The Bulwark Podcast - A.B. Stoddard: McCarthy's Month from Hell

Episode Date: September 13, 2023

The speaker is trying to sate the MAGA wing with a sham impeachment, and maybe a government shutdown, but it will never be satisfied. Plus, Ignatius steps into the fray on Biden, and a badly behaved Boebert gets ejected. A.B. Stoddard joins Charlie Sykes. show notes: Lauren Boebert being escorted from a performance of the "Beetlejuice" musical in Denver. https://youtu.be/FSwq_AIg-tE?si=aPteAoF5lPhARiZF https://newrepublic.com/post/175322/democrats-raskin-letter-subpoena-jared-kushner-affinity-partners

If it's a flat or a squeal, a wobble or peel, your tread's worn down or you need a new wheel, wherever you go, you can get it from our Tread Experts. Ensure each winter trip is a safe one for your family. Enjoy them for years with the Michelin X-Ice Snow Tire. Get a $50 prepaid MasterCard with select Michelin tires. Find a Michelin Tread Experts dealer near you at treadexperts.ca slash locations. From tires to auto repair, we're always there at treadexperts dealer near you at TreadExperts.ca slash locations. Landlord telling you to just put on another sweater when your apartment is below 21 degrees?

Are they suggesting you can just put a bucket under a leak in your ceiling? That's not good enough. Your Toronto apartment should be safe and well-maintained. If it isn't and your landlord isn't responding to maintenance requests, RentSafeTO can help. Learn more at toronto.ca slash RentSafeTO. Welcome to the Bulwark Podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. Believe it or not, it is September 13th, 2023, and we are rolling closer to yet another shambolic autumn. And I feel very lucky to be joined by the newest member of Team Bulwark, A.B. Stoddard, who joined us just a couple of days ago.

So welcome back, A.B., in a more formal way. Charlie, it's so wonderful to be with you as always, and I'm just so pumped to be on Team Bulwark. I'm still kind of pinching myself. Well, we have a lot to talk about today. This is another one of those days where you have to look around and go, okay, so should we treat this as a normal political moment, or could we acknowledge that kind of we've broken the glass on all of this? In my newsletter this morning, and by the way, if people who listen to the podcast can also subscribe to my Morning Shots newsletter, I kind of sat back and tried to take a little

stock. Let's review where we're at here on Capitol Hill. We've spent a lot of time talking about the presidential race. But meanwhile, on Capitol Hill in Kevin McCarthy's House of Representatives, you have prominent and influential congressional Republicans who are either advocating or considering ousting and humiliating their own speaker, impeaching the President of the United States, seceding from the Union, defunding the Department of Justice and the FBI, defunding prosecutors, blocking military promotions, defunding the Defense Secretary, that's Mike Lee's idea, abandoning Ukraine, and, here's the cherry, shutting down the whole government. And we haven't even gotten to rallying around the twice impeached,

defeated, disgraced, four-time indicted former president. So, I mean, this is an interesting moment, isn't it? That Kevin McCarthy steps out yesterday and says, okay, despite the fact that just 11 days ago, I said that we would have a vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry. I'm going to go ahead. We are going to have an impeachment inquiry of Joe Biden, even though we don't have any evidence that he's done anything impeachable. So, A.B., you've been watching this for a long time. What's going on? So, Charlie, I wish I had the date, but sometime a long time ago on this podcast, I did say that they would impeach Joe Biden. It was in 2022, sometime last year. is not only demanding that his impeachment be quote-unquote expunged, but that they impeach Joe Biden in retaliation for his impeachments. Of course, the substance of which we're not even

going to get into, of course, he deserved to be impeached and convicted both times. I still lose sleep over it. I still gnash my teeth over it. But this was what the base would demand and what the screamers in the conference would also be championing. And so it was going to come to this. It doesn't matter what it's for. It's now going to be like a hunter-based thing. But not only was it always coming, but it's part of Kevin McCarthy's way of trying to sate them, and they cannot be sated, the fire breathers, while he attempts to govern and help out his moderates so that he sort of maybe thinks it might be possible in 14 months to hold the House.

