MTracey podcast - War Planning by Groupchat

Episode Date: March 26, 2025

Thank you Richard Hanania, Michael A Alexander, Crash Hall, Nick Huth, Chuck Nasmith, and many others for tuning into my live video with Richard Hanania! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.mtracey.net/subscribe

Hello, Michael. Hello. How you doing? Oh, I'm doing it wonderfully. I have, I got the flu last week. I thought I was basically over it. And now yesterday, I feel like I have a recurrence of the flu. So maybe it's something more systematic than a regular flu.

But other than that, I'm fine. So my kids were at the gym. We have a daycare in the gym. And then they called me back and I said, your daughter looks like she has head, no, hand, foot, and mouth disease. And I'm like, okay. And so the symptoms are there's like calluses.

There's like these callous things on your hands and your feet and your mouth, but there was nothing on the mouth. There was on hands and feet. And it's supposed to be like you get a cold and such. Like you're supposed to get like a flu. And I look this thing up and that's what it is. It's like a non, it's like just like. it cold, but it gives kids blisters on their hands and feet. And that's the whole thing.

And I've also, I've been sick. I don't know if it's related to it. But yes, I've been, coughing pretty badly. It feels like this season's sick season is just longer than usual. Is it just me? I don't know. Ever since I've disclosed that I had the flu last week, I've gotten like an avalanche of people telling me that they've had it or it's worse than it usually is. I haven't been this systematically sick in years. Like, since I had COVID, I don't think I've had anything like this. And I thought I was over it, but apparently it's like a two-week ordeal. So I don't know. Maybe the anti-vaxxers are getting out there and they're leading to an updick and disease or maybe more logically. It's probably, it's probably

fired by RFK Jr. to give us all herd immunity to this year's strain of the flu. Yeah. Well, yeah, then people are not getting vaccinated as much. That would make sense. I think the I mean, do you get regularly vaccinated for the flu? I actually don't. The last time I thought it was in college when I just remember it being recommended because you're in such a communal setting. Yeah, I mean, I don't always do it, but like, because, you know, I just don't bother sometimes, but if I'm at the pharmacy and they'll, they'll ask you. And usually I'll just get it. Yeah. And then I've been having kids, and I've, like, for the last several years, and I've had, you know, a pregnant wife. So, yeah, I've been, I've been a little bit more diligent than usual. Okay. Well, whatever it is, I'm over at this point.

It's been like 10 days. Okay. So we've got the, we've got to talk about the signal stuff. It's, like, I just can't stand how they keep doubling down. Like, it's just like, I know. I mean, like, you thought that maybe today there would be some awareness to just cut their losses. But like, HECSeth is now on another like rampage

denying and obfuscating. And it's almost as if they want to draw this out arbitrarily and like maybe even make it into a bigger issue than it might have otherwise been or like it seems like

they probably could have contained it at least but they're magnifying it, which I don't understand the political logic of. Yeah. Yeah, it's interesting why this blew up and this was like so funny to people. First of all, Michael, have you been retweeting the link to this? Yeah, I just, I did before I left. Great.

I think the why this captures the public, it's like, you know, objectively, it's not like the worst thing. It's not like the, you know, Jeffrey Goldberg is a hootie or something like that. But it just kind of thing that captures the imagination because it's like the kind of story which like can happen to people. Like you could be in like a group chat or you could be talking to somebody and you could set a text message accidentally to like the wrong person. So it's just like a funny situation that people find themselves in, right? It's like a kind of completely funny for the National Security Advisor to be posting American flag and fire emojis to celebrate what he deems to be the successful initiation of a military offensive. It's darkly amusing. Yeah.

Well, that part is, I mean, that part is funny enough. But yeah, I think it's just like the kind of the underlying situation. the, you know, and it's like, yeah, this is how they communicate. Like, I'm not surprised that everyone is talking on Signal all the time. Like, you hear these news stories of, like, Trump just like calls world leaders from his personal phone. Like, I don't think most people have very good obsequent government these days. First of all, it makes sense to use signal because if they don't want things foyer or they don't want things eventually leaking or coming out.

Yeah, that makes sense, but that's the circumvention of the Public Records Act, which... Yeah, exactly. They want to circumvent that stuff. Exactly. Noted that Hillary Clinton circumvented. Actually, she was investigated for willfully circumventing the Public Records Act over the course of her email server issue, which was dismissed at the time by Democratic partisans as irrelevant. But even leaving aside the classification issues, just that she was, she set up a private service. in her residence

so that certain records could be shielded from later public inspection was I think rightly seen as, if not the biggest scandal that's ever befallen the United States worthy of some scrutiny.

And this, I mean, I'm not surprised that people use signal. I use it. I use it. I use it with, you know, over the course of my dealings for people who would rather have an extra layer of privacy for what they are texting. So that's not surprising. I guess it might have been a little surprising to me that the National Security Advisor would just convene top administration officials in a group text to talk about imminent war plans. And like, apparently one of their

strategies now, meaning the administration, is to attack Jeffrey Goldberg and the Atlantic and claim that they mischaracterized these as war plans when they were something else, which seems to me just to be a obvious semantic deflection. I mean, thankfully, Jeffrey Goldberg, although he likes to kind of peacock as this great defender of norms and of the national security state, that's been his MO throughout his entire journalistic career, which is why I have often had lots of criticisms of him throughout the years. But he thinks he's this big defender of like, he thinks that his most solemn journalistic responsibilities

to defend the sanctity of classified information rather than publishing it, which is sort of ironic, makes it ironic that he was the one that was apparently inadvertently included on this chat. But if like Hexath and people are not going to be saying that this was not, these were not war plans, well, now we have the full, transcript, I think, right?

I mean, they published the full thing today. Yeah. And there's like a chronology laid out of when certain bombing missions are going to be launched and references to the known locations of, quote, target terrorists and so forth. So, like, I guess it doesn't matter what you want to call that. Obviously, it's sensitive national security information by the standards of virtually anybody who would engage on this issue. so I think

yeah so Taylor butowich who's the White House deputy chief of staff tweeted out the Atlantic has abandoned their bullshit war plans narrative um

oh because the headline in the Atlantic says attack plan so somehow they're like they're like making that distinction because they say attack plans jd van says it's clear goldberg overssold but one thing stands up and then he brings up something about Redcliffe CIA agent uh Pete Hex's

I'm sorry Michael I got to get a cough drop. It's take the audience for five minutes. I'm sorry. Okay. Hello, audience. Yeah, I mean, what should I do? I would ordinarily sing for you while we wait for Richard to return,

but I feel like my voice is not in sufficient condition to even serenade anybody competently. Born in the USA, I was born in the U.S. USA In the USA I'm a down Down in a USA Yeah And one thing

I'm going to I was planning on mentioning to Richard when he gets back Is that When the story initially broke There were some people who were Trying to claim that The real story

Was how impressive and deliberative and serious these top officials were in debating the upcoming military offensive which I think is a total joke if you actually go and read it if anything

it's incredibly superficial it's incredibly shallow I mean the gravity I know people don't know that much about Yemen or even care that much about Yemen. Maybe people largely had not even been aware that since approximately January of 2024, the U.S. has been engaged in an indefinite offensive in Yemen that Biden initiated without congressional authorization and that Trump has continued, but he's claiming that he's going

to do it much more competently and with much more strength. That's supposed to be the big distinction between the Trump, Yemen policy, and the Biden policy. But nonetheless, it's an action with a lot of gravity to it. And to me, the casualness, the blitheness

with which these officials discuss the matter is what stands out. not that there's some really intense, serious, deliberative debate going on that we should all be very heartened by because our high officials are upholding such a high standard of discourse. To me, it's basically the opposite. So the, yeah, the level of discourse is funny. You see some magas are like, this just shows, like, how carefully they can see. Yeah, I was just saying, yeah, while you were gone.

