Bulwark Takes - Tim Miller Shreds Vance’s Phony Outrage Act

Episode Date: August 24, 2025

From John Bolton to the National Guard, Tim Miller exposes JD Vance’s double standards, weak history lessons, and his willingness to fold to Putin’s demands.

Hey, everybody. Tim over from the Bullwork here. Our vice president, J.D. Vance, be clowned himself, once again on the Sunday shows in his defense of the Putin-Ukraine negotiations. I also had some pretty ominous thoughts about the state of affairs with regards to D.C. and John Bolton. So I want to break it all down for you. The interview is with Kristen Welker of NBC News. I should also say that out on Sunday shows today, Westmore, Governor of Maryland was out there. And I think he's a, you know, there's a lot to like. about Westmore, as far as future faces of the Democrats are concerned. I did an interview with him, boy, a couple months ago now. I'd recommend folks go back and check out if they want more, Westmore. But sadly, this video is not about Westmore. It's about the most condescending and unbearable person in public life, J.D. Vance. I want to start with his stupidest answer, and then we'll kind of track back from there. Vance is asked about what message it would send to China regarding a green light to invade Taiwan

if Russia ends up being able to keep territory that they seized during the invasion of Ukraine. Let's listen to J.D.'s response to that. If Russia is allowed to keep any of the territory that it illegally seized, what message does that send to China? Does it give China a green light to invade Taiwan? Does it give Russia a green light to invade other European countries, which is what your European allies are concerned about? Well, first of all, the Ukrainians are going to ultimately make the determination about where you draw the territorial lines in their own country.

But, Kristen, this is how wars ultimately get settled. If you go back to World War II, if you go back to World War I, if you go back to every major conflict in human history, they all end with some kind of negotiation. This is how wars get settled going back to World War II? I mean, sure, I guess in the narrowest sense, all wars do end up with peace agreement. I mean, it's usually like a surrender in most cases. And if you're to give an example of that, he also mentioned to the World War I, you know,

which is somewhat closer to what we're seeing here. A lot of differences there as well. But there's no similarity between World War II. I mean, Hitler killed himself in a bunker. Putin had the red carpet rolled out for him by the president of the United States. There was never a moment where Hitler and Mussolini were landing in America and FDR or Truman was waiting for them, clapping on the tarmac. Like that didn't happen. There is no, this idea that every major conflict in human history, they all end with some kind of negotiation.

Again, it's like at the very end there's a negotiation. This reminds me always of a kind of the advance and others at defense of the January 6th insurrection, which was like it was a peaceful transfer of power. It's kind of like, well, yeah, at like the end of it, like the final minute was peaceful, but there was a lot of non-peaceful activity in the lead up to that final minute, including the sieging of the capital. And that is the thing here, right? Like, sure, eventually there has to be some kind of negotiation, but that not. Like this is what they're doing is closer to what Chamberlain did during World War II that escalated the conflict. You know, Hitler did not get any land from any other countries. Neither did Japan.

Remember, there's atomic bombshot on Japan. I mean, like, there's just like this notion that the only way for this to end is for you to coddle Putin and rub his belly and treat him like he's some great leader. and give a bunch of concessions to him, okay, like, if that's your posture, that's fine, but there are no similarities, no parallels to what happened during World War II. So read a book, maybe. I want to play one other clip about these negotiations. And Welker asked him whether, what makes him think Putin is serious about peace? Let's watch his answer to that.

What makes you think President Putin is serious about peace? Well, I didn't say they conceded on everything, but what they have conceded, is the recognition that Ukraine will have territorial integrity after the war. They've recognized that they're not going to be able to install a puppet regime in Kiev. That was, of course, a major demand at the beginning. And importantly, they've acknowledged that there is going to be some security guarantee to the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Again, have they made every concession?

Of course they haven't. Should they have started the war? Of course they haven't. But we're making progress, Kristen. And what I admire about the president in this moment is he's not asking three, And three and a half years ago, he's not, you know, trying to focus on every nitpicky detail of how this thing started three and a half years ago. Well, for starters, I don't know if any of this is true. Like, have they acknowledged there's going to be some security guarantee to the territory integrity of Ukraine?

It doesn't sound like what Lavrov's been saying since the meeting. And there's also this idea that they're not going to get a puppet regime in Kiev. Well, like, if the deal is that Ukraine does not have. have self-governance anymore, right? The Ukrainian people could not decide to elect a leader who would want to align with NATO, maybe join NATO. Like, if there are some limits on the ability of Ukraine to self-govern and the way it chooses going forward, then you can call it whatever you want. Maybe it's not a puppet regime, but it's certainly Russia dictating the terms of what happens to the government of a free people. And I don't think that Russia should get to dictate the terms of

what happens to Ukraine when this war is over. To me, that is a non-starter, non-negotiable. We'll see what Zelensky says and how that lands. But I don't know. I don't think, A, I don't think what you said is true. And B, even if it were true, the way that they're framing what, you know, what kind of deal this is for Ukraine is a lie, as usual. So here's the last question about the Ukraine where I want to touch on. I like this.

It comes down to short, are you mad at Russia? Let's watch. Were you enraged when you learned that Russia targeted an American company based in Ukraine? I don't like it. Kristen, I don't like it, Kristen, but this is a war. This is such a perfect distillation of the totally warped mindset and worldview that this administration has on this war. Like, J.D. Vance was like visibly disgusted with Zelensky in that White House over office meeting. He was lecturing him, finger pointing, demanding thank yous.

