Pod Save the World - World Reacts to Trump Assassination Attempt

Episode Date: July 17, 2024

Tommy and Ben discuss the global reaction to the assassination attempt on Donald Trump and the rise of political violence around the world, Trump VP pick JD Vance’s views on foreign policy, and more low-lights from the RNC. They also talk about the conviction of Senator Robert Menendez on corruption charges, the last news from Gaza, Robert Kagame’s re-election in Rwanda, Kenya’s ongoing protests, a win for women’s rights activists in Gambia, the world’s most expensive wedding in India, and arguably one of the most tone-deaf social media posts in history. Then, Tommy speaks with Congressman Seth Moulton about JD Vance, calls for Biden to step down, Secret Service’s failures, and what the IDF could learn from the US war in Iraq. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Welcome to Potsay of the World. I'm Tommy Vitor. I'm Ben Rhodes. Slow Newsweek. I can't keep up. I mean, things that seemed absolutely transitional and existential like three weeks ago are now like, you know. When you guys said on PSA that Trump was convicted of 34 felonies, what, like a few weeks ago? It feels like it was about 10 years ago.

I thought the debate was like the end of the world. And then Saturday was the most terrifying, shocking thing I've ever witnessed on basically live TV. I learned from you, right? So I was like, I was with my family at lunch and I get this text like, that was bad. And I was like, oh, no, Biden had another brain freeze or something. And then I clicked on the link. Like, oh, no, much worse. Yeah, much, much worse.

Yeah, I was home with James or two-month-old, just like watching the news. Basically, watch this all unfold live. It was horrifying. We're going to talk about all of this, Pence. We're going to talk about the international reaction to the attempted assassination of President Trump. We'll talk about vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance and his foreign policy positions and record. Some low lights from the Republican convention. An update on our good friend, the dear friend of the pod, Senator Bob Menendez, who's been in court a bit lately. The latest from Gaza, an election in Rwanda, a protest movement in Kenya.

It's finally been some good news out of Gambia and then some fun stories to close. And then, Ben, I just spoke with Congressman Seth Moulton from Massachusetts. I believe you know well. Yes. Yeah, great guy. Very good guy. So if you don't know Seth Moulton, you know, he's a member of Congress now. He also went to Harvard. You also served four tours in Iraq. It's really interesting background and resume. The reason I wanted to talk to him was because in mid-October of last year, right after the October 7th attacks, he wrote this op-ed about the lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan and all the mistakes the Israelis should not repeat in their ground invasion into Gaza. And I reread it this week and it was prescient. So we talked about that, you know, what the path forward looks like. And we also talked about J.D. Vance, his record, the NATO summit a bit. And then Seth Moulton is one of a handful of members of Congress who have said that President Biden should step down and let a new generation run against President Trump.

So we also talked about that. Yeah, I can't wait to hear that. I mean, the thing about Seth Moulton is he always says exactly what's on his mind. Yes. does not pull punches. And, you know, not always easy to pin down on the ideological spectrum. He's a pragmatist in the best sense of the word. Yeah, I think, like, we always talk about how our goal for all shows on the Crooked Network is to make the on-mic conversation as close to the text chain as you possibly can,

knowing that the text chain can be a little meaner and a little nastier. Seth Moulton is not mean or nasty on Mike or in the text chain. He's just honest on both. It's like a, the Venn diagram is a circle. So definitely check that out. But his message basically was to what's annoying about what's happening in Washington right now. And I respect people who think Joe Biden gives us their best chance to win. I respect people who disagree. I happen to disagree with that.

Yes. But what I don't respect is the people who privately ring their hands about Joe Biden's candidacy and then publicly say nothing. Yeah. I mean, what's the point of being in politics if that's going to be your approach to things? Right. You know, and especially when the stakes are this high, it seems like that would be a time to actually say what you think instead of just unburdening yourself to axiose or something. Right. Like what will feel worse?

Saying something honest now in getting mean tweets or saying it the day after the election. Yeah. And, you know, the thing that's bothered me about this, Tommy, just to go on this quick detour is it's the, you know, the small D Democratic Party. and this impulse to shut down any debate or discussion kind of cuts against exactly what the Democratic Party is supposed to be and certainly cuts against the model that you want to set against an autocrat, an actual autocrat like Trump, you know. So it's been really disappointing to see some people try to shut down voices like Seth Moulton's

or anybody's, frankly, and, you know, some of us here at Cricket Media because you're just turning into the thing that you are supposed to be running against. And I really think when you tell people not to say what they think or that they're not allowed to say what they think, I think it builds resentment in a way that could be super toxic.

And when you're trying to build a tent over a party that is this like motley coalition of very different people with different views, telling a bunch of them to shut up is not going to work. Yeah. And telling people to kind of not pay attention to something that they can see.

You know, like you and I were in communications. Like the worst place to be is to be denying something that is evident to people. And that's kind of where we are in some of these discussions. Well, more of this in the interview. But Ben, let's start with the biggest news in the world today, which is, you know, the attempt on former President Trump's life at a rally in Pennsylvania. So as everyone listening probably knows, the shooter only grazed Trump's ear, but he did kill a rally attendee and father of two named Corey Comptortals.

Tori. The shooter was a 20-year-old Pennsylvania man. I'm not going to say his name because fuck him. It's not clear what his motive is or was, but the FBI is now going through his phone looking for clues. Leaders around the world quickly denounced political violence. Some of Trump's closest international allies and partners expressed sympathies. And then America's adversaries jumped on this story and made it part of their propaganda. In Russia, state media outlets and various Putin propagandists started pushing the narrative that the Democratic party was behind the assassination attempt. Some suggested that the Ukrainian military was involved. Points for creativity there, I guess. CNN reported that Chinese state-run media outlets of the

shooting was the result of the chaos and dysfunction that comes from democracy. So they've got one note. Standard line. Yeah, I was going to say, just apply that no matter what the circumstances. Rinse, repeat. So there's a lot of different angles we could discuss on the story. This is obviously a shocking failure by Secret Service. I talk about this with Seth Moulton, too. There's likely going to be a bunch of investigations into the security lapses. Frankly, if I was Joe Biden, I'd be firing someone today and not waiting for those investigations. But there's also been this feeling that political violence is on the rise globally. You and I have talked about, for example, political assassinations or assassination attempts by the Indian government, even in the United

States and Canada. You raised this broader sense of this growing, you know, political violence. Why do you think that's happening? Yeah, I've been thinking about this. you just consider the last, I don't know, a year or two, you had Shenzhou Abe, the foreign Prime Minister of Japan killed in Japan. We just had this near assassination of the Prime Minister of Slovakia. Imran Khan was targeted for assassination in Pakistan. Bolsonaro was stabbed in Brazil. You've had other attempts in Latin America. In the UK, two members of parliament have been killed in recent years. And so there's something there. I mean, that's anecdotal, but you can kind of feel the temperature rising to use a probably an overuse metaphor.

And here's what I think is going on. You know, one, there's this kind of sense in lots of parts of the world that the stakes are like really high in politics right now, right? It's absolutely. And I've been, for this book I'm working on, I was just kind of in the 60s here and it was amazing to relive horrible, the Kennedy King and Kennedy assassinations. But that too was a time when it felt like the stakes were incredibly high. The issues mattered a lot.

But identity was also in play. You know, the country's changing in some way, what it means to be Americans at stake. Civil rights, diversity. This is 63 to 60. I always think about what it must have been like to live in those years, just terrifying. And to just see one hero after another, you know, taken away. And right now, I think we're just in this period where the stakes feel incredibly high. That to me is like the first point.

And the kind of related point is that the stakes are high and also like there's a real collapse and confidence in like institutions and leadership. Right. So it's like there's a sense that like we're being let down by all these people. And obviously this takes it to the most extreme when an individual decides to do something horrific like this. But it does feel like this is going to be with us for a period of time through which the stakes are high. people are really angry. They're angry at establishments and elites. They're sensing that their own identity is somehow threatened.

It's a troubling trend because these things tend to, I mean, not to be a Cassandra here, but these things tend to kind of repeat themselves. There's one reason to get to the bottom secret service. Because I actually think this is not the last time we're going to see something attempted either here or another prominent countries. Yeah, it's also why like no one should ever cheer for. political violence, no matter whether it's your opponent or your worst enemy gets killed. You should not be in favor of that because political violence, once it starts, tends to get out of control quickly and

you can't be stopped. And someone who is your neighbor could be attacking you the next day. I mean, you hear about this constantly. We should also mention, Ben, that CNN reported that U.S. authorities recently obtained intelligence from a human source about an Iranian plot to assassinate Donald Trump. that according to CNN led to Secret Service increasing security around him in the last few weeks. There's no evidence of a foreign connection to what happened in Pennsylvania. I highly doubt one will be found. The odds of the IRGC linking up with this random kid and sending him to Walmart to buy 50 bullets right before this. It feels very low.