Like, everybody, like when the story first broke, you saw certain people saying, actually, this is a great thing because it gives us this window into how serious and high-minded our top officials are and how deliberative they are in discussing military operations. And people would point out how J.D. Vance expressed these reservations and how impressive that was. But here's what J.D. Vance says. The strongest reason to do this as potes is. says said is to send a message. What? What does that even mean to send a message to whom? The Houthis, to Iran, to Israel, to Europe? I mean, sending a message has to be one of the most shallowest rationales for launching a military operation that I can possibly think of. And to the extent that J.D. Vance did express reservations about this. It was almost entirely on like a nakedly, almost cynically political level. It wasn't about the tactical or strategic wisdom of the actual bombing campaign. It was just, oh, maybe the public might not be tuned in enough to know why this is so important. And also, did anybody know that they're deliberating all this supposedly

post hoc, like after Trump had apparently already given the green light, according to Stephen Miller? So no, I'm not at all impressed by the supposed acumen these people exhibit in their deliberations. If anything, it's the opposite. And Pete Hankseth, this to me was apparent for months, going back to when he was nominated. But he's clearly, like, jonesing for a fight or chopping at the bit to have a war that he can triumphantly command. So he's excited. And that's why he's always using the term warfighter. and, you know, exercising with the troops to show how, like, a man, the people he is and, like, showing off his tattoos and stuff.

And he's clearly, like, salivating for any opportunity. The phrase you're looking for is a man. And that was evinced by his rhetoric in these chats. Yeah, you're looking for the phrase toxic masculinity. I think that's what we saw in that group chat. Yeah. It's funny. Miller shut it down.

When Miller says, you know, Trump, the decision has been made. They like, all like, okay, they say, okay, right? So it's like, yeah, the decision seems like it had been made. Maybe they didn't know at the time. Like, maybe Stephen Miller was informing them. But, like, once it was like Trump had made the decision, you know, is interesting. Nobody's going. Like, I'll better talk to Trump and see if he wants to do something else.

I think 19 people is a lot of people for, like, a group chat message like that. But, yeah, you know, it's, it's. You know, the question is, like, how much, like, these kind of security measures, like, matter. Like, maybe you want them on Signal. I mean, that you have laws that talk about, maybe that's safer, but you have laws that talk about, you know, preserving for, like, the historical record. But it seems like nobody cares about that anymore. People are just on Signal. They're encrypted chan.

I was talking to people who are, like, going through, you know, it's like the rules don't catch up to, like, reality. So people who go through like setting confirmation processes, they want to know about your finances, but they don't ask about crypto. And like crypto is like the easiest thing to grift off of, right? Just because crypto is new. So they ask about stocks, but not crypto, right? Even though like the whole point is to stop like conflicts of interest. And so, yeah, it's sort of like this. It's like we kind of move beyond like the laws and like practices have moved beyond the laws.

At this point, if you prosecute someone for like the Hillary email thing, it's just selective prosecution. because everyone is communicating through private channels and encrypted channels and nobody seems to be paying it. That's just the loss at all. Yeah, I mean, and that kind of gets to a fallacy at the heart of every classification scandal or like jinned up, confected scandal, which pop up like every year or so. Last year it was, or the year before was that, you know, Biden, when he was vice president, he took some memos related to Afghanistan.

back to his garage in Delaware and didn't properly store them. And then the special counsel investigated it and infamously found that he was a well-meaning older gentleman with poor memory and therefore no criminal charges could probably be sustained against him because the jury would be sympathetic with him.

And so this stuff always comes up. I'm not that, and there is like a sort of a liberal sort of concern trolling thing where, oh, now we can really nail Trump on not upholding these sacrosan principles around classification. And so let's just go at it from that standpoint. Even though the classification regime itself is kind of a joke in a lot of ways, it's either over, everything is always like presumptively classified. even if it draws on open source intelligence. We saw this to some degree two years ago when the airmen leaked a bunch of Ukraine war documents that were supposed to be of the utmost secrecy.

And there was some stuff that wasn't necessarily public record or open source. But in the main, it wasn't like that super secret that you couldn't have inferred a lot. of it from what it actually is in the open source record. So the classification regime, but the classification regime as it currently exists, it's basically just used as a political cudgel based on whenever the circumstances call for it.

And so, like, I'm not going to clutch my pearls that they're using signal to discuss this stuff. I'm more interested, really, in the shallowness of the debate. where Mike Walt sends some kind of incomprehensible typo-ridden message saying, hey, VP, we found the terrorist, and we bombed the residential building when he was going to visit his girlfriend. And J.D. Vance is just like, excellent. Wow, great. Like, he needs no further information as to whether it was justified to apparently flatten an entire residential building somewhere in Sana'a. all he uses to say so in like an incomprehensible message from the national security visors.

So like the classification issues itself, I think are sometimes a bit of a red herring. But clearly, there could have been more than this is classified information. That just makes no sense to have like, whatever you want to call it, war plans, a chronology of imminent forthcoming airstrikes. If that's not something that would be deemed classified,

under the current regimen, then they might as well just abolish the entire classification regimen, which I would actually be in favor of. Yeah. Well, you know, you don't know if they were, you don't know if that was the only debate, right? Because it was basically decided by the time of the group chat. They were just kind of, I guess, informing people. But it seems like Walls and like Heggseth, and it seemed like Neust-Evance. So I think it's something interesting here about decision-making process.

That Vance isn't really involved. Vance is hearing about, Vance is with Tulsi Gabbard, hearing about it after the fact, which is not too surprising, but, you know, we wouldn't have known that before that that was necessarily the case. He could have been, you know, talking to Trump all the time. Yeah, Vance expresses his disagreement after the decision had apparently been made. Right, right. So we did get some insight into how this, you know, like sort of who's the inner circle

when it comes to making these decisions. Maybe Rubio, maybe not Rubio, but we at least know Waltz and Hegsef had the information. I mean, maybe that's what you'd expect. They're the top national security people. I don't know why. Like, why is Treasury in there? Like, why are they, like, talking to, like,

why are they telling all these other people? Like, I don't understand, like, what are they going to do with that information? Well, it seems like in the Trump administration, people have very fluid portfolios. Like, remember, Steve Whitkoff was initially the special envoy for the Middle East, but now he's going back and forth to Moscow to interface with Putin. So they're just kind of like all-purpose special envoys. The same goes for somebody like Rich Grinnell, or Rick Grinnell, who apparently was not on this chat.