And you see J.D. Vance, when he puts on his, oh, I'm angry. This is an offensive face. A lot of times he's BSing. But, like, you know what it looks like when he says he's mad about something or pretending to be mad about something. He can't even do that. It's just like, well, I don't like it. Well, the Russians bombed one of our companies.

What are we supposed to do? It's a war. I don't know. Fight back. Give the side that. Is our ally that is a free democratic country that was invaded, the material needed to fight back against our geopolitical foe that's attacking our companies? That might be one idea. I mean, it's like they're madder about, I mean, they decide to bomb Iran.

Remember that? They get more upset about Sydney Sweeney had. They get more upset on behalf of Israel. They get more upset, you know, about. about whatever, the big balls getting jacked on 14th Street, then they do about this country, invading another country, raping and kidnapping their children, murdering people, attacking civilians, and now attacking us, our company, and our interests. It's pretty telling.

A couple of the topics that's going to run through real quick. He was also asked about the John Bolton investigation. Let's just watch the beginning of that answer. We're in the very early stages of an ongoing investigation into John Bolton. I will say we're going to let that investigation proceed. What I can't tell you is that unlike the Biden DOJ and the Biden FBI, our law enforcement agencies are going to be driven by law and not by politics. And so if we think that Ambassador Bolton has committed a crime, of course, eventually prosecutions will come.

But as you know, Kristen, this is all part of gathering evidence, trying to understand something that we're worried about. And, of course, I'll let the FBI comment on the next stage of the investigation. What's at the root of this? Is this about classified documents? Well, again, I'll let the FBI speak to that. Classified documents are certainly part of it. But I think that there's a broad concern about Ambassador Bolton. We are in the early stage of an ongoing investigation. That's an interesting slip there. We're, who's we?

I guess you're just admitting this to Trump administration that is doing it. It's not like an independent DOJ. It's nothing to that nature. He goes on in the answer to talk about how they're going to do things different than Biden. and they're not going to do political persecutions. This is just laughable on its face and is risable. This notion that if this was somebody who is in good standing with Trump from the first term, you know, if this was one of his advisors, you know, if this was Corey Lewandowski or Mark Meadows or something,

McMulvaney, like the idea that they would be raiding their home in a non-consensual raid is preposterous. And it should be laughed out of the room. Okay, one other topic. Just really quick, I want to get to his thoughts on this red state sending National Guard troops to D.C. Let's watch that. Six Republican states are sending in their own National Guard troops as reinforcement. But many of these states have cities that actually have crime rates that are worse than Washington, D.C. So why aren't these states sending National Guard troops into their own states to deal with the crime issue?

And is that a possibility? Well, look, if the local governors want to make that determination, we'll leave it up to the local governors. but what we have control over is the nation's capital. And if you look, for example, at the murder rate in D.C., it rivals some of the worst cities, the most violent cities anywhere in the world. That's a disgrace for our nation. Again, I did a whole rant on this so you can watch this.

I won't be labored to point too much, but, like, it is absurd for red states to be sending their National Guard troops to D.C. It is a disgusting visual for our country that we have, like, a militarized capital for no reason whatsoever. It is offensive and a front to the people that actually are being deployed to do this. They have families. They have jobs. They have lives. It is really like kind of spitting in the eye of the citizens of these states to say that they don't actually care about their concerns.

As I mentioned here in Louisiana, when hurricane season and National Guard plays a big role there in helping the Louisiana citizens wire our people in D.C. So the whole thing is preposterous. But I do get a kick out of advance, again, in his haughty way. if the local governors want to make that determination, we'll leave it up to local governors. You literally deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles over the objection of the local governor. These guys just, like, only Republican politician and rules matter, right? Like, they just have totally two sets of rules. We will defer to Republicans on everything.

You know, if it is a Democrat, if it is a liberal group, we can do whatever we want. We can act extrajudicially. We can bully them. We can intimidate them, cajole them. And in the case of California, we can go right over their head and do something that they don't want or need. It was the first time since the civil rights era that the president had sent in troops into a state over the objection of the governor.

I mean, this was nothing like a civil rights era level conflict. It was nothing. There were minor protests on like two blocks. The idea that the National Guard needed to be sent in was preposterous. and they're still there fucking twiddling their thumbs. So, like, the whole thing is a joke. J.D. Vance needs to be called out on it. They cannot be allowed to get away with this sort of stuff.

If they want to defend what they're doing with troops in the streets, with going after their political foes, with folding to Russia, then they should be forced to do it on the merits of their choices, right? Like, defend what you're doing. If you think these are good policies, J.D. Vance defend them. But don't fucking piss on me and tell me it's raining. Okay, don't tell me you care about state governor's rights when it comes to National Guard troops right after you went over the head of Gavin. Don't tell me that the John Bolton investigation is not political.

Don't tell me that the World War II was solved the same way you're trying to solve the Russia, Ukraine, war. And this is all ridiculous nonsense and spin. But that's why he's there. He's got no other real job. So we're here to push back on it. So I hope you subscribe the feed, tell your friends, and we'll be seeing you soon. Peace.