And that's looking bleak. So as a strategy, it's terrible. But I think he, much like the orange man baby, Kevin McCarthy has to live in the day. He really can't even live in the month. He kind of just has to get through the next hour. And that's what Trump does. I mean, that's the way that Trump's pathological makeup is. But for McCarthy, he literally can't plan out nine days from now. So today he's trying to get a bunch of appropriations bills lumped together and hopes that he can get agreement on them to send them to the Senate while he's giving the go ahead for

this impeachment that is very likely to backfire on them. And he knows that and likely to help out Joe Biden, probably. I think we're going to look back on this as a lifeline because Joe Biden has been flailing. He's had a lot of negative news coverage. You have columns like David Ignatius in the Washington Post saying he shouldn't run for reelection. But what do Republicans do? They decide that this is the moment where they're going to impeach him. We're on the cusp of shutting down the government. And so they're going to have to convince the American public that they're actually serious people. But let's stick with Kevin McCarthy, because I've mocked him for his self-gelding himself into the speakership, but he continues

this parade of humiliation, this walk of shame, where he displays the hollowness of his speakership and the incredible weakness to come out and, you know, announce this clearly as an effort to appease the right wing and somehow buy himself some time. And of course, this comes in juxtaposition with somebody like a Matt Gates, who takes to the floor of the House of Representatives. And just I was on Morning Joe this morning, and they were asking, you know, can you imagine any Democratic representative speaking this way about Nancy Pelosi, the way that Matt Gaetz talked about Kevin McCarthy on the floor of the House? Let's play that. On this very floor in January, the whole world witnessed a historic contest for House Speaker. I rise today to serve notice.

Mr. Speaker, you are out of compliance with the agreement that allowed you to assume this role. The path forward for the House of Representatives is to either bring you into immediate total compliance or remove you pursuant to a motion to vacate the chair. We have had no vote on term limits or on balanced budgets as the agreement demanded and required. There's been no full release of the January 6 tapes. As you promised, there has been insufficient accountability for the Biden crime family.

And instead of cutting spending to raise the debt limit, you relied on budgetary gimmicks and rescissions so that you ultimately ended up serving as the valet to underwrite Biden's debt and advance his spending agenda. Mr. Speaker, you boasted in January that we would use the power of the subpoena and the power of the purse. But here we are eight months later and we haven't even sent the first subpoena to Hunter Biden. That's how you know that the rushed and somewhat rattled performance you just saw from the speaker isn't real. At this point during Democrat control over the House of Representatives, they had already brought in Don Jr. three times. Wow. Wow. She's like, until you come into complete and total compliance, and even then,

we will make you beg and crawl upon your belly. I mean, this is really an interesting moment. And the contrast between Nancy Pelosi, who had pretty much the same majority that Kevin McCarthy had, and yet she was able to get stuff done. And McCarthy has to endure this sort of thing and keep throwing red meat to these baby alligators and hoping they won't eat him. And of course, they're going to eat him. Of course, they're going to come out of the bathtub and eat him. And Kevin McCarthy just keep, no, I'm going to appease as fast as I can. Look, this is going to be McCarthy's month from hell. And there are a lot of reasons for that. But what's interesting to me is that he's apparently determined to drag the rest of the country, the rest of the United States of America along with

him. If it means shutting down the government to appease them, he will do that. If it means, you know, going through this sham impeachment inquiry that he doesn't have the votes for, then he's going to do that, right? If it will keep the gavel in his sweaty palms for another week or so. That's exactly his intention, is just to survive. I do want to give a shout out to Matt Lewis at The Daily Beast, who just wrote a column, I think yesterday or last night, about humiliation and shamelessness, you know, being McCarthy's secret weapon. I mean, the idea that Matt Gates just invoked Nancy Pelosi in his humiliation of Speaker McCarthy was really something. At this point, they had brought in Don Jr. three times. It's just such a perfect sum of how willing he is

to be dragged around the floor by these people. That's what Matt Lewis's description of McCarthy is that who would want this job where you're not allowed to lead and they get to shoot you on any given day, like without notice. That is literally the deal that McCarthy agreed to, was that they could fire him at any time easily. And the problem for this move to use impeachment as a way of maybe helping him get the government spending bills out the door eventually after a shutdown is twofold. One, once you commence this inquiry, it leads to impeachment. No one's walking away. They're going to pretend what they found is a bombshell and they're going to impeach Joe Biden. Number two, they intend to shut the government down anyway, because in the debt ceiling deal that he came to in May with President Biden,

he had to beg and plead for a stay of execution because it was default. So he basically traded with the hardliners the deal that would avert default in order for them to be able to act out their anger with a less dangerous shutdown in September or October. Well, the other problem that he has is that he has to do whatever Donald Trump demands that he do. I mean, I do think that at some level of his consciousness, he knows that this impeachment inquiry is politically a disaster, that I think it's going to backlash on him. But this is what Donald Trump is demanding. And Donald Trump has made no secret of it. So I mean, what a surprise to find out that, you know, Donald Trump has been working behind the scenes, you know, talking with Elise Stefanik to do this. Because I do think it's

important to understand why this Biden impeachment is so crucial for Donald Trump. I mean, some of it is obvious, but I think we need to go through it. I mean, clearly it's a weapon of mass distraction. I mean, it changes the subject. I mean, that's pretty obvious, but also it's an instrument of moral flattening. And this is something that people like Steve Bannon and Donald Trump know, which is that you flood the zone with shit. So that if you are a shitty person, you look around and go, well, everybody's shitty, right? If everybody's a crook, nobody's a crook. If everybody's impeached, then impeachment is no longer this badge of shame. So, you know, he wants to go into 2024 and people are going to go, well, you know, you got these four indictments, these