But, like, Trump doesn't seem to delineate very rigidly what people's roles are, which may have some upsides. It's not like inherently good or bad that that's the case. But like Besson, the Treasury Secretary, has been very involved in Ukraine. He was the first top administration official that was dispatched to Ukraine to meet with Zelensky like a week or so before that infamous White House meeting to get the so-called minerals deal signed. And if you notice, there wasn't a back and forth about commercial shipping. To what extent is this Europe's response? to clear the shipping lanes.

And so there could be some potential purview of the Treasury Department to kind of decipher how much blockage there has been of commercial shipping, because obviously they would have a treasury component. So, what's the point? What if we, what if we learned? Like, what is, of all the situation, the Signal Group chat, we're treating. So it's like, it's a big story because it's just funny. Like, is it objectively a big deal?

Like, first of all, is it objectively a big deal? And does it tell us something important about the administration? I just mentioned the decision-making thing. The advance wasn't in the loop. That's new information. But, you know, what else? Is there a lot of, like, new information here that kind of changes how we see the administration? I think it's an objectively big deal, but not for the reasons that most people want to make it a big deal.

Most people want to make it a big deal to concern troll and to pontificate about the supposed sacrosancticity of the classification regime, even though that boomerangs against both parties at various times, whether it was Hillary Clinton or Biden or I think even remember in the first Trump administration. I don't think that's what people are making a big deal out of it. I don't think people are like, well, I thought people are making a big deal about it because it doesn't abide by yeah, well, yeah, the Atlantic article.

Yeah, the Atlantic article does talk about. that. I think, though, like, you know, like, we are kind of cynical about the stuff at this point. After Hillary's emails, like, there was a story, there were stories of the first administration that Pence and Cushnery were using private emails. And, like, nobody cares at this point. Um, you know, I think what makes it a big deal is that they're all just kind of going along with the onset of a new, open-ended, indefinite bombing operation. Wait, so what did you expect? With no, with no real clear, right. idea of what the purpose is.

You expected Ben's to say, oh my God, I'm going to pick up the phone and call Trump now? Like, you were expecting Tulsi Gabbard to do it? Like, I think the decision was made. No, I don't expect it. Yeah. But I think that they launched their first big new bombing offensive or military offensive within two months of the new administration without much of a clear idea of what they were even doing or what the purpose was.

No, but you don't know that. You don't know they have a... And HECSeth said, oh, HECSeth has a... at one point said, this isn't like he was responding to Vance. And Hakesheth said, this isn't even about the Houthis. It's about, quote, restoring deterrence. So I guess they want to intimidate President Xi or something because Biden screwed up on maintaining deterrence because he was so weak in his term, which is just a bunch of platitudinous

nonsense. And so if that's the rationale that goes into them all eventually signing onto this bombing offensive. It's not particularly surprising to me, but it is an insight into the shallowness with which this deliberative process is carried out.

With Hegsef really seeming to be the ringleader because he's frothing for the opportunity to lead his warfighters into battle. And remember, that's not at all unsurprisingly with Higgs. Hegsafe entered political life as a pro-Iraq war activist. and he really has not revised his views all that much except for like rhetorical slights of hand so for all you know surprised to see heggsaf doing this no but that's that's

your i think you're drawing too much conclusion from this uh you're you're acting like this is the we know that this is the only place they can be for all you know before this group chat trump hegsef and uh mike waltz sat around and had like you know a 10 hour discussion on every possible aspect of the of the huthy attack and you know yeah so I'm sure Trump Trump read a multi-volume

history of the Houthis before coming in this decision no I don't think that happened but like it's consistent with the story right it's like the decision you don't know about the decision we know that Trump is the president we know that already we know Trump doesn't think carefully about things right

so we know that it's not from here like you don't know that this was the entire deliberation like maybe Walts and Hexon Hexef like maybe those to and their top deputies, like, had, like, a really good, smart conversation, right? I would not take this Jeffrey Goldberg League as the fullness of the conversation. And so, like, Waltz had, like, a response to Vance. Like, Vance kind of pushes back. Well, like, Vance is told by Waltz that the U.S. just bombed some residential, I guess,

apartment building, collapsed the entire building. And Vance is just, like, excellent, like, it's Wayne's world. After. And he's going to keep praying. So I'm not going to, of course, we don't know that this is the entire scope of every deliberation than what went on. But to the extent of this provides any window into at least an element of the deliberations, it is amazingly shallow and superficial. Yeah. So, here's Vance's argument.

3% of trade runs through the US. 40% of U.S. J. 40% of European trade does. There's a risk of the public doesn't understand this. Okay. He always, Vance always does this thing where he cites the public as like a reason to do something or not to do something. The national community he's citing.

No, he says there's a real risk to the public doesn't understand why it's necessary. I know. It's referred to like the national concern. No, no, I don't think he is. I think he's referring here to the American public. He said the strongest reason to send a message, but this is inconsistent. Yeah, then he talks about the European public. He says message inconsistent with the message to the Europe right now. Severe spike in oil prices. Okay, that's like, you know, an argument. So he's saying this. Joe Kent.

What job did they give Joe Kent? He's only been nominated. He hasn't even been confirmed yet, which makes it a little odd that he's on this chain. I think he's the nominee for Director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Okay. Which seems like a little bit of a redundant agency. Okay. So, Haxa, I understand your concerns and fully support you raising with Poland.

us. Like, blah, blah, blah. He says, waiting does not change the calculus. He says, we look indecisive.

We might leak. This could leak. We look indecisive. Israel takes action first, and we get to, don't get to start this on our own terms. Okay, I don't know what that.

So Israel will bob them and then they start it, but it's not on their own terms. Okay. Like, the way I see it. See, like, what does that even mean? That's the point.

This is such muddled thing. No, but restoring freedom of navigation. He says, what is the thing about Israel mean? I don't know. But I do think he, but he does say restoring freedom of navigation, which is a more, which is like a defensible national interest. I mean, that's a classic national interest. So he does say that.

Reestablished the turrets, which Biden cratered. You know, and here's Waltz. Oh, actually, I missed this. Waltz is kind of correcting Vance's numbers. Specific because most of the caterer you go through the Red Sea or clones go to the tourism to manufacture goods for trans. the Atlantic trade. So Walls has a good argument. He says, even if they're trade with Europe, they become their manufactured goods that go to the U.S.

You know, whether we pull the plug or not today, European navies do not have the capability. Here's the real argument, Michael, to defend against the types of sophisticated aircraft cruise missiles and drones the hooties are now using. So it will have to be the United States. We are working with

DOD and states. So like, I don't think this is like completely retarded. Yeah. No, but like here's what, here's so not to me about Hague set his argument. I think he says, quote, I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what. That's him responding to Vance, whose primary concern is the political messaging, not the tact operational substance of whether it's advisable to just start bombing Yemen again. Nobody knows who the Houthis are, Higsteth says, which is why we need to say focused on one, Biden failed and two, Iran funded. So he's saying, like, of course, Hanksath's instinct is just to make this like a

partisan argument where we're, we're correcting Biden's failures. Yeah, they all think like that. Which is so annoying. I mean, that's so incredibly obnoxious just to try to reduce this to some partisan framing as though this isn't fundamentally, as far as we know, like, I'm not on the ground in Yemen, neither are you, neither are most people commenting on this. But based on what we know, It's really just a continuation of, like, the desultory Biden policy on the Houthis, except now they're going to claim that they're going to be even more ruthless and bombing stuff. Okay, I'm sure that will work, and we don't even have to think critically about the nature of the mission. Yeah, I mean, it's always been, this has always been how these people talk, right?