But it does raise even more questions about the lack of security. And just like stepping back, I mean, the Iranians, there's been a bunch of reports that the Iranians have wanted to retaliate against the Trump officials like John Bolton or Mike Pompeo because of the Qasem Soleimani assassination. What was that? 2020. Yeah. So it probably revolves around that, but notable. Yeah, I'd say on the Iranian angle, you know, what I think that is, and obviously I don't know, but is it like because Qasem Soleimani was assassinated and he, you know, he was the leader of the IRC. It's kind of iconic figure in the Iranian system. I'm sure that there are people in the IRGC who sit and talk to each other about, like, we got to get them back, we got to take out Trump,

we're going to take out Pompeo. And the intelligence report could just pick that kind of chatter up. Or this, it says human intelligence. That's one guy being like, hey, I heard some IRGC guys saying they'd like to, I say that not to minimize it, but just there's a way in which you could get that reporting and it not be like a specific threat, like a specific Iranian plot. And it certainly doesn't feel like, yeah, this guy, random 20-year-old in Pennsylvania was connected to that.

But it does, you know, again, raise these questions about Secret Service. And, you know, particularly campaign season is the hardest time for Secret Service because they're the least controlled events, right? So, like, most of you were in the White House. Like, most of the time you're going to an indoor venue with the president, a very controlled venue, a venue you've been kind of looking at for a while. Secret Service sends in advance steam. Not the kind of big outdoor crowd venues or the kind of OTR off the record, dropped by a diner kind of venues. And so one thing, you know, not that either Joe Biden or Donald Trump or that active campaigners, but it does, I think, raise the bar significantly for the kinds of events and campaigning that we'll see this year, I think.

Yeah, and it's just scary. And like, my God, why would you run for president if you thought that this kind of violence was a possibility? And the truth is, like, there's a lot of, like, incredibly brave, talented people in the Secret Service. The people around the president are incredible. and, you know, literally put their lives on the line to protect the principle. But the organization itself has had a lot of problems. And the truth is, I think, with any, like, situation like this where you're going out in public, if someone is willing to die in the course of trying to assassinate a political figure,

like, they've got a leg up in that situation. You know what I mean? Yeah. Like, so that's a real risk here. Yeah, the, you know, I had the same experience in, feeling about Secret Service, which is like I liked a lot of the individuals that we met. They were on the presidential detail or they worked around the White House. But I had serious questions about the institution itself because it's kind of this weird.

It's under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security, which is kind of weird. But it has very much its own opaque culture and protocols and ways of plugging into the White House, plugging into kind of state and local authorities that to supply a lot of manpower at these events, but they're kind of a bit immune to criticism. You were gone by the second term when we had a bunch of scandals at the Secret Service. Do you remember this in the later Obama? Oh, no, I was there for when there's a huge scandal around the Secret Service hiring sex workers on a presidential trip. I remember I was at a dinner with like eight reporters and the AP reporter was texting me across the table like, hey, we just got this tip. And I'm like, no way that's true. That's impossible. And

then the whole thing unfolded. We're Cartagena, I think. Cardahena. Yeah, no, I mean, they were hiring sex workers. But, like, there's, I mean, the funny thing about it is, it's not that funny, but you were kind of reluctant to criticize them, you know, because, you know what I mean? What's the word thing for Biden right now? Yeah, that's exactly the point. That's his detail, but he's got to criticize their handling of what happened on Saturday.

That's right. When we had a bunch of these things, it was very hard for the spokespeople because you, like, even the Trump people you see are go out of their way to defend. all the agents and before they say that they have questions. I mean, so it's a weird, when you're literally talking about an institution dedicated to keeping your principal alive, you know, you kind of pull your punches a little bit. And that has put them a little bit beyond accountability, you know. Yeah, it's not great.

The other huge news this week, Ben, is that Trump picked Ohio Senator J.D. Vance to be his running mate. Vance is only 39 years old, which pisses me off to no end. He served for you. Thank you for tapping into my mid-law crisis. Of course. I'm right there with you. He served four years in the Marine Corps. He became famous after publishing his memoir, the Hillbilly Elogy. For those unfamiliar with J.D. Vance, I think the best way to understand him is he is a guy who is all in on the economic populism part of the MAGA movement. He's anti-trade and pro-tariff. He's nativist and anti-immigrant. His selection is just a big middle finger to like Paul Ryan and all those free market conservatives. He's also more isolationist when it comes to foreign policy. In a recent New York Times interview, Vance said that Trump was the only candidate who had litigated the mistakes of George W. Bush and the Iraq war. Barack Obama would beg to differ.

And he said that in their first conversation, I think in 2021, Trump complained to J.D. about military leaders kind of monkeying around with troop redeployment timing to avoid actually following Trump's order to bring the troops home from places like Syria, which is interesting that they talked about that. Vance has also had a lot to say about Ukraine. Here's a clip. You need to articulate what the ambition is. What is $61 billion going to accomplish that $100 billion hasn't? We have to remember, Jake, Ukraine is functionally destroyed as a country. The average age of a soldier in the Ukrainian army right now is 43. That's tragic.

That's older than me. I'm 39. If this thing goes on a little bit longer, the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is going to be older than you. And then a year later, it could be Wolf Blitzer. That is a tragedy. What does it look like? I don't like this age graph thing you're doing. I'm sorry, Jake. I'm 54 for those wondering. We are getting to a place where we're going to be functionally on the hook to pay for Ukrainian pensioners,

to rebuild the entire country. We need to bring the killing to a stop. And that's what American leadership should be doing, not writing more blank checks to the war. Jake Tapper finds J.D. Vance's age, annoying too. Yeah, very self-interested take from Jake. Ben, I bet a lot of what Vance was saying there sounds pretty reasonable to a lot of people. I mean, myself included at times. Yeah, I think the first thing I'd say is that, you know, sometimes, you know, when I talk to people, they assume that a second Trump term might not be that bad.

I think what the J.D. Vance pick demonstrates is we have been correct and asserting that what's going to be different is the ideologues are going to be there from the beginning, right? So, you know, Mike Pence, conventional Republican, Rex Tillerson, Jim Mattis, like, and the national security and foreign policy space, the pick of J.D. Vance, signals this is going to be the true believer maga types from get-go, right? So there's not going to be forms. If Mark or Ruby had been vice president, you know, you could have seen the forum shopping that other countries would say, oh, I'll go to the neocon guy for the thing I need. I think for the national security, you know, community types who rightly point out that J.D. Vance, you know, you know, wants to cut off Ukraine.

And you just made the point very well, which is that don't dismiss that argument he just made. Don't just kind of, look, I think it'd be tragic to cut Ukraine off. But to just kind of think that it's a political winner and that you can say, oh, this guy's a big problem because he wants to cut off Ukraine. No, like that argument, I mean, the funny thing about J.D. Vance is he was making a pretty cogent, informed, intelligent argument until he had to revert to trolling and made the comment. about Jake and Wolf Blitzer, weirdly. Yeah.

But the basic point of like, wait a second, we're spending $60 billion a year, and the front line's not changing, and that's not helping the Ukrainians because they're dying anyway, so why shouldn't we just send this war? I think there's a good argument you've made against that about a values-based argument and not cutting off Ukraine,

a allies argument about, you know, the United States needing to kind of hold together this coalition. But more importantly, like a, and the war argument, right, which is that if you want there to be a negotiated settlement that doesn't totally, you know, ignore all of Ukraine's interests, Ukraine needs to continue to get support so that you can have a good negotiation, right? And I know that's a bit of a bank shot, but the point is that no, everybody wants to end the war. You know, that's like the objective should be trying to do that in the best possible terms for Ukraine, not saying, you know, as long as it takes message may be a good one at the NATO

summit, but politically in this country, I think just saying, we're going to do whatever it takes for Ukraine as long as it takes. I don't think that's a good political message. Talk to anyone who has done focus groups or polling, especially of younger voters, of all races, they think it is crazy that we are sending $60 billion to a foreign country for a war, period, without knowing any of the context. By the way, they're open to the same argument on Israel, too. Yeah.

Oh, absolutely. They agree with Gaza as well. I mean, J.D. Vance has said some really shitty things. At one point, he said to Steve Bannon, I got to be honest with you, I don't really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another. Yeah. That is callous and disgusting and just, like, dehumanizing. But his broader point is basically, like, he doesn't, he says, and if we take him at, you know, face value, he says he doesn't want to abandon Ukraine. But he thinks that our leverage comes from the fact that ultimately Russia cannot occupy all of Ukraine because it would take too many troops.

and that the way they've shifted their economy to be just a wartime economy will have repercussions in the long run because it will just not serve anyone else. So he basically thinks you need to cut a deal that says Ukraine will not be in NATO and that freezes the lines of the war where there are. Now, there's a lot of holes in that argument. Like you have to trust Putin to live up to that deal. But I bet a lot to the average kind of voter, even well-informed ones, they might think that makes sense to me. Yeah. And I think, you know, I made the argument about you need to fortify the Ukrainians to get them a better deal. But also, you've got to bring the Ukrainians into a deal. So one, another thing that J.D. Vance is wrong about beyond just being sound like an asshole when it comes to the interests of the Ukrainians. But the other thing he's wrong about is that there's not a foregone conclusion that they will sign the terms of an agreement. So you have to show them, hey, you're going to be in the European Union. You're going to have security guarantees, you know, because they're going to have to swallow the very hard. pill of freezing this conflict with a lot of territory occupied by Russia. And so to bring them along,

you know, the J.D. Vans Singh, it's like Pap Buchanan foreign policy. It's like it taps into populism, but it's not like practical in the world, you know. Now, politically, that's not an argument that a lot of people are just going to like how it sounds. But I think you have to reframe the support for Ukraine as trying to get them in the best position and the war, not as this open-ended thing. Yeah, I mean, J.D. Vance talks about Ukraine handing over, what, 17, 18 percent of the country to the Russians after, you know, parts of Ukraine that were occupied by Russia were, you know, just crime scenes. I mean, the war crimes left and right, people tortured, people executed and murdered. He talks about it like it's a simple thing with like global chess pieces that you're pushing around. He sort of loses the humanity. But yeah, I worry about the politics of it. Ben, Vance also dabbles in a little Islamophobia. and he seems to like offending our closest allies.

Here's another clip. By the way, I have to beat up on the UK just one additional thing. I was talking with a friend recently, and we were talking about, you know, one of the big dangers in the world, of course, is nuclear proliferation, though, of course, the Biden administration doesn't care about it. And I was talking about, you know,

what is the first truly Islamist country that will get a nuclear weapon? And we were like, maybe it's Iran, you know, maybe Pakistan already kind of counts. we sort of finally decided maybe it's actually the UK since labor just took over noted islamist keir-stormer i didn't get i mean that was like that was recent too that was like obviously after labor election it's like what do you care's like keir-starmer or what is he talking about like swerve to islamophobia is that like some weird you know the the the anti-woke uh brigades in

maga like jd yd-d-vans had always hated siddea con the mayor of london so i didn't know if he was like taking the cidiccon of an army a shot at the mayor of london dukes never mind by the way like Pakistan does have a nuclear weapon and they're in Islamic State, but put that aside. I mean, I think the bigger challenge for J.D. Vance is just that. One, he comes across like a kind of a jerk and so does Trump. But with Trump, it's kind of fun. With J.D. Vance is just kind of mean, you know, and it's like, why is he taking shots at the UK? And also, his coziness with the global far right to me is truly worrisome because we've talked a lot about this connective tissue between like Orban and Boland and Bolshe. Sonaro and people like that. J.D. Vance is like right in that mix. Well, let's hear J.D. Vance talking about your favorite, Victor Orban. Victor Orban in particular, as you know, I mean, he rewrote the Constitution. He neutered the courts. He has tried to control the media. These are not necessarily conservative principles.

So why would you want to mimic him? Well, look, I'm not endorsing every single thing that Victor Orban has ever done. I don't know everything he's ever done. What I do think is on the university, on the university principle, the idea that taxpayers should have some influence and how their money is spent of these universities. It's a totally reasonable thing. And I do think that he's made some smart decisions there that we could learn from the United States. Can you remind us what the context is here of this university issue? Yeah, well, first of all, Victor Urban shut down a Soros-funded university in Budapest, which was like the best university in Hungary. They had to move it literally to another country,

you know? And where Jay Vance, I think, is totally, off, you know, is it's not just about, it's not just about, like, tax, they weaponize this idea of anything that receives any kind of taxpayer funding in any fashion basically has to accord to Victor Orban's wishes. I mean, the media is a good example of this. Like, the biggest advertisers in a lot of Hungarian media was, like, the national, like, lottery or something, you know. And they withdrew all that ad money from media they didn't like, you know. It's, So they'd find these kind of backdoors to kind of, and then it got more and more, you know, aggressive, but they'd find these back doors to kind of either compel certain media to say certain things

or to kind of weaponize, you know, government resources essentially to favor certain media over others. I mean, we may need to study this here at cricket media. Because he basically used tax laws to screw over media he didn't like or universities he didn't like. And so what Jay Vance is referring to, is really authoritarian, like shutting down universities, shutting down media outlets, and then, you know, picking winners with taxpayer dollars for ones that are on your agenda. Like, that's literally what J.D. Vance is talking about. And that is core authoritarian playbook stuff, you know.

And he's been swimming in these circles and going to these conferences and talking to these guys. He knows more about what Victor Orban's done than he let on there. Luckily, we've politics-proofed things here, crooked media, by pissing off officials. in both White House's Republican and Democrat. We may be screwed in either outcome, right? Listen, when the bar is low. Yeah, look, I mean, ultimately, Ben, I don't know how much influence J.D. Vance would have in a second Trump term on foreign policy. I do know, though, that his selection leapfrogs, all the free trade, all the neocon types in the Republican Party,

Marco Rubio, Ron DeSantis, like all these guys who thought they were the heir apparent just took a big step back in line. And that's, you know, worth noting. That's why I think it really matters, not necessarily because of influence, but because the message it sends. That the Republican Party has this wing of neocons that have been kind of hanging on to their influence in different ways. The kind of Lindsay Graham type, Marker Rubio type approach. What this kind of solidifies is, no, the future of the Republican Party foreign policy is

isolationist. It's autocratic. It is against, you know, it's America first. It's devoid of values. It's very tariff-based and protectionist, you know, very interesting. anti-trade, no free trade agreements, that kind of stuff. So I think we're seeing the complete transformation of the Republican Party into this Trump version of America First foreign policy.

And we can't kind of pretend like the other guys are going to come back, you know, whether you like that or not. I think those other guys are, you know, on a shrinking island. Yeah. It's like Paul Ryan just sort of like myself in a think tank. So to the Republican convention, I mean, most of the news yesterday at the RNC, was the VP selection, the reveal of Trump's ear bandage. But we did want to highlight one speaker because we are deeply petty people at the end of the day.

Here's a clip of tech douche and wannabe Twitter Secretary of State, David Sacks, killing all of the energy in the room at the RNC. Then he provoked, yes, provoked the Russians to invade Ukraine with talk of NATO expansion. afterward he rejected every opportunity for peace in ukraine including a deal to end the war just two months after it broke out stirring yeah the best thing about that is this guy for those of you who don't follow us right he's this tech bro PayPal you know rich guy who you you unfortunately tom don't erase his time his time is zenefits well you you drew my attention to this all-in pod a couple of years ago and and and because you were fighting with another guy.

Shamaw. Yeah. He said he didn't, he said that caring about the, the Uyghur genocide was below his line. Oh, that was below his co-host. And then we had David Sacks at Twitter

with Elon Musk, great after he bought it, you know, thinking he's some big tech media executive, but my favorite thing about that speech, and I'll say this as a self-important podcaster, my favorite thing about that speech is, it's a classic example of like a podcaster

who's like, you know what I could do? I could get up in front of a political convention and say what I say in my podcast and everyone would applaud. Wow them. Yeah. Wow, when the Ukraine takes.

What I say to Chanf, you know, at the All-In studio is going to, like, kill at the convention. It's absolutely going to slay. And no, it turns out this guy has no qualification to be a politician, a political figure. The only reason he has a speaking slot is he's probably pledged to give $50 million to some super PAC. You know, he probably went into the convention harboring dreams of being like, I don't know, the secretary of commerce or something. Drafted to run for the Senate. Yeah, yeah. And he came out of there, you know.

never going to get an appointment to anything, so it was enjoyable. Yeah, no, he definitely does have done the, this is a little fantasy as a equivalent of me, like, imagining I go see a band. And they're like, can anyone play guitar and you get called on stage? And he's do a face melting solo for him. It was, you know, a little speech of a six minutes speech about abandoning Ukraine. I think you sent me the blog item. I was like, everyone's now talking to each other over him and quietly booing.

So anyway, Ben, as long as we're kind of in our petty section and talking about enemies of the pod, Let's talk about Senator Bob Menendez Democrat from New Jersey. He's had a corruption trial. So on Tuesday, Menendez was found guilty on all 16 counts. That included bribery, fraud, and acting as a foreign agent on behalf of Egypt and obstruction. As listeners may recall, prosecutors said Menendez took bribes worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in the form of gold bars, cash and even a Mercedes while he was the Democrat leader on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He did this in exchange for basically doing political favors for the Egyptians. His wife is also on trial, but that has been postponed because she's undergoing breast cancer treatment.

So Menendez's sentencing is scheduled for October 29th, and he has now made history as the first senator in U.S. history to be charged as a foreign agent. Earlier today, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said, quote, in light of this guilty verdict, Senator Menendez must now do what it's right for his constituents, the Senate in our country, and resign. Amen to that, Chuck. Yeah. Well, I mean, with all due respect, and I do respect Chuck Schumer a lot, like, you probably should have done that a while ago. But look, I mean, the deliberations I noticed took less than the closing arguments. I mean, this was not a hard case to crack.

Cold bars in your closet. Yeah. Not subtle. But look, the point is this guy has always been fundamentally corrupt, and we've talked about the kind of impact he's had. I mean, this does, in terms of Latin America policy, I think, you know, he was the biggest impediment to changing policy with Cuba. But it wouldn't beyond that. Like, he would block the confirmation of any ambassadors who, in any way, shape, or form. I mean, we can say this now. Someone I know, you know, who worked with me on Cuba, but was just a foreign service officer. She was nominated for

something, was held up forever by Menendez, just out of kind of, you know, grievance with the fact that she worked following instructions as a foreign service officer on something related to Cuba. So, like, you know, his memory was long, and that impacted the ability to literally, you know, appoint people to certain positions. So, you know, hopefully what this means is that there's not this kind of weird shadow over particularly policy in Latin America, where Menendez is really blocking any effort to change and challenge certain status quo assumptions that have failed on Cuba, on Venezuela, on other things. And by the way, removing some hypocrisy,

you know, Menendez would talk a lot about democracy in Cuba, while literally taking gold bars from the dictatorship in Egypt. No, noted free and fair. And everybody knew that Menendez was like a, you know, maybe we didn't know about the gold bars, but, you know, was talking out of his mouth

on one thing on democracy and then in league with a lot of these creeps and the other. So it's a good day. It's good. And the good news for the people in New Jersey is, and Andy Kim is slated to be, like, just a tremendous senator, you know?

Fantastic human. being will be an incredible U.S. Senator. Yeah. Let's hope he's elected by a huge margin. Yeah, I think he should be. And by the way, someone who has like a great future, a young guy, a lot of national security background, worked on the NSC with me. So, you know, Andy Kim, hopefully we're here 20 years from now.

He's like a leader in the Senate. Yeah, check up his campaign. Consider donating. All right, let's take a quick break. And we come back. We are going to talk about Gaza. All right, Ben, so life in Gaza is just is still an unrelenting nightmare for people there. On Saturday, the IDF launched an airstrike that they said targeted a senior Hamas leader named

Muhammad Def. Def had been the leader of Hamas's armed military wing for about 20 years. According to the Washington Post, he is a key architect of Hamas's long-term military campaign against Israel and is known for deploying suicide bombers and prioritizing the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. So a very bad, very bad guy. He's also believed to be a key architect of the October 7th attacks. It is still not clear if this strike killed him. But there are reports that Israel did their best. They used five 2,000 pound bombs in that strike. There's other news reports, including one of the New York Times, that describe it as five, quote, U.S. made precision-guided bombs, but they dropped an unbelievable amount of ordinance in an area that Israel had designated as a humanitarian zone.

And according to the Gaza Health Ministry, these airstrikes killed 90 people, and 300 were wounded, including a bunch of kids. So just horrific civilian toll from this strike. Last week at his post-NATO press conference, President Biden seemed confident that a ceasefire deal between Hamas and Israel was imminent, but unfortunately, once again, it still is not materialized.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is in D.C. a week from the release of this episode, according to several Israeli press outlets over the weekend he spent a couple hours at his weekly cabinet meeting, talking about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, and then complaining about incitement against him, which many news outlets think is basically a pretext to get his attorney general to shut down protests. So there's just like no good news coming out of God's event. Yeah, it's, it's kind of awful how status quo this all feels. And,

and, you know, with everything else it's happening, this kind of slips from the front burner of attention. On Muhammad Dyev, I mean, bad guy, absolutely in the leadership of Hamas. And, you know, in any read of kind of international law would totally be a legitimate target, right? But the problem is there's not like a terrorist in the world that you should kill that many civilians to take out. I mean, I've said this before in this podcast. Like one of the considerations that Obama had in sending a Navy SEAL team in to get bin Laden is if we blew up that compound, it would kill like 15 people. And that was Bin Laden's family. And I mean, so you say what you will about

the U.S., but the idea that that's an acceptable level of civilian casualties. It just shows you kind of what's wrong with the whole mentality that just completely devalues Palestinian civilian life and international law, because to say that it's acceptable to drop five, 2,000-pound bombs on a lot of civilians because you think this guy might be there is just, it's the wrong mentality. and it's what we've seen throughout this war. Just to add to that, I mean, later in the show, I talk with Seth Moulton, who reminded me of General Stan McChrystal's insurgent math. Stan McChrystal, who was like the head of Joint Special Operations Command, right?

Like one of the bigger badasses the U.S. military is cranked out. He found that for every one innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies. That was his math coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan. So if you have airstrikes where you're killing, you know, hundreds of innocent people to go after one senior Hamas leader. That math does not, it doesn't not make you safer in the long run. Yeah, you're not thinking about the, you know, dignity of civilian life. You're not thinking about international opinion. You're not thinking about the long-term circumstance in Gaza and whether this helps make that

better. You're kind of just thinking about vengeance in a way. And it relates to the ceasefire piece because, you know, faced with the reality that, you know, they're not going to, quote, unquote, destroy Hamas. You can see probably these really leadership thinking, like, what could we do that can allow us to declare victory? And that's basically killing this guy and then Sinwar, the leader of Hamas. And so maybe really opening up the aperture in that regard.

I mean, the ceasefire, the body language that administration was incredibly confident, if not certain, that there was going to be ceasefire. Yeah. That it had been agreed to. That was my read to. Fully agreed to, right? And Biden kind of teed that up at the press conference after NATO.

And for the first time in a while, I actually expected something to be announced. But it feels like BB always scuttles it at the end, you know, and that whatever, you know, some negotiators may get together and agree to something. But when it comes up to BB, it just gets killed. Or maybe it goes to Sin Mar 2 and gets parked there. So I don't know where we are on this, you know. And your point about BB2, it's another thing. about this era of assassination, which is this environment can become a pretext for a lot of undemocratic shit.

You know, I mean, we talked about the need for a better secret service protection, but, you know, it can become the means for shutting down protests, shutting down dissent. That might be, unfortunately, a ramification of what we've been seeing. Yeah. President Biden, you know, Gaza, as we've talked about for months, has been a big issue on the campaign trail for President Biden. He was asked about his Gaza policy in a recent interview with Complex Magazine. Here's a clip. You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.

And the Zionist is about whether or not Israel is a safe haven for Jews because of their history of how they've been persecuted. Are you a Zionist? Yes. Now, you'll be able to make a lot of things. And people don't know what Zionists is. Do you know what a Zionist is? I just ask questions. I don't answer.

By the way, I'm the guy that did more for the Palestinian community than anybody. I'm the guy that opened up all the assets. I'm the guy that made sure that I got the Egyptians to open the border and led good goods to. I wish he had just explained what a Zionist is to the interviewer rather than pop quiz him. And I think the part at the end that you've done more for the Palestinians is probably not, it's not going to read as credible to, I think, most of the audience listening, which is, you know, young people. Yeah. I mean, I'm going to frame this as constructive. criticism and not just criticism. And I want to say to listeners, as, you know, you said before and you said in PSA,

like people who deeply believe in Joe Biden believe he should be our nominee that would totally respect that view. You know, people can have different views about that. But what we all should want, right, is for the Democratic nominee to win. Right. So I'm going to frame it in this way. Like, one, if part of what you're trying to do is appeal to younger constituencies, That's why I did that interview, right? And speak to constituencies alienated by your Gaza policy. One, you're not going to convince them that you've done a lot for the Palestinian people, right? Like, getting defensive like that, you have to acknowledge where they are.

You know, I understand that a lot of people are deeply upset by what's happened in Gaza. So am I. You know, pivoting to, you know, I've done more for the Palestinians. That's the people's ears just shut off. the very people you're trying to reach stop listening as soon as he said that, right? It's not credible. They also know that the U.S. is supplying

all of the bombs that are getting dropped on Gaza. Well, obviously it's not credible. And it speaks to kind of a bunker mentality where I'm sure he does think, wow, I'd make a lot of phone calls to open some crossings to get some aid in Egypt. But the person looking at them from the outside sees the bombs that you gave

and sees all the aid that hasn't gotten through. You know, and you're not. not going to get from just a purely pragmatic political standpoint, you're not only going to not reach the audience, the audience is going to shut you out and think that you're not respecting them. And that's the other thing about, you know, even the way he went at the Zionism question, you know, do you know what it is? Like it just, that's not going to, what vote is, the point of that interview, Tommy and I'll ask, put you the question to you.

I assume the point of that interview is to convince young voters who are on the fence about Joe Biden to vote for Joe Biden, right? Like, why is that approach? Do you think there's a single person that would have gone in skeptical of Joe Biden been like, you know what? Like, I, you know, now I've changed my mind and support him, you know?

No, I mean, I assume they did this interview with Complex because they wanted to reach young voters and young voters of color in particular. Yeah. Because the Trump team is very clear about their strategy. They are trying to peel off young men of color between like 18 and 30. Yeah.

That's their goal in targets. I think doing this interview is very smart. Joe Biden is a really smart team around. It was super smart. Like, this was a great idea, a good place for him. You mean, you don't think Joe Biden watches complex? Joe Biden, go on hot ones. No, no, I mean, I think he's doing the right thing.

Like, picking these. Joe Biden and hot ones is scared though. I know. Like, doing the interview is smart, but like, it's a messenger problem. And, yeah, no, I look, just to be cards on the table, all I care about is winning. Yeah. I care about it's beating Donald Trump. I had a reporter call me a very nice reporter, very smart reporter who I respect a lot and was like, I'm doing a story about how a lot of people are

saying that Joe Biden should step aside because, you know, they have an emotional experience with an aging parent and this feels like that. And I was like, no, I got nothing there. I got an emotional experience losing to Donald Trump once. I don't want to repeat it. Yeah, yeah. All I give you show up. Yeah. Yeah. So good idea. The execution was the problem. Yeah. And, uh, but it does, on Gaza, it does, you know, you learn something from these interviews. And it speaks, you know, I think he seems to believe that. I've nobody's onboard for the Palestinians than I have. And it's, uh, that's an alarming window into a bunker mentality that is kind of missing. Yes. Because on some level, I'm sure he has spent, yeah, he doesn't spend a lot of time. Hundreds of hours being like, BB, let more aid through, right? And no one else in the world is probably, done what he's done to get more trucks in or whatever. It doesn't mean it's sufficient.

Yeah, exactly. That's exactly. DC, like, you experience this too, Ben, in comms. People in DC are so focused on, like, inputs and not outputs or outcomes. You know what I mean? Like, whatever, something would happen in the world. Administration tries to get credit for it. And you do, like, a TikTok story where you do the sort of the backdrop for how a thing

went down. And you tell the reporters about how many meetings you held and calls and interagency, this and that. And it's just like bullshit. All that matters is did you infect the outcome in a way that matters or not? Yeah. And I admit to being guilty of this. Oh, me too. I'll frame it this way. I love TikTok stories. Which is, well, no, but it's also that you you get, you start to feel sorry for yourself, right? You're working really hard on intractable problems. Everybody's criticizing you. Nobody's aware of all the things you've done. You've been an X number of meetings. Things are a little bit better than they would have been

because of the stuff that you're doing. But I would always try to, and, you know, maybe I'd encourage the Biden people to do this, like, and I say this from having been in the wrong place on this at times, I always would be corrected by meeting with people outside of the bubble of politics. So, for instance, you know, Syria, like, is a horrible problem where I think Obama got a lot of criticism.

Some of it was fair, but some felt unfair, and we were working really hard on that, and we were doing, you know, we got some chemical weapons out and we got some aid in, and why don't they give us credit for that? And then, you know, I'd get deeper and deeper into that bunker mentality. And then I'd be in like a meeting with people that were like, you know, victims of torture. Yeah. And my family was killed.

Yeah. And all of a sudden you're like, oh, shit. I lost the thread here. The story is not like, I'm not the victim of the Gaza war. Like I say this having been there. You know, like, and that Biden kind of, you know, I heard that mindset a bit in that answer. Yeah, I did too. We got a few more things. We'll try to go a little faster because. That's just fun talking about the convention.

It's fun talking about JD. So this week we saw presidential and parliamentary elections in Rwanda, but there was not a ton of suspense about the outcome. Provisional results so that President Paul Kagame has won 99% of the vote, which is the same vote share when he was reelected in 2017. Congratulations. Amazing results are. Hard fought win.

Kagame has been president since 2000 and sort of a leading force in the country's politics since 1994, the 1994 genocide. He did have some competition. There were six candidates banned from running by the Electoral Commission. There were two opposition candidates who were allowed to run against him, the same ones that were allowed to run in 2017. So sort of a fake opposition. Rwanda currently has about 3,000 troops in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic

of Congo fighting alongside the rebel group M23 to gain control of the minerals in the region. M23 says they're fighting for the rights of Congolese, Tutsi's a minority group with Rwandan routes. According to a UN report, a lot of people are concerned this could snowball into a wider regional conflict. So, Ben, I don't know that Kagame got 99% of the vote, but it is also no surprise that Rwandans would vote for stability, especially when not really given any option the government cracks down on or kills a lot of its political opponents. But any thoughts on how the U.S. can or should work with someone like Kagame for another five years, given that he's just clearly an autocrat and there's nothing we can do about it?

Well, you know, he broke the constitutional term limits when Obama was president. We made this effort to kind of get him to step aside. And we made some arguments that might sound familiar. You'll be celebrated for stepping down, being the right thing for your country. And George Washington. And he said, thank you. You know, fuck off. But to take it seriously, you know, there's been Democratic backsliding Africa as in everywhere.

Some of it is like of the coup variety. but some of it is a genuine belief. Kagame matters more than just Rwanda for two reasons. One, I know some very smart, you know, entrepreneurs in Africa or people even in politics in Africa who say, Kagame is a good model, you know, like he, you sure he's an autocrat, but like, you know, have the parliament's women, the streets are clean, like the growth rates are good, the foreign assistance flows in, the economy's growing. and he kind of has come to represent this model for an African leader who's like a benign,

you know, the positive spin would be he's like a benign autocrat, you know, just trying to, you know, hold the country together. I think the negative piece, though, is not just in the persecution of the political opposition, which is obvious, but it's what you said, too. Like, he's meddled in the DRC in ways that have cost lots of lives. Like, it's not all benign, you know? Like, there's malign stuff happening in terms of human rights at home and in terms of neighboring countries. And I think the U.S. has to focus on that behavior. Like, we're not going to

persuade Kagame to become a Democrat, a small D-democrat. So here I'm actually arguing to be pragmatic. Like, I'd be focused on trying to get him to moderate what he's doing in other countries, trying to get him to say, like, hey, look, man, we get that you're in power. You don't need to, you know, assassinate people in other countries as they've done, you know. So I think the goal for the next five years should be to try to, you know, curb the excesses, as it were. Yeah. Well, Let's turn to Kenya because this is sort of an example of probably what he fears, which is there were several weeks into what has been called the Gen Z protests. These were initially sparked by President William Rudeau's plan to raise taxes on basic goods and services in order to pay off the country's $80 billion in public debt. These demonstrations began peacefully but became violent with some protesters storming and burning part of parliament in late June.

Rudo scrapped the tax plan. He has instituted some cuts in government spending. But the demonstrations are continuing against the police violence in response to protesters, government corruption, and now Ruto himself, who activists want out of office. According to the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, at least 50 people have been killed in the protests. Hundreds have been detained and interrogated by the government security forces, and 59 people have been abducted and are still missing. Ruto is scrambling to respond to this. Last week, he fired most of his cabinet and promised to hold a national dialogue to ease tensions. He also accepted the resignation of his police chief over his handling of the protests,

but the protests are still going. This Tuesday saw more demonstrations to which the police responded with tear gas, and in one case, by shooting into the crowd. We spoke with two protesters in Kenya. The first manual here from is named Brian, and the second is named Ojango. There are a lot of questions going on in this country about the loans that we have been taking from the World Bank, from the IMF, from countries like China. Where does this money go to?

Because it has not served the purpose. The government or the politicians have been stealing this money. Taking this money to offshore accounts, we want this money back in this country. People are demanding for accountability from his cabinet. There is also the need of ensuring that the legislature and the judiciary, the Ethics and Corruption Commission are independent. The executive has been interfering with these institutions.

The legislature has been dancing to the tune of the executive each and every day. And people are demanding for the independence of these institutions and accountability. Above all, we have to ensure that the Parliament is disbanded and we come up with a new government a government of the people by the people themselves. For my personal safety

it's a matter of having the hope and determination that when I go out to protest and match that my voice and my turn out will make an impact whether I come back home

alive or not I think it's up to nature to decide. But definitely personally, I'm so much prepared whether to be abducted or killed. I'm so much prepared that we are fighting for a better country. So, Ben, we've talked about a lot of protest movements on this show all over the world in the last several years. As often happens, this one has gone from demands about tax policy to calling for the leaders. to go. Do you have any hope for this one that might be successful? I mean, what's been interesting so far is that Ruto has actually been trying to respond to the

protesters, right? And so what that guy said about corruption is exactly true, I think, you know, that there's fabulously rich people, you know, who are mooching off of these foreign loans, which, by the way, too, though, the international community is not clean in this either because, first of all, I think, you know, there have been some debt traps that Kenya's been in, so we should have probably forgiven some of this debt. Now, one of the reasons why the debt's probably not forgiven is people might know that some of it's being stolen, and so they don't want to kind of create that culture either. But the point is that the tax bill touched the nerve because it was passing on some of the fiscal, you know, hole that the country's in to ordinary people

when these elites are still getting rich. And they know they're corrupt. And that is like that, that is like gasoline, you know, that's a gliding a match on gasoline, right? And so that's what the taxing was. And where the protesters are clearly right is to just be like, we're sick of this, you know, like this corruption has got to go. What I worry about is, you know, I'm totally sympathetic with the protest you heard from, but, you know, you getting rid of the entirety of the government, you know, is that's a huge vacuum, you know. And so the question is, can they find some space in between, you know, tolerating the status quo, not making structural changes and kind of trying to burn it all down and then it becomes a kind of, you know, competition for power. That can become

ethnic and Kenyan ways that we've seen violence from in the past. So the hope has got to be that there can be some process, you know, that leads to a totally different kind of government and fundamental reform, but that doesn't kind of open up too big of a vacuum. Yeah. And I think what's interesting about this protest movement so far is the protest just seem more linked by age than any political ideology or political figure or leader. So it has led to this. Which is hopeful. Yeah, it is hopeful. Another hopeful story as we're getting to the end here. So some more good news. out of Africa from Gambia. So the country's parliament rejected an attempt to overturn a ban on female genital mutilation

that had been put in place in 2015. For the last year, there has been increasing political pressure by Muslim clerics to overturn that ban by arguing that this horrific practice is somehow religious in nature. And a few months ago, it looked very likely to happen. But, again, to protesters, I mean, women's groups launched a massive campaign over the last few months and ultimately succeeded in keeping that ban in place. So another like huge victory for activism in protesters in Africa. Yeah. And it's a it's an even bigger story than Gambia because the people who follow this issue of FGM. Like your wife and. Yeah, exactly. That's why I know about

this. Yeah, I should say like it's I've heard about the Gambian law in my house. And the worry was it be the first dominant of fall that there's been there were all these strides made to prohibit FGM. Now there's been a big pushback against that. And if the Gambian law passed, it could have been the first one of many. And so part of hopefully what these activists did is they kind of stopped this kind of retro movement there. Let's hope they did. But it does, it shows, again, like this is not the most small, the democratic culture. That movement was clearly big enough to overcome, you know, pretty powerful interests. Yeah. Two very stupid things to close, Ben. So first, it's exciting to know that we live in a time where we might have seen the most expensive wedding ever.

This was a wedding in India. The groom is the guy named Anand Ambani, the son of India's richest man, a billionaire estimated to be worth $123 billion. So I'm going to get Bernie Sanders on the phone. And the bride is a Radica merchant, the daughter of a pharmaceutical tycoon. This three-day wedding took place at a convention center that can seat 16,000 people. The guest list included all these celebrities, Kim and Chloe Kardashian, Nick Jonas, Priyanka Chopra, John Cena, as well as Boris Johnson, I guess. Tony Blair, Hillary Clinton. Come on, Hill, though. Hillary Clinton goes to all these.

She loves weddings. She loves a good wedding. She loves love. Well, you know, the ones that, uh... Yeah. And even Prime Minister and Rendemote, I think, stopped by. According to the Washington Post, every groomsman got a $200,000 watch. I couldn't pronounce the brand name, but it was one of those.

ones you've heard of. And people were complaining on social media about flight delays into Mumbai because of all the private jets that were coming in. And it turns out the party actually started months and months ago. There was a cruise through Europe. There had been events with performances by Rihanna, Katie Perry, Justin Bieber, and the Backstreet Boys. Guess how much the estimated cost was?

Of the wedding itself? Of all the shit, I guess. I'm going to say $50 million. $600 million. What? All right, all right, all right. I have some commentary on this. And you and I were like, should we have an open bar?

Well, exactly. I mean, everybody likes a good Indian wedding. You know, we all have Indian friends. They like how seriously they take it. But this is a little extreme. You know, the obvious point being that this is also a country in which, you know, a lot of people are, you know, barely living on like a, you know. What was the book? You told me to read.

That was just incredible. Yeah, behind the Beautiful Forever's by Catherine Booth. Yes. one of the great books of the 21st century. But this guy, he's tied with Modi. You know, Modi, Mr. Man of the People, you know, is kind of hanging out with people who think this is a good use of money. I will also say, if you go back and Google some of the names that you said

and past Indian lavish weddings, it's always kind of the same Americans turning up, you know, both the performers and the celebrities and the politicians. It's kind of funny. Like, what do you think Kim Kardashian's appearance fee is? Because these people don't go for free. Right. How much do you think Kim made to just be at that wedding? So much.

I mean, I don't want to say. I think Justin Bieber got $10 million. What a life where people just pay you like eight figures to come to a really good party. Yeah. I think Bieber, according to something I just Googled, the Hindustan Times, Bieber got $10 million for a pre-wedding party. But I'd say also to connect this to like all the other topics today. like this is why people want to burn everything down, you know?

Like, even the list of people that were at the wedding, it's like what people think globalization has become. Like globalization, this is why J.D. Vance is vice president. This is a vague Ramoswamy's fever dream. Literally this wedding is why J.D. Vance is vice president to the Republican Party because people want to burn that down and they're willing to like listen to any fucking lunatic who wants to burn it down too, you know? Yeah. Finally, Ben, there is no shortage of dumb or tone-deaf people in this world.

And thanks to social media, they like to show their asses a lot for all of us to see. So there's like the cringe variety. There's David Guetta's DJ set to end racism or he dedicated some song to George Floyd's family. There was the time Jake Paul got caught walking around a store as it was being looted. Brands do dumb things in 2015, Krispy Cream. A Krispy Cream store in England promoted something called the Krispy Kreme Club, which they short-handed as KKK Wednesday. Didn't go well.

So the bar for something that like an influencer or a brand does shocking me or being shockingly stupid is very high. That said, my jaw still hit the floor when I read about an influencer and former contestant on The Bachelor named Anna Redmond, who posted a bunch of Instagram stories about the outfits she was planning to wear during a trip to Poland, including the dress and sneaker combo for her visit to Auschwitz. the Nazi concentration camp where over a million people were murdered. The photo was captioned, quote, the best packing hack is somebody going to match my freak? Yeah, that's where like

whatever advisor told her that it was a good idea for your, you know, public profile to go to Auschwitz was not synced up with her like fashion advisor, you know? Yeah, your social media person. Yeah, you got to get like the social media team under one roof, you know, right.

Yeah, you need synergy. You need synergy because, yeah, we don't need to see the Auschwitz outfit. No. So, sadly, the commenters did not match her freak. My question was, is this better or worse than the time that Justin Bieber, coming back up again, wrote, quote, Anne was a good girl. Hopefully she would have been a believer in the guest book at Anne Frank's house. Oh, my God, I forgot that happened.

Now, that's still the best one of words. Yeah, I think I was probably. Because also, like, the same thing, like... he had an advisor who was like, hey, Justin, you know, because, you know, don't come at me, Bieber Hive, but I don't think he had the idea of like, you know what, I see I'm an Amsterdam. I want to carve out some time to go to Anne Frank House. Clearly someone was like, you know, would be great for you, Justin, is you're not taking

seriously enough and, like, you should go to Anne Frank. And then he just undermines the whole thing at the end there at the guestbook. She would have been a fan of me. That's what he wrote. Incredible. I love celebrities. Okay, that's it for the news portion of the show, but please do stick around for my conversation with Seth Moulton. We talk about JD Vance's foreign policy.

We talk about Gaza and how his experience doing three tours in Iraq informed his concerns about the IDF's military campaign. We talk about Secret Service and their failures and Joe Biden's candidacy. So lots of cover there and worth your time. Before we go to break, Ben, I just wanted to give another shout out to Pazave the UK. They did such an amazing job covering. the lead up to the elections and how the new labor government is, you know, affecting global democracy generally. And I know they're going to keep holding labor's feet to the fire to make sure they deliver on all those provinces. So subscribe to Pot Save the UK. You can hear Ben on it.

Yeah, no, I love talking to those guys and I loved going on after the election. And they're really, like, to be that funny and that smart at the same time is not an easy thing. And they just, like, have such great chemistry. And it's just one of my favorite listens every week. Also, if you happen to be in Wisconsin, come see us. We, Pod Save a. America is on tour this Friday, July 19th. We got Ben Wickler, co-host Aaron Haynes, and then on the 20th, love it or leave it is also in Madison, Wisconsin. Great shows. Go to crooked.com slash events to get tickets. Joining me now is Congressman Seth Moulton from the great state of Massachusetts. Commonwealth. Did I already get this wrong? Great Commonwealth. Come on. A native should know that,

I corrected myself quickly. He is also a Marine Corps veteran who served four tours in Iraq. Congressman, great to see you. Good to see you, too. Before we geek out on policy, I was just wondering what you thought about the news from yesterday that Donald Trump had selected J.D. Vance, who is also a Marine Corps veteran to be his vice presidential nominee. He's a Marine Corps veteran. I mean, a combat correspondent. He didn't do much fighting. And he doesn't exactly uphold Marine values. In fact, not even close to it. I consider him one of the biggest hypocrites in Congress, someone who wrote a book completely contradicted by his candidacy. Someone. Someone. who assailed Trump before he became a sycophant. This is a man who does Trump's bidding, and I suspect that is the sole reason he picked him, or at least the most important reason.

He doesn't want another Mike Pence who might actually stand up for the Constitution when push comes to shove. Yeah, he's definitely seems like he's sucking out to all the right people, all the right billionaires, opening the doors, people like Peter Thiel. President Biden oversaw last week would seem like a pretty successful NATO summit.

Tell me if you disagree. there is a ton of concern in Europe about what a possible Trump victory in November could mean for U.S. support for Ukraine and for NATO generally. Do you think J.D. Vance's addition to the ticket adds to those concerns at all? Well, only in the sense that he's just going to do whatever Trump tells him to do, right? And Trump is a massive danger to our national security. While everyone is so focused on the dangers Trump presents domestically to our democracy, And I agree. Those are some of the greatest concerns we've ever faced in American history. I think the most immediate concerns for just our safety, the safety of the world are actually internationally, what he would mean for national security.

Because he's going to give Putin a green light to run all over Ukraine and essentially say, if you want to do it with a NATO country next, be my guest. He's going to give Xi Jinping a green light to invade Taiwan, not just because of the chaos he'll come. created home, but because he's literally said he won't defend Taiwan, which is the single worst thing you could possibly say when it comes to deterring and preventing a war over Taiwan in the Pacific, something that could literally result in World War III. And then in Gaza, Trump will just do whatever Netanyahu wants. And of course, Netanyahu wants to expand and widen the war to keep himself out of prison, a theme that he and Trump share. So this is a very dangerous man for our national security. And when I think about just the safety of my kids, like preventing a war that could literally

harm them, I think those are the most dangerous concerns, at least for me, that come out of a Trump presidency. Vance just adds fuel the fire. Yeah. I'm really glad you brought up Gaza, because that's what I wanted to talk with you about the most, because last year, literally just days after the October 7 terrorist attack, you wrote an op-ed for CNN about the last lessons you learned in Iraq and how they might apply to an Israeli ground invasion in Gaza. And I just reread it. And man, it was a prescient piece. You wrote, quote, Israel is about to start an invasion of Gaza with the same mission we had in those early days in Iraq, defeat the enemy or Netanyahu's words, crush and eliminate Hamas. But the lesson America quickly learned in Iraq and Afghanistan was that

you have to have a plan for the day after. Can you elaborate a bit on those lessons, what concerned you, what you learned in Iraq and what you think the Israelis have gotten right or wrong since you wrote that piece and since the invasion started? Well, the Israelis have repeated just about every mistake that we made in Iraq and Afghanistan. At a big picture level, they just thought they could win this war militarily, a war that's fundamentally a counterinsurgency where their enemy, Hamas, is embedded with a population that they need to win over to succeed. And that's the big thing that we missed in the early days of Iraq. See, we went in just defeating the Iraqi army, right?

And I was a junior lieutenant. I didn't know any better. That made sense to me. It was strange when after we entered the occupation phase, people said, well, we got to start paying the Iraqi army. I remember thinking to myself, we just defeated these guys. Why would we start paying them? It quickly became apparent why?

Because we had to win over the civilian population. We had to prevent. an insurgency from being created or recruited. Of course, the Iraqi Army was the prime place to recruit an insurgency, so get them on our payroll before they're on the bad guys' payroll, right? Fundamentally, we didn't truly change our strategy until General Petraeus took over in Iraq in 2007. He brought the counterinsurgency manual that he had co-authored with General Mattis during his time at Fort Leavenworth with him. And he really changed our strategy. He said, we're going to live out with the population.

We're not just going to go on these Vietnam-style search-and-destroy missions, where we just try to kill a bunch of terrorists and then come back to our big safe base at night. We're actually going to prove to the Iraqi people that we're there to protect them, to win them over. We're going to build schools. We're going to win their hearts and minds. And we're going to actually turn them against the insurgency. See, that was the only way to actually plant the seeds of a democracy so that we could go home.

Because otherwise, with every mission that we ran and every innocent civilian caught in the crossfire, we risked just recruiting more enemies to the cause. This is the insurgent math, the term that General McChrystal popularized in Afghanistan when he actually had a team study this. And he said that for every innocent civilian you kill, you recruit somewhere between eight and ten terrorists to the cause because all their friends and family members say, all right, I hate the Americans now. I'm going to join the opposition. So that's what we learned in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you look at what Israel is doing, they're doing it all wrong. They're just trying to kill terrorists at the expense of thousands and thousands of innocent civilians. They have no plan whatsoever to establish a political day after that not just Israelis, but that Palestinians can believe in too. They're not doing anything to actually really support the civilian population to literally win them over to their side. In fact, they're just totally alienating them. And support for Hamas is much higher today than it was just before October 7th. So that's a mouthful. Sorry.

No, look, I appreciate it because you were saying it, before the ground invasion started and you're not shying away from the reality now. And boy, 10 to 1, I mean, that math is pretty terrifying. If I'm an Israeli civilian and you think, I don't know, 15,000, 20,000, 25,000 innocent civilians have been killed in this war. We don't really know. It's pretty bad mass. And it does not work in Israel's favor. And after the horrific barbaric attacks of October 7th, as someone who's always supported Israel, I'm proud to support Israel in its fight against Hamas.

I want Israel to win. I want Israel to defeat Hamas because defeating Hamas is important not just for Israel's security, but Palestinian security and freedom. You're never going to have freedom for Palestinians if you have a terrorist organization running the country. So everybody should be on the same page with defeating Hamas. And that's why it's so concerning that what Israel is doing is not defeating Hamas. In fact, by some measures, they're just empowering. the next generation of Hamas, much like our early efforts against al-Qaeda just gave rise to ISIS and Iraq.

Yeah. So, I mean, we're now nine months into this war. Neither side seems to be able to get over the finish line with a seat fire and hostage release deal. The Israeli military is openly venting about Netanyahu and his government's failure to figure out, you know, a day after the war plan for how Gaza will be governed, let alone how territory will be held in the interim that has been cleared by the IDF. There's reports in the New York Times that the IDF wants to ceasefire because they think they need to reconstitute their forces because there may be another war with Hezbollah in the north. Given that context and like that the toothpaste is well out of the tube in terms of an insurgency and, you know, all the challenges you mentioned earlier, what do you think the best path forward is to end this current conflict in a way that does the least damage? Well, it's a good question. and a lot of people would say that it's too far gone. By the way, all the criticisms that you cited coming from the IDF, I mean, I'm saying the same thing, right?

So all of my early criticisms are just being echoed by IDF and also intelligence, Israeli intelligence officials today. It's not too late to turn it around, though. I mean, that's the lesson that we learned in Iraq. General Petraeus arrived in 2007 to really truly implement a counterfeit. an insurgency strategy. He had to turn the whole ship of the U.S. military, but we went into Iraq in 2003. So we'd messed it up for four years, essentially. We had some places where it was

successful. I think we actually did well in Najaf in 2004, for example. That was a model to be used for the rest of the country. But basically, we screwed it up for four years, and yet we were able to turn it around. And as imperfect as the Iraq war was, and we probably should never have gone in the first place, Iraq is actually a functioning democracy today. So it's far from perfect. A lot of innocent people, including, of course, a lot of brave Americans lost their lives there. But it has worked. And I think that should give a little bit of hope to the situation in Gaza. It's not too late for Israel to turn this around. Yeah. Hopefully after a change in the civilian in leadership starting at the very top. Speaking of which, Bibi Denyahu is going to come address

a joint session of Congress next week. Do you guys have any sense of what his message is, what he's going to say? And is there any opportunity for members of Congress like yourself to meet with him directly and offer some of this blunt feedback? I've not heard of such an opportunity. I would certainly hope so. We don't know what he's going to say. We don't know if he is going to give a unifying speech to try to solidify bipartisan support for Israel, or whether he's just going to go on a partisan attack against President Biden. I mean, literally everything is on the table here. And that's frightening. I'm going to attend the speech respectfully, as I do for every foreign leader who comes to visit. But of course, there are a lot of my colleagues who plan to boycott.

And at the end of the day, what Netanyahu is doing is not in Israel's interest. That's the problem. I'm a huge Israel supporter. I am very much against Prime Minister Netanyahu. And the first fundamental reason why is because I don't believe he's acting in Israel's interests. And you might say, hey, who am I to judge that? Well, look at his approval rating, folks. Most Israelis seem to think that too. Yeah, yeah. Switching gears here. So, I mean, everyone in the country was shocked over the weekend by this assassination attempt on President Trump. Thank God he was not killed. I mean, he was nearly killed. He was wounded. You have a lot more experience using and firing a weapon. or, you know, securing a location from hostile activities.

I mean, were you as shocked as I was that the Secret Service failed to secure an elevated position that was reportedly 400 to 500 feet away from the stage where Trump was speaking? Yeah, it's absolutely insane. I mean, I saw a number that said 130 yards. Just to put that in perspective, every Marine goes through a rifle qualification

that includes shooting at 500 yards. Wow. I mean, even Marines, who are not going to be in the fight, combat correspondence like J.D. Vance, right? They still have to shoot a rifle at 500 yards, and, you know, I certainly hit the target, right? Yeah.

And so the fact that someone with the same style rifle we use in the Marine Corps would be allowed to get within 130 yards of a former president is shocking, really shocking. Yeah, so I've seen some members, Republicans, actually, say that there should be a select committee of sorts to investigate what happened and maybe, you know, a broader set of failings within the Secret Service organization, which is just sort of at black eye after black eye over the course of, you know, the last decade or two.

Do you think that makes sense? And also just given how fundamental this failure was, do we need the results of an investigation before the Biden administration makes a change? I mean, the problem is that, you know, 10 years ago, this would be easy to say, yes, bipartisan and select committee. Just like, of course, we should have had after January 6th. The environment in Washington has become so politicized that it's not just an easy yes to say that that's the right answer because it will be handled responsibly and well. But clearly there needs to be an investigation. Yeah. It's just unbelievable. Finally, I know you've said that you have enormous respect for President Biden and all that he's accomplished in his first term, but that it's time for

him to step aside and let someone else run against President Trump. Until Saturday, it felt like there was growing momentum in Congress with more people sort of voicing, you know, what you were saying early on. Has that stalled out since Saturday, since this assassination attempt? No, it hasn't stalled out. In fact, very early Sunday morning, the first phone call I got was from a colleague who agrees with me, as the majority of Democrats in Congress do, but like most, hasn't come out and said it publicly. And he just said, what do we do? It's even more urgent now.

I mean, Trump is going to ride this assassination attempt right into the White House. The only chance we have is a change at the top of the ticket. Because, look, I do love President Biden, and his record of service to this country is unbelievable. I mean, he deserves an amazing legacy. But I think he needs to follow in the footsteps of one of our great founding fathers, George Washington,

and be remembered not only for wielding extraordinary power as president of the United States, saving our country from democracy, in his case from the British, in Biden's case from Trump, but by giving that power up, by passing it on. That's what needs to happen right now for Democrats to win. And we started this conversation by just talking about how high the stakes are in this election.

Trump with a blank check from the Supreme Court to run over rights domestically and truly change our democracy for the worst forever. Trump internationally, likely to get us into some horrific war. These are the stakes. And when that's the case, you've got to put everything you can on the table to win. And when your strategy isn't working, you need to change your strategy. You need to acknowledge that and change your strategy. And there's another lesson you learned from the Marines, Tommy. And that is, they drill this into you all the time. It's not about you. So I know how hard this is for President Biden to think about giving up a job that he's done so

well that he's mastered, that he wants to do for another four years to finish the work he's started. But Mr. President, this isn't about you. It's about the future of our country. So let's do the right thing and ensure we have the absolute best chance to win this election. I mean, like, it seems like, look, you talk to hell of a lot more members of Congress than I do, but it seems like what I constantly hear when I talk to members or, you know, read press reports, it's that everyone is saying what you're saying privately, but very few people are willing to say it publicly. Why is it that there's like a handful of, in many cases, more moderate members of Congress,

front line members with challenging re-elections who are having the courage to come out and say this stuff publicly that they're also saying privately. Like, is it intimidation? Is it general fear? What do you think is happening here? I don't know exactly. I mean, I think it's general fear. Listen, I tried the private route. I made phone calls for days to everyone I could reach in the inner circle, right, to say privately to the president, please do the right? thing here. I only went public when those didn't work and when I decided I owed an honest explanation of my position to my constituents. Maybe it's because moderate or used to being in tougher races and just have realized that the American public wants honesty, that you can't just play the partisan

game, you've got to be honest with the people that you represent. I'm not sure. I don't have a theory on that. But I just think this is not a time for being polite. This is a time for doing the right thing for your country. When you're home in Massachusetts, are you getting feedback? Are people telling you on the street? Like, screw you. Don't to say that about Biden or thank you.

Like, how's it going? I have not been stopped by more people on the street coming up to me and saying thank you than since I went with Peter Meyer to Afghanistan. Another time when I just felt it was important to be honest and to try to problem to solve, fix a problem that everyone knew needed fixing, something that was broken. And that's just where we are again today.

So I didn't make any political calculation going into this. I just decided this is the right thing to do, to be honest. But the response has actually been unbelievably positive. Well, that's great to hear. Congressman Moulton, thank you for doing the show. Thanks for your candor on this political issue and also about the war before it started. I think it would be nice if people would try to learn some of the lessons you laid out

beforehand next time, but, you know, time will tell. Great to see you, Tommy. Thanks for having me on. Thanks again to Seth Moulton for joining the show and talk to you guys next week. If you want to get ad-frey episodes, exclusive content, and more, consider joining our Friends of the Pod subscription community at crooked.com slash friends. Don't forget to follow Crooked Media on Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter for more original content, host takeovers and other community events, plus find Pod Save the World on YouTube for access to full episodes,

bonus content, and more. And if you're as opinionated as us, consider dropping a review. Pod Save the World is a Crooked Media production. Our executive producers are me, Tommy Vitor, Ben Rhodes, and Reed Cherlin. Our producer is Alona Minkowski, and associate producer is Ashley Mizuo. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick, audio support by Kyle Seaglin and Charlotte Landis. Our studio technician is David Tolls. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn and Phoebe Bradford, who upload our episodes and videos to YouTube.com slash Pod Save the World.