91 felony charges. And he wants to be able to say, and the Republican Party will be able to say, well, what about Hunter's laptop? Right? I mean, it's this notion that you devalue, you know, fudge up in this slurry of BS, the distinctions between serious wrongdoing and just allegations. And, you know, you think about how thin the allegations are against Biden. I mean, look, if they have the goods, fine, go ahead. I mean, if it turns out that he was pocketing money from Hunter Biden's miasma of corruption, then, you know, then he needs to be held accountable. But the fact that they're launching this before they have any evidence is really quite extraordinary. You know, so, for example, I mean, Philip Bump ran this down back in 1974. They didn't begin the Nixon impeachment inquiry before

they had a special counsel and all those other investigations. In 1998, the Starr report was already out before Republicans ill-advisedly moved against Bill Clinton. You know, 2019, we had the whistleblower, we have independent reporting. Obviously, in 2021, there'd been the attack on the Capitol and the attempts to overturn the election. In 2023, what do they have? They don't have anything. And one of the ways you know they don't have anything is that Republican members of the House are telling us this. I mean, here's Ken Buck, who's a very conservative Republican from Colorado, talking about this. Well, perhaps Congressman Marjorie Hiller-Green, who you have been pretty vocal in pushing back on, is getting your message. Because yesterday she posted, quote, this, quote,

Our country deserves for Congress to vote for an impeachment inquiry for very important reasons, not a rush impeachment vote. That is a bit of a shift in the timeline, a little bit of a pumping of the brakes on it. What did you make of that? Well, Marjorie filed articles of impeachment on President Biden before he was sworn into office more than two and a half years ago. So the idea that she is now the expert on impeachment or that she is someone who should set the timing on impeachment is absurd. The time for impeachment is the time when there's evidence linking President Biden, if there's evidence linking President Biden to a high crime or misdemeanor. That doesn't exist right now. And it isn't really something that we can say, well, in February, we're going to do this. It's based on the facts.

You go where the facts take you. So he's not alone in that. There have been a number of Republicans who are saying, do we really want to do this? And I guess this goes to the point you were making, A.B., about the future of the House. One of the reasons why Kevin McCarthy didn't have the votes to actually launch this is there are a lot of vulnerable Republicans in swing seats who are going, no, no, no, this is crazy. Why would we do this? Precisely. And they've gone on TV, like Ken Buck, and said that the House doesn't have what they need to proceed with an inquiry. They made it clear to the Speaker they weren't going to support it and the vote would have failed. That's why he had to announce an inquiry on his own after saying, you know, just in the last two

weeks that it needed a vote of the House. So criticizing Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in 2019 for not using a vote of the House. So like I said, we can see exactly where this pressure came from and why it came to a head and he had to do what he said he wouldn't do. The problem is that in order to survive in these races, those moderates are going to continue to criticize the investigation until and unless there is that evidence in order to survive in their own campaigns, in their own districts where Biden won. And so, again, you're going to have an impeachment and you're going to have a shutdown. And it is, in the end, going to hurt the larger Republican Party's chances of holding the House. It is going to maybe help Kevin keep his speakership. But the flood zone thing is so important, Charlie. I know you've talked about this and

you're writing about it this morning. It's what Donald Trump learned from his study of all the autocrats. And it is so incredibly effective to continue to just bring up, it's why Vivek Ramaswamy, he runs his mouth and he's so articulate and he's so new and exciting. And people just buy whatever he says. It doesn't matter if he's contrary to consign he said the day before or he's just telling a lie that's going to be debunked online within the next hour. You just keep moving and you just hurl your BS loudly and with some outrage. And it gets you far in fundraising and your branding, your spotlight. But at the same time, it really will help Donald Trump in a campaign against Joe Biden next year if the focus