This is the kind of right-wing oppositional culture. If you ask, you know, J.D. Vans, like, is there enough toilet paper in the White House bathroom? He will say, unlike the Biden administration, you know, know, we take care of, you know, our internal problems. We don't have to rely on, like, low-skilled immigration in order to do it, right? This is, like, how they are with, like, everything. Even the Zelensky thing, if you go back to when Van started arguing with Zelensky, it was about he was trying to make a favorable comparison towards Trump, comparing him to Biden, right?

And, like, Trump throughout that president. Zelensky didn't realize that he wasn't dealing. Yeah, I think Zelensky thought he was personally insulted. Yeah, that was, that's funny. And so Trump himself kept talking about, you know, different presidents, what they do. So this is like kind of like right wing brain rot. Like, you know, they bring up Hillary's emails like doing this. If you have like a real criticism of Biden, fine. But if it's just like this reflexive little talking point, yeah, that is more brain rotted, especially when you're talking about

imminent military operations. It's not just like, oh yeah, let's change the curtains on the oval office windows because Biden left like a stench on them or something politically. This is a, This is reducing an open-ended military offense to some kind of repudiation of Biden, which doesn't even make sense. Because at heart, this appears to just be a continuation of what Biden was doing, except with maybe the rules of engagement slightly loosened so they can just randomly bomb apartment buildings. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's, you know, getting the fact that they do this privately in their group chest. And if you talk to people like in politics, like often, you know, they are, they do kind of. become the characters that they play, right?

The fact that they are, you know, talking like this in private, it's not just like something you're on the campaign trail or something or doing a press conference. It's the reflexively, this is how they bond. Biden did not have deterrence. We have deterrence. Yeah, that's interesting. Like, it was kind of in a private chat. It was very kind of like dumb demagoguery.

In terms of these kind of vapid cliches, even amongst themselves and what they think is a private, format. That to me is the most eluinating. I mean deterrence, we don't have to get into it, but like that's just a catch, that functions, I think, in practice. It's just a catch all rationalization

or justification to do whatever you want. Because like you're just kind of deterring people around the world who are going to be so crippled in fear by watching what you're doing even if it has no relation to like their own situation.

It's not completely It's not as completely stupid as you You know Who's deterred by this? Who's deterred by this? Anyone Anyone Anyone who could

Anyone So like What does that even mean? It's like magical thinking You send a message Like there's messages you send through your actions right So if like if there's a Administration that never uses the military

It never bombs anyone And never will go to war Or take military action That's different from one that sometimes takes military action in response to threats, right? So, like, China, it's not like they're sitting there and they're saying, are we going to invade Taiwan today? Okay, we saw that they bombed the Houthis. Now we know.

But it is like, you know, these signals do actually matter because you're signaling. It's credible signals. It's like any other form of communication. It's almost like credibility, the term credibility, which is often used in forward policy parlance, it's like this fake currency that gets invented saying, oh, the U.S. needs to make sure that it, maintains its credibility, which by which they mean if there's a threat issue, the U.S. must follow through on that threat or otherwise credibility is undermined. So, like, Obama should have went all out in bombing Syria in 2013 when Assad crossed the red line

or even saw this to some extent with the Ukraine invasion when Biden said something about, oh, it could be that Russia will do a minor incursion into Ukraine. and maybe we'll tolerate that or something. Like the Republican Hawks were saying, that was a relinquishment of American credibility and of deterrence. And they're not, like, tangible, quantifiable concepts in the way that they're often presented as. So what they really function as most often is just this kind of rolling justification

for what anybody in power wants to do. Because, like, you can bomb any country you want right now and claim that you're sending a message to restore deterrence, right? Well, it would send a message to restore deterrence. So just because something is... How do you know? It can also... How do you know that anybody is being deterred by it?

They can just as easily be instigated by it? I mean, look, just because something is not tangible and quantifiable, it doesn't mean it's not real. Like, trust is a real thing, right? Affection is a real thing, right? Like, when you say, like, somebody like on your side who has your perspective might say something like, oh, bombing people in Yemen or Gaza is going to stir up grief. and make people more anti-American or anti-Israel or anti-Western. That's a sensible argument.

You can't quantify, oh, I guess you could do an opinion poll or something. But, you know, usually we don't do that. Usually we just guess and we say, okay, like, that's a consideration, right? And it's like, you can't have, like, a perfect measurement, but, like, we do think about these things. So it's the same thing when it comes to, like, deterring. But the impact you have the measurements that it ends up functioning as kind of, like, mystical thinking, that just self-justifies whatever it is. Well, sometimes the argument is not good.

Sometimes it's a bad argument, but sometimes it's a sensible argument. I think it's a basically fake argument. It's a fake argument, but all arguments are kind of vague because you're this is not like physics. Fake K.E. Mostly fake. No, I don't think it's fake. I mean, so you think that like if an administration came into office and never, like after like never responded to any provocation with military force, you don't think that would change how like other countries think about foreign relations? I think the connection is so tangential and amorphous. and impossible to prove or disprove that to base like a foreign policy doctrine on it is a canard.

Like there was, this was done, this has been done all throughout the Ukraine war, where actually Trump and the Republicans had their own version of this argument. Biden, by withdrawing from Afghanistan, blew up American credibility and deterrence and gave Putin the green light to go out, go into Ukraine because it showed that America was not strong. really like you're going to tell me that there's some causal connection that you can establish rather beyond just like your kind of pundit inference between the withdrawal from Afghanistan and Putin deciding to invade Ukraine you can just assert that but if you notice there's no way to prove or disprove it and that gets to the fallacy at the heart of how this rhetorical kind of framework is often used but what about we have we have to send Ukraine train F-16s, otherwise we're going to lose deterrence with President Xi in Taiwan?

Huh, that's convenient. It's, you know, sometimes the connection is kind of tenuous. So, yeah, the Afghanistan to Putin pipeline is kind of, you know, hard to establish, right? The, you know, there's other ones that I think are saying. Or like when Trump kills Soleimani, right? when the U.S. That's deterred Iran? Well, I mean, look, Iran.

That lost just like low-grade battlebound that was still in the middle of between Iran. Iran, when it hits Israel, has like been hitting them like it gives warnings. I mean, like, it's a very choreographed kind of thing when remember back when Israel and Iran were like hitting each other back and forth, right? And the fact that, you know, why would Iran do this and not like try to do maximum damage to Israel? a good reason to suspect is because they're worried about, they're deterred. They're worried about Israeli and American responses.

That makes sense to me. It'd be strange otherwise. The Tully Moni example is a great one. That's another example where that's what's cited as, still gets cited as this amazing success. Actually, Tulsi Gabbard denounced it at the time. I was with her watching her too so, where she was saying Trump doesn't know what the hell he's doing.

