whether or not this is classified. There's not going to be an investigation. I think that it's not determined. If it were determined, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about it right now,

and there wouldn't be congressional hearings right now where this is being discussed and determined. I saw Tulsi Gabbard yesterday giving evidence at the Senate, obviously. She said it wasn't. She repeatedly said it's not classified information, to which my question would be, well, Tulsi, what is? But my point is that it is being debated. So you can feel strongly that it is,

but the fact of the matter is it's not been determined to be. How can talking about a war operation two hours before it's about to happen not be highly classified? Unless you think that should all be openly discussed. Well, look, again, I'm not defending it. You're never going to convince me. There is a difference between an airstrike and a war plan. To be honest, I think I've got more chance of convincing Dave than I seem to have with Brandon.

I mean, Dave, let me just bring you back. It's not going to happen. Hang on. I want to play the Tulsi. They have their own version of cancel culture. They can't step outside the dear leader's box. Give them the benefit of the doubt. Can I talk about why this matters to the American public, though?

Yeah. Because this matters to the American public because America used to be known as a country that was no better friend and no worse enemy. And now we're picking fights with Canada and we're appeasing Russia and the rest of the world doesn't know what kind of a friend we are. And they don't know how seriously to take us as an enemy. And when they see this kind of incompetence, when they see this kind of hypocrisy, when they see this kind of chaos and corruption coming out of the Trump administration, it makes Americans everywhere less safe because it makes our adversaries take us less seriously and it makes our allies trust us less. It was a successful operation. It was a successful operation in spite of the cock-up. Let me bring Dave back in. Dave, I want to play- At the same time- Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. I want to play a little-

Which Mike Walls can't even point out to on a map. Yeah, OK, let me just play a clip of Tulsi Gabbard from this, talking about whether she was even on the group. Director Gabbard, did you participate in the group chat with Secretary of Defense and other Trump senior officials discussing the Yemen war plans? Senator, I don't want to get into this. Ma'am, were you on? You're not going to be willing to address. So you're not, are you denying?

Matt, will you answer my question, ma'am? You are not TG on this group chat. I'm not going to get into the specifics. So you refuse to acknowledge whether you are on this group chat? Senator, I'm not going to get into the specifics. Why are you going to get into the specifics? Is it because it's all classified? Because this is currently under review by the National Security Council. Because it's all classified? If it's not classified, share the text now. I mean, Dave, I thought that was a very good question.

A very good way of skewering Tulsi. Because he's basically saying, look, the only reason you wouldn't be prepared to confirm that obviously true fact that you were on the chat, because we've seen the chats, would be if you deemed it classified material, which by definition now we believe would be an unlawful act if they were talking about classified information on Signal. So he kind of tracked to that, didn't he? Sure. Again, there's a couple of things going on here. Number one, I think we're all in agreement that Walt screwed up by putting this guy in the chat. That's number one.

There seems to be a little, for everybody, a little legal confusion around whether a signal can be used or not. The Congressman saying it absolutely can't for classified information. Ratcliffe is saying not only was he told it could be, but it was preloaded on their computers. So why did the CIA put it on their computers?

I think that's really worth thinking about. I agree. If it is illegal to use as a mode of communication, why is it put on their computers? Well, to be fair, to be fair, Dave, to be fair, on that point, you can use Signal, but the point being it's illegal to put classified information on the Signal. Yeah, this is not complicated. They're not saying you can't use Signal. That might be true. It would be a little odd that they would preload it onto the CIA director's computer then. But okay, we can put that there. Which is a perfectly valid question, I agree.

Yeah, as for what Tulsi said there, she's saying there's an investigation, so she's just not going to comment on it right now. I mean, that's what virtually every official does with every hearing we've ever seen. So I'm not going to sit here and throw her under the bus for that. Do you think, Dave, anyone should be fired? I think if, look, Walls made a cataclysmic mistake, right? He's basically admitted it at this point.

And just like I said 20 minutes ago, if Trump makes the estimation that that stupidity, sheer stupidity, whether it was that he had the wrong name in there or he just, you know, we all have multiple people with the same initials or whatever it might be, whether it was just stupidity, ignorance, not understanding signal, whatever that might be. If Trump deems that fireable, then so be it. If I was the president right now,

and I knew that this group existed, would I probably fire the guy who created this firestorm? The answer is yes. But Trump has to make that estimation. That's a perfectly reasonable and honest assessment. Thank you. Let's just change tack. I think you'll enjoy this one a bit better, Dave. I'm going to start with you, Tim, on this. This is the Democratic Texas Congresswoman, Jasmine Crockett, talking about the- This is more my style. I appreciate that. I thought you might enjoy this.