all the time is on, you know, Hunter Biden's dealings and whether or not his father was involved. That dominating the headlines is really going to help Trump. Well, this is one of the reasons why the White House is really pushing back. They put out a 14-page really detailed sort of dossier knocking down all the allegations and kind of challenging the news media. You should not just treat this as a he said, she said, or a horse race. You need to shine the spotlight on some of these guys like James Comer, who have been discredited again and again. I think they understand that. But to your point, it's not just flooding the zone. It's also the use of whataboutism, which now seems kind of old. But I just want to remind people how powerful that is,

that for many voters, you present them with the evidence of Donald Trump's criminality. And the most effective way to combat that is, well, what about this? Now, by the way, can I just make a pro tip for everybody out there? Here's like your homework assignment, if you're listening to this podcast, or read my newsletter, go Google Jared Kushner, and Saudi sovereign wealth fund. It's just fascinating. And by the way, I have no idea why Democrats in the Senate have not begun investigations into Jared Kushner, who actually worked for the government, as did his daughter. Okay, I'm just leaving that aside. But whataboutism is a powerful weapon. Now, I hesitate to say this because it's kind of the PTSD of going back to

2016. And at the time, I will confess that I did not appreciate how effective this would be. You remember after Access Hollywood, when everybody thought he was dead, he was talking about grabbing women by their private parts and everything, and you had a lot of Republicans that bailed on him. He looked really, really shaky. There was all of this speculation about replacing him, and he had a debate with Hillary Clinton. Do you remember what he did? He staged this amazing, outrageous stunt that turned out to be very effective. He brought in all of the women who had made allegations against Bill Clinton, and he just paraded them out there. And he, you know, had a press thing, you know. So there was Donald Trump saying, so you're all going to bail on me, you're going to hold it against me that I engaged in this locker room talk. Look at

these women who actually made these allegations. And I think you look back on that and realize how effectively he discredited the attacks against him. And I think that this is one of the things that Donald Trump is doing. He's flooding the zone. He's employing whataboutism. But he's also been very effective, let's acknowledge this, in delegitimizing any institution that stands against him, destroying those guard rails that used to protect us against this kind of demagoguery. So think about how effective he has been in delegitimizing and discrediting all of his media critics, all of the investigative reporting. And now, in his long march through our institutions, he is now using the same tactics to discredit the courts, the prosecutors, juries, so that at the end of the day, even if he's convicted

of felonies, people will say, well, that's just those bogus, deep state prosecutors and juries. I mean, he is setting up to discredit all of these things that we had taken for granted in a normal world would be guardrails. Oh, Charlie. Yes. That's too much for a Wednesday morning. He is, you know, he's very effective that we really are waiting to see the reaction of sort of mom and pop American who is not politically addicted take in Donald Trump in a courtroom, what these trials reveal, evidence we've not yet been privy to in the four indictments, maybe what is revealed in potential superseding

indictments. We don't yet know what the response will be of sort of the middle of the country voter who is not a partisan. And so that is, I think we're holding out. I want to hold out some hope for that. I want to hold out hope for the seriousness of the jury process, that a citizen might go in with their partisan leanings and know who Trump and Biden are and have voted for or against, but combine in a room, 12 of you, you know, feel the pressure of their civic burden to take in real truth, real facts, and assess them fairly. I want to believe that this will all work. We don't know. The system will be tested like it's never been before. We don't know where this takes us. And it is true that his ability, as long as we are talking,

I believe about Hunter and Joe Biden every other day. And the Republicans in Congress can keep that alive as much as they can next year, even if they don't have, you know, some smoking gun evidence. I think that's a problem that helps even a Trump who's sitting in a courtroom not saying anything all day. Hey, folks, this is Charlie Sykes, host of the Bulwark podcast. We created the Bulwark to provide a platform for pro-democracy voices on the center right and the center left for people who are tired of tribalism and who value truth and vigorous yet civil debate about politics and a lot more. And every day we remind you folks, you are not the crazy ones. So why not head over to thebullwork.com and take a

look around. Every day we produce newsletters and podcasts that will help you make sense of our politics and keep your sanity intact. To get a daily dose of sanity in your inbox, why not try a Bullwork Plus membership free for the next 30 days. To claim this offer, go to thebullwork.com slash charlie. That's thebullwork.com forward slash charlie. We're going to get through this together. I promise. If it's a flat or a squeal, a wobble or peel, your tread's worn down or you need a new wheel,

wherever you go, you can get it from our tread experts. Ensure each winter trip is a safe one for your family. Enjoy them for years with a Michelin X-Ice snow tire. Get a $50 prepaid MasterCard with select Michelin tires. Find a Michelin Tread Experts dealer near you at treadexperts.ca slash locations. From tires to auto repair, we're always there. TradeExpress.ca Okay, so let's take a deep breath here and talk about the subject that so many of our listeners apparently do not ever want to talk about. host