This is actually the instigation of a new state of war between the United States. United States and Iran, and this is not going to achieve anything like deterrence. And sure enough, I think it's ridiculous to claim that Iran was in any way meaningfully deterred by this. And anything, it seemed to instigate a new phase of warfare between the United States and Iran insofar as these militia groups that are allied or connected with Iran were kind of given more of a free reign to launch attacks on American bases in the region, which was not going on with the regularity that it now is going on with prior to Soleimani's assassination. And how Iran was deterred?

I mean, we hear now that Iran is allegedly launching these assassination plots against Trump and Pompeo and Bolton. So that would be a weird way to demonstrate that they've been deterred. heard if they've now been emboldened to launch assassination plots against top American officials. Yeah, I mean, that one is a, like, blowback. That one is a, that one is a hard way. Yeah, that one is a, I don't know how to fit this assassination stuff. And we don't, we don't have, like, complete confirmation of it.

We have stories, right? How to fit this, you know, allegations of writing it assassinations with their behavior in foreign policy, which is, like, much more, which is. much, which seems much more cautious. It could be, this could be like kind of false intelligence narratives. These could be rogue elements within the Iranian government. I don't know if it would work like that if you would be a rogue element going off and assassinating the president.

Who knows? I mean, they are, you know, they're full of people who have, who are religious extremists. So maybe, maybe they would potentially do that on their own. Yeah. But anyways, you know, I think this is, I think this is an argument. The insurance thing is an argument. It's like blowback. It's something that could be used well.

It could not be used well. I think it would be crazy to say that this is always fake and there's never like anything to it. I get that they use it. The way that Higgsuth, these people use it is, you know, just like without thinking reflexively. But maybe there are instances where it can be used more credibly than others. But just in the way that Hegseth used it in this group chat is like a perfect example of how it could just be used. bandied about as essentially a slogan without having to ever prove or substantiate it. But I say, oh, yeah, we're just going to do some generalized deterrence.

So now we're going to like, we're going to intimidate Venezuela and North Korea. I'll tell you. By bombing the Houthis, really? But look, I don't, I don't believe it's an accident. You probably disagree. I don't believe it's an accident that the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the actual September 7th attack both happened under Biden and not Trump. I don't think it's an accident. I think that Hamas's entire strategy. Hamas was so afraid of Trump? Yes. Hamas's strategy was basically to rely on

human rights concerns in the West to pressure Israel to not go as hard as they wanted to make negotiations. And that's what happened. Israel basically was pressured by the Biden administration to hold back to let it humanitarian aid. And now they're not pressured like that anymore. because Trump is in office. I know Trump has, one of Trump's talking points is that the Ukraine war never would have happened

and the, on October 7th, never would have happened. Yeah. How is it that Hamas would not have launched its strike against Israel if Trump was in power?

Of course, we just told you, or didn't prove this because it's counterfactual. But I just don't see how Hamas because they're so like reverential or afraid of Trump would have,

sworn off doing this. Like, explain that. I just, I just told you they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, were you, well, you, I thought you were arguing, you were you were saying that the Biden administration restraint Israel. Yes, exactly. Or after, Hamas, Hamas knows that beforehand. Hamas knows. It's strategy. It wants to attack Israel. It can't defeat Israel in a conventional war, right? What it can do is hide behind civilians and hope that the world pressures Israel and somehow they get a negotiation, they get what they want, right? That makes sense. That is a sensible strategy, uh, with a Democratic administration.

So a monster now, like, brilliant political tacticians? Yeah, they're not more. No, they're not complete idiots. Yeah, they, they know who the American president is. They know America supports Israel. They know something about politics. They know, like, enough to know a Democratic administration cares more about humanitarian concerns that are Republicans.

They calculate, we better do this under a Democratic president, not a Republican one. Yeah. Because. Well, not necessarily Democrat and Republican. Pressure Israel into a settlement? not necessarily Republican and Democrat. If it was George H. H. H. W. Bush. Okay. Biden versus Trump.

Yeah. Yeah. Why is that crazy? You think that they don't think about America? Like what America will do in the context of these things? Yeah, of that extent. But I don't know. I just find that to be, look, it's a counterfactual. I guess it's probably.

Yeah. But I just find it hard to believe that Hamas would have calculated that Trump is. Trump is just so strong and intimidating that we can't do anything. You're making it sound ridiculous. It's not he's so strong. It's like he's he's deaf to the cries of like human rights. Your assertion is that if Trump had been in power, they would not have.

Yeah, but it's not about, you're making it like ridiculous. Because of political. Trump is so manly, they're going to be like, oh, Trump is too much of a man. It's not like that.

It's like Trump doesn't care about these human rights pressures. Like he does not care like he was completely on Israel's side in the first administration. completely out of Israel side. I mean, Biden only cared about them. The Biden administration only cared about these human rights issues in the most superficial possible way where they would make like rhetorical gestures about it and, you know, politely encouraged Israel to maybe consider not bombing hospitals wantonly. But then just continue furnishing.

Well, they did. I mean, it wasn't. The military supplies except like for like some marginal weapons systems. And now Trump is. Look, it was the human. A humanitarian aid thing was something that the Biden administration really, really pressured them on. And Israel eventually gave in. It wasn't, you know, they obviously bombed and killed a lot of people, too. But there were some limit with the Biden administration. I don't think there's going to be a limit with the Trump administration.

I think they're going to, they're basically, they've shut off all humanity. They've shut off humanitarian aid. I don't think you can extrapolate from that that Hamas would have just been too paralyzed. But Hamas would have been smart enough to know. We and you know that. Me and you predicted that. Hamas could have predicted that. like they're not, you know, that stupid. They could have understood this. Possibly.

Anyways, this is a good conversation. I want to talk about, I want to talk about, did you see? I want to play this, by the way, this Steve Woodcock thing. I'm going back. Or make a last point, if you want. Final point, but I do think Khamas are kind of dumb because they launched the October 7th attack, right? And it's almost like the administration people in this group chat not having a coherent idea of what they're doing. On the one hand, they launched this attack and they claim that they're justified

because international law allows occupied people to attack in the name of self-defense. Then they also claim that they're being genocided. Then they also claim that they're winning the war and they're celebrating. So it just, you know, vacillates back and forth between these like competing and contradictory justifications for why they launched that attack in the first place. And so, I think that they're just kind of, you know, throwing everything at the wall and seeing what's six. So I guess I do doubt that they would have a sophisticated enough political analysis of the nature of the Trump administration versus the Biden administration to say that, oh, good thing that Biden's in power. Now it's time for us to go. And we wouldn't do that if Trump or empower.

I mean, they know that. They can't prove it, but I think that's a little bit overestimating the intelligence of Hamas. Yeah, I don't know. I don't think they're that dumb. I mean, they, they saw that Trump moved the embassy to Jerusalem. They saw Trump recognize the Golan Heights. They have an idea. Biden gave Israel more military support than any U.S. president ever, literally. So, like, what were they, like, what was the genius calculation there? I just told you, they, because of the human rights stuff. But that they blink in with, like, around the margins, pressure Israel to let in more humanitarian aid? Yeah. Well, I don't think it was

just at the margins. I think that it made a huge difference in how Israel prosecuted the war. I mean, the people, and if you read the reporting, the people in Israel are very kind of video about it. Israel has been that restrained in prosecuting the war. It's been pretty restrained. It could have just completely shut off aid. They eventually had to let an aid. They did. That was the point.

They could have completely shut it out. They did not completely. They shut it out for a while. They shut up electricity. They did initially. Yeah, yeah, they did initially. If people or animals, there would be no food, electricity or water allowed in. Right. That lasted for months. and it couldn't last indefinitely. And Hamas knew that it might not last indefinitely.

Anyways, yeah, it's a counterfactual, but people can sort of decide whose argument makes more sense. Anyways, this Steve Whitkoff thing from Tucker, I just found this so funny. I'm going to play this for a second that I had. It got personal. The President Putin had commissioned a beautiful portrait of President Trump from the leading Russian artist

and actually gave it to me and asked me to take it home to President Trump, which I brought home and delivered him. It's been reported in the paper, but it was such a gracious moment and told me a story, Tucker, about how when the president was shot, he went to his local church

and met with his priest and prayed for the president, not because he was the president of the United, he could become the president of the United States, but because he had a friendship with him and he was praying for his friend. It was, I mean, can you imagine sitting there listening to these kind of conversations, and I came home and delivered that message to our president and delivered the painting, and he was clearly touched by it. So this is the kind of connection

that we've been able to reestablish through, by the way, a simple word called communication. Did you not hear this before, Michael? I didn't hear this part, no. What is the probability you think that Putin went to his priest and started praying for? Trump. You've seen the Sopranos, right? Of course. Remember when Polly has a painting commissioned of Tony? And Tony hates painting and throws it out. It's like it's Tony basically look like Napoleon.

Right. With a horse. I don't know. For some reason, that came to mind in terms of the paint. Have we seen this painting that Putin supposedly commissioned? No, he didn't, he didn't like bring the painting. But apparently some reporter should ask Trump to see it. It must be somewhere.

Yeah, where's it hanging right now? Yeah. that's a good question. Maybe someone's reported on this. But it's very funny. So somebody I read today that, do you remember the Putin, I saw into his soul? There was something similar where apparently Putin told George W. Bush a story that,

do you remember this? Like his dacha or something burned down. His daughter and wife just barely escaped. But like Putin went there. And the only thing still there was like a cross in his house. and that Putin found God at this moment. And apparently this was right before. And Bush was evangelical Christian,

so that probably brought them closer to get. I mean, Putin is pretty shrewd. Yeah. Yeah, the famous line, I think it was from 2002, was Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw that he was a good man or something like that. Yeah, I saw it into his soul. And this was apparently this was after he told him that story.

So I think it was like the same meeting. or something. And then afterwards, he said, I looked to his soul. I looked into a soul. And so, yeah, I guess these, it's kind of funny that they're all praying emojis. I mean, that's kind of funny. I don't know if I should be surprised by that or not. But yeah, religion seems to be a way to kind of American leaders, I think, are probably on average, much more religious than European leaders and probably more religious than Putin is in personal life and certainly more religious than the Chinese. So this does seem like a way to ingratiate yourselves with like an American administration.

I can recall is that Putin is probably personally an atheist, given his Soviet upbringing, but he is also in favor of Russian Orthodox Christianity as a social and cultural moray and as like an organizing principle for Russian society. And therefore can leverage. that in diplomatic and treaties yeah so that that guy that guy Mikhail Zygar whose op-ed was in the New York Times that we talked about last week he has a substack which is interesting and he he argues that Putin actually believes in like mysticism like he is like a kind of mystic and believes in like that approach and yeah also yeah I haven't

read the full article but he makes he makes that case yeah but like the the probability that he prayed for Trump just because they're such close friends. Like that seems, yeah, that seems highly unlikely. Yeah, I mean, look, I mean, Putin obviously is aware that Trump puts a premium on personal diplomacy, which isn't the worst. Crazy. No. It's funny to mock some of the more outlandish aspects of this, but if you gave me a choice

between Biden and Putin freezing one another out completely, the head, the leaders of the two countries with the world's largest nuclear arsenals and some kind of cringy overtures between Putin and Trump to kind of at least reestablish some semblance of relations. I'd probably choose the latter just because of the nuclear risk. I wouldn't laugh it off completely. Yeah. Personal relations thing is legit. Like Kushner was like texting with like these UA, you know, the way,

of like UAE and Saudi Arabia. And he achieved some peace deals. I mean, like just texting and not going through, like, Kushner, you know, went through official communications and did everything like by the book. I don't think you would have got the Abraham Accords, right? This is like a kind of, this is kind of like a legitimate thing. It's actually one of the good things about, it is actually a positive of the Trump decision.

There's so much, like, if you just want to talk to, it's like crazy. If you were like, did it study foreign policy if you didn't know anything, you would think, like, why wouldn't the president just like call the leader of North Korea and just like have a conversation and see like exactly what they want or what they prefer to be this was a big issue in the 2008 Democratic primaries between Obama

and Hillary. The whole thing was should American, the American president meet with other world leaders without preconditions? Hillary said no. Obama said yes, Obama fulfilled that to some extent like he went to Cuba and met with Raul Castro.

But Trump took it to another level with the North Korea. stuff and arguably now with the Putin stuff. And it just seems like why would you stigmatize the mere act of talking? If you're going to have a diplomatic apparatus, like what's

the point of it if there's no talking involved? But that was the attitude of the Biden administration from 2022 onwards with regard to Russia and where did that get it? Well, it's the same thing with Hamas, same thing with Putin. Yeah, there is a kind of

I'm trying to steal, man. I'm trying to make a... I'm always trying to make the most sensible argument for the foreign policy established what they're doing. This one is hard to. It's hard to. It's like, you give them status.

Okay, that's like, you know, that's like tangible. But it's like one of those non-tangible things, right? But, you know, how plausible that just because, you know, we debated it. And I said just because something's non-tangible doesn't mean it's not real. So is this real? Is it just make plausible?

sense that you talk to Kim Jong-Ud, he has status, and then what does he do? Like, he invades South Korea because he has all this new status, or he locks people up and more gulags because of the status. He feels so emboldened by what the Trump administration is doing. Yeah, I can't think of a logical reason for this. I mean, I think it is something that you should be doing. The thing about Trump is, like, a lot of people think he's just, like, very kind of stupid and pro to flattery so they worry about it in Trump's case like he's just going to say i prayed

for you or kem jagood's going to send him a letter and then uh trump is just going to do whatever they want but i think there's a like a less extreme version of this going with a foreign policy establishment because a lot of them don't believe on principle of like almost on principle of like negotiating with north korea or hamas or these bad actors well going back talking about before they would argue that it diminishes American, quote, credibility to lower itself to engaging with tin pot dictators or whatever, which seems to me, it was argument, as are most arguments that hinge on this credibility conceit. Yeah.

Yeah, there's no, you know, I mean, it is like, you don't want to elevate someone, like, if they're like a rebel leader. Like, I don't know if there's some gang leader in Chicago. Like, I would recommend the president go meet with him. have a meeting and try to get him to stop doing crap. That would elevate his status. That would probably give criminals something to shoot for. You know, I think that like, I think Bush raised the status of the lauded.

Like after when he declared a global war on terror, they made the terrorists. They said they were like an existential threat, basically, to the country. I think that was actually the best recruiting message that al-Qaeda and like Islamic terrorism some more generally could have had. But when somebody's like control of a country already and like, you know, has been for decades, it's just, it's just stupid. It just doesn't make any sense. Yeah, I guess the idea is that isolating and ostracizing like a Kim Jong-un or his father

before him and shutting him out of the international system will somehow foster a positive change within North Korea, and there's not really any evidence that that's been the case at all. Yeah. So logic behind that strategy of no communication seems like a demonstrably failed one. Yeah, I think that's right. Yeah, I guess there's nothing more to say. I guess this is just a kind of stupid thing that the stupid thing that the most important policy does. over the years that he would directly negotiate with the Ayatollah in Iran.

Nothing has really came of it, but apparently he did send a direct letter a few weeks ago, which seemed more like an ultimatum threat letter, really, than an invitation to diplomatic engagement. I think I missed this, sir. I forgot. What was the letter? What did the letter say? Trump sent the, you missed this? This was like two or three weeks ago. Let me see. Look it up. Trump sent a letter. He talked about it on Maria Bartone, I think.

He said a letter to the Ayatollah. He claimed that he sent a letter to the Ayatollah. Basically, we could do this the easy way or the hard way with the nuclear program. Oh, I gave him a two-month deadline. He would prefer the final moments, and that they would, he would prefer negotiated solution, but one way or the other, Iran is not going to have a nuclear program. Okay, the story is March 19th. Basically rejected Gaiatollah as a threat tactic.

Yeah, so this story is from March 19th. It looks like he gave him a two-month deadline for reaching a new nuclear tale according to what U.S. official two sources briefed of the letter told Xeos. Okay, so we're all like a countdown to like Iran. By the end of May, where it could be a war with Iran. How wonderful. Yeah. Last week of many called Tom Slater.

be swelling with pride for how the Republican Party is this anti-war pro-free speech party now when that comes down. Yeah, I mean, speaking of which, I mean, this,

Colombia, this South Korean girl from Columbia, have you been following this? This is like the craziest thing I've seen. Yeah, so she's a permanent resident, right? She's been here since she was seven. Is that right? Yeah. Yeah.

And legal permanent resident. is like beyond a visa, like you are a permanent resident, as it says, you're legal, and you are on the path to citizenship, basically. I would much prefer if the people defending this would at least drop the pretense that they are principal defenders of free speech. Just admit that you don't care fundamentally if the government goes after people, whether it's a green card holder. a visa holder, or even an American citizen potentially, because the impositions on Columbia

affect American citizens who are students at Columbia. But whatever the target may be, just admit that you don't care if political speech is the basis for the government to take punitive action. Rather than this whole facade of being a free speech, RFK, like Joe Rogan, Elon Musk person, who, you know, we're telling us that we, on podcasts, that we had to restore the Republican Party to power to save free speech in America.

And I know they will never admit that, but like that's what makes this all the more obnoxious to me. Yeah. I mean, I saw a Rogan, Destiny shared a Rogan clip today from like 2018 or 2019 talking about family separation for illegal immigrants. And Rugged was just like, I don't care if they crossed the border. Like, that's just wrong to take a baby away from her mother.

If these were white Canadians, like, we would never do something like that. So it was like a complete, you know, it's like a completely different perspective from he has. Now, he doesn't explain like why he would change his position on immigration to that extent or like the kind of racist basis of immigration policy. There's none of that. Yeah, I mean, it is kind of. The Venezuelan deportations are in a way almost even crazier. The administration is expressly arguing that it has no obligation to afford any due process at all to just round up people by calling them, claiming that they're now terrorists, invoking a 1798 statute that really, what's the legal term for when a statute is in such disuse that it's no longer valid? It's like I forget the term now.

It's like a French word. But you could make an argument that would apply to the 1798. Alien Enemies Act, send them to El Salvador, which is a country they would apparently have no connection to at all. Yeah. And they don't even have an opportunity to contest that they are actually affiliated with this gang. Yeah.

And basically, the implication is that the United States is a war with Venezuela because in order to invoke the 17-1998 statute, the U.S. think there has to be a war with or have been invaded by an enemy state, which is why it was used in World War I and World War II to go after like Japanese and Germans or whoever. Now we're supposed to apply the same framework to 2025. These are the Venezuela because the government of Venezuela has invaded the United States due to its alleged connections with this gang. I mean, it's crazy logic.

Yeah. It could actually be a forerunner to a legitimate war against Venezuela. Remember, Trump tried to overthrow the government of Venezuela in 2019. They screwed it up, as usual, but that was at least attempted. Yeah, it's a very disturbing thing. It's one thing to deport people. And the standards of due process for people who are not citizens and are in the country illegally aren't very high. Like, it's a lot of arbitrariness. I think people are learning how ridiculous the immigration system is. People unlike visas, you know, they'll come into this country and these, like, like dumb border guards will just be sitting there. There was one woman who had a business, and they were like, oh, you know, your letterhead on your company, like, doesn't look like it's a real business. There's something fishy about you, right? It's like these, you know, it's just like productive people that are with their travel abroad and try to come into the country.

There's a lot of arbitrariness on the border, you know, like ICE, Homeland Security can make these people's lives miserable. So there's that. That's like the baseline is actually pretty, pretty bad. this is insane. This is not deporting people or keeping out of the country. This is sending them to prison. This is sentencing them to a prison in a completely foreign country, like, you know, just for based on nothing. Because they're members of a gang, like even, they don't have to commit crimes. Members of a gang, but there's no proof that they're members of a gang, right? It's an affiliation thing.

And that's an affiliation thing without any proof. And the punishment is like, you disappear in a prison in El Salvador. door. It's like, apparently. Is it for life? I thought they were like one year. It's definite. It's insane.

It's insane. Like how is this allowed? Like, and apparently I haven't been following the latest developments, but you know, it's basically that every court that has adjudicated the preliminary aspects of this has uniformly renounced the administration logic, whereby the administration's claiming that has no, obligation to afford any due process at all.

Yeah. I mean, I don't think you can equate this to any legal proceeding ever in the United States where there's no due process at all. I mean, the people in Guantanamo got some due process. Yeah, they had lawyers. I mean, they had stuff. Yeah, there were hearings. They've just disappeared a bunch of people and sent it to a dungeon and all south door.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so... And the MAGA people were cheering Buckele or whatever his name is for mocking the American legal system. Yeah, I mean, yeah. Any judicial intervention in this is like a judicial coup. So all the Maka people are like cheering Buckele for basically just insulting the entire American, like, basis for American rule of law.

Yeah. I mean, I wrote some articles, you know, praising Buckele's cracked out on crime. You know, I still believe that's right. I still think it was worth it within El Salvador. He did objectively a good job, but that doesn't mean that everything he does is correct. And yeah, I was shocked by this that he was like retweeting a story, which says the judge, you know, the judge says they can't be shipped overseas. And Buckela is like, oopsie, ha, ha. And I think Rubio like retweeted this.

So it's like a foreign leader and like, you know, top government officials are like laughing at the fact that they're not paying attention to the law. it's yeah it's it's insane and like the details of this are quite crazy like they will tell the judge they refuse to tell the judge which who these people are they were they claim that

you know they couldn't turn around a plane because it was over international waters there's other planes where like the last I checked the court couldn't get the information as to when the planes took off whether it was before or after the order I haven't paid attention to the latest development

I mean I understand And it's not my issue necessarily, but I'm willing to defer in the name of political pluralism to people who have just won an election and really want there to be more restricted immigration and want there to be harsher immigration enforcement. I'm not going to, quote, die on that hill. It's just not something that I feel strongly about one way or another. I feel like in a certain polity, if that's what the majority of people want, then okay.

But if that's now being implemented by just completely shredding due process, then that doesn't seem like a worthwhile tradeoff to me. Now, I know a lot of people will say, what? Why do you think constitutional rights should be given to Venezuela and gang members? First of all, you don't even know that they're in it. Where was that proven? Like there needs to be some court to go to, to challenge the claims of the government, even if just certain deportationers are made by error. Like it could be malice or error, but let's just say it's an error.

Then there's got to be some venue to challenge that rather than just sending somebody to a dungeon and to a dungeon for life in a random country. Really? Like if that's the tradeoff for having this mass deportation policy, then that actually does. motivate me to oppose something which potentially under other circumstances, that I might be at least willing to tolerate more, just in the name of, like, pluralism, like, deference to the majority will. Well, it's kind of strange. What's the, like, why, what's the justification for sending it to El Salvador?

I thought that they worked out a deal with Venezuela, where Venezuela would take back migrants. Wasn't that something the Trump administration was bragging about? That's what they were bragging about, yeah, I think initially. Or no, Colombia. But I think they have an ongoing operational, just kind of standard deportation sort of relationship with Venezuela, where people can be deported back to Venezuela, unless I'm mistaken. But I think it's just a political thing to make a big show of how ruthless they're going to be against the Venezuelan gang members who Trump said were like taking over apartment buildings in Colorado. Yeah.

Yeah, it's like a very online thing, right? It's like because they see Buckele as like this kind of, you know, kind of right-wing figure on Twitter. And they're like, you know, they're excited by his crime fighting, his, you know, crackdown on criminals. And then like they're mad about Venezuelans. So it seems like the decision making here is like just kind of like stupid, let's put these stories together.

Like next to a sudden like transgender is like, it's like Venezuela migrants, scary people to El Salvador, Buckele, who's our friend, who's like the tough guy who's overseas, who we like. and just is like really tough on criminals. Right. It doesn't seem like there's a real, you know, either it's political or they're just like,

they're just brains are rotted by the internet. Another irony here is that a lot of the contemporary market people will at least claim that they hate Bush and Cheney. Right. Yeah, they don't talk about civil liberty stuff. They talk about. Yeah, and to some extent, they're actually going even further than Bush and Cheney did

with regard to war on terror, infringements on civil liberties, at least in 2001 and 2002, there was at least some nominal national security crisis going. I mean, we did have 9-11, right? Now, it went way overboard in terms of the government reaction to it, but there was something acute that actually occurred. What's the acute, like, threat that occurred between January...

An apartment building in Aurora, Colorado, that's something. I don't doubt that there was a problem with the apartment building in Aurora, Colorado, but like if you're going to tell me that we have to totally abridge all course of liberties to address that issue I don't even really buy it like

they could have handled that you gotta think they could handle that if it needed to be handled through the ordinary channels rather than making this big show of having a mass deportation to El Salvador randomly like it doesn't make any sense

other than they want to like thump their chests yeah I mean that's what it seems like And the fact that they, you know, that they pick this issue. Yeah, I mean, it's going to be very interesting to see, like, how much... The government is allowed to erode core civil liberties. That's not going to...

That's not just going to be specific to non-citizens. Yeah. And the fact that, yeah, and at the same time, disobey court orders. I don't know if the judge... Just like the treatment of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners was widely seen, and probably a lot of these Manga people, would now acknowledge kind of eroded the

the basis for the American rule of law and constitution and civil liberties even though most of the people that were effective were not citizens. Yeah. Yeah. So they're importing that whole war on terror framework

but now for an even less justifiable reason. Yeah. Yeah, it's bad. I'm going to be interested to see what goes out. It's like a, you know, this is kind of this is the test case for the idea that they could just disobey the courts, right? And so what could a judge do with that phase? They could cite them for contempt. That's a federal crime. They won't be charged with the Trump administration. What does the judge ultimately have? They have a contempt charge,

and then the hope would be the next Democratic administration could hold them to that. Is that kind of, is that kind of the last stop for like having the rule of law? Well, I guess couldn't the judge order his court marshals to go do something? Yeah, I've heard that too. Yeah, the court can go and like arrest a government lawyer or something. The court has marshals that are under their purview. Yeah. How many marshals do they have a big group of marshals?

I don't know the number, but... Okay, I need to read more about this because this is actually very kind of interesting. I mean, there are no match for the executive branch's security forces, but like, yeah, theoretically it's something needed to be enforced with, like, physically enforced. Yeah. The Supreme Court, I know, does have a staff of marshals. And the Department of Justice, like, who, like, the who, okay, the Department of Justice, like, I'll bring my crew. Like, does the Department of Justice have, like, people directly under them or no? Yeah, like, that's the Department of Justice versus the Supreme Court.

Yeah, interesting times. Okay, yeah, this Venezuelan case is a really big deal just for both of the reasons we talked about. Okay. And one last point, in terms of these speech crackdowns on college campuses, I can't draw a directly provable through line, but a lot of it seemingly has been done in anticipation, or you could reasonably infer that they're being done in in anticipation of a new escalation in the Middle East, which has already occurred. as of last week. So kind of have a preemptive strike against potential protesters knowing that they're political headaches. And that could even broaden out to Iran as we mentioned the next month and a half. It does seem like there is, I mean, it seems like they figure out if there is no American soldiers dying, we should, by the way, talk about, we don't have time, but for American soldiers,

we're creating in Lithuania and just, would you go to the Russian border? Yeah, they're found dead. and we have no idea what that is. But yeah, I think that, like, yeah, they've realized it without kind of Americans dying, they can basically, they have a free head in the Middle East. Like, public opinion, it doesn't care. Like, if the economy, what happens to the economy is going to matter,

how many people we bomb in Yemen or Iran isn't going to matter. If there's a terrorist attack, it probably is good for the Trump administration. Like, if somehow it hits, like, you know, there's a, you know, the Houthis fire a missile where they get, like, a bunch of, you know, American ship or something or there's a terrorist attack within the U.S. or something like that happens. It probably doesn't hurt them politically. So, yeah, I think you're, I think you're, what you're getting at is right that there's

like a lot of incentives. There's at least no disincentive for kind of escalating in the Middle East. I mean, George W. Bush's approval rating after 9-11 is over 90%. Maybe that's not a change anymore. But, yeah, so obviously, there's a very clear political logic. This is why people are always suspecting false flags and things. I think that's a lot of open. Yeah.

Yeah. Anyways, Michael, yeah, good talking to you. And, yeah, we'll do this again next week. All right. See you later, everybody.