Talking about the Texas governor, Greg Abbott, who, of course, is wheelchair-bound. Let's take a listen. Y'all know we got Governor Hot Wheels down there. Come on, now. And the only thing hot about him is that he is a hot-ass mess, honey. Tim, not only did she make a crass, repulsive jibe about the fact that Greg Abbott is a disabled man in a wheelchair, and that is clearly indisputable in my eyes, she then

did this. She issued a statement saying, I wasn't thinking about the governor's condition. I was thinking about the planes, trains and automobiles he used to transfer migrants into communities led by black mayors, deliberately stoking tension and fear among the most vulnerable. Literally, the next line I said was that he was a hot A-mess, referencing his terrible policies. condition. So I'm even more appalled that the very people who unequivocally support Trump, a man known for racially insensitive nicknames and mocking those with disabilities, are now outraged. Now, Tim, you're an intelligent human being. You're a fair-minded human being. Am I? She's talking utter bullshit, isn't she?

The statement was not necessary or great and obviously untrue. I don't I think she should have just wrote it out with the joke. Everybody can make a judgment about whether they appreciate a joke at Greg Abbott's expense. I find it hard to imagine that my co-panelists from MAGA World are going to start clutching their pearls over somebody making a mean joke at somebody. And that's like the core to the president of the United States' entire ethos. It's you guys who get outraged over jokes. That's the difference.

Made it. Excuse me, Dave. Tim, the difference is that we are not the people who get outraged over every joke and every word and every sort of innuendo. It's you guys who do. Okay, I'm glad. Well, so good.

So I'm not outraged at the joke. I'm outraged at the fact that a human rights campaign fundraiser where it's about all the marginalized people and the perceived oppression of the trans people and everything else, that there she's making a joke about disabled people

and they're laughing about it. I'm not outraged at the joke. I make far worse jokes than that on my show every single day. I mean, I'd be bringing- So we're slicing it kind of thin there. So we're going. I'm not outraged at the joke. I make far worse jokes than that on my show every single day. I mean, I'd be bringing- So we're slicing it kind of thin there. So we're going to pretend to be outraged about her joke when the president of the United States core brand

is making these sort of jokes. So if I was her, I wouldn't have put out the statement afterwards. If it's me, you know, I don't know. I think that Dave's kind of business model over there, you know, I don't take money from any Russian assets. Like, that's just me. So I'm able to just kind of say what I really think.

Yeah, you just take money from MSNBC, champ. Good for you. But so I understand why he might not, you know, he might want to pick his spots. All right, well, let me bring in. That's some great work you're doing at Bulwark, a real solid place of journalism over there. Well, we haven't taken any money from the Russians

or the Bulwark peers. I don't know if you know this, but Dave took $400,000 per month from a Russian information operation. And so you don't understand why. And what was the name of the show that I did for the Russians? Tell me that. Right now it's just handing things over to the Russians. He has to pretend to be outraged about things. You know, just you don't know who's paying the bills.

What was the name of the show I did for the Russians, champ? It was Tenet Media that paid you. Tenet Media? What was the name of the show? $100,000 signing bonus? You just literally don't know what you're talking about. Which is standard. You work for MSNBC

and the Bulwark. It's impressive. Alright, let's try it. You weren't commentator one in that indictment there, Dave? That wasn't you? Yeah, I was commentator one. It was nice to read something honest about me that I did all my due diligence trying to figure out what was going on over there.

What was the name of the show? Tell me about the propaganda I put out there. Well, it was the Tenet Media that was paying you. Tenet Media was a Russian. What was the name of the show? It was an RT cutout. It was a Russian cutout. You literally don't know what you're talking about cutout. Yeah, you literally don't know what you're talking about. An RT cutout.

You don't know what you're talking about. I've never been paid by a Russian cutout, so I don't exactly know how it all works. You're paid by MSNBC, which is state owned propaganda. You're paid by the Bulwark, which is sheer, which should be just called bullshit. You know that's state owned propaganda. That would be a better name of the network.

You know that's state owned propaganda. Whatever the hell it is you people are doing. Could I jump in on the topic? What was the name of the show that I did? What was the name? You don't know. I've told you several times Russ. You don't know,

because you don't know what you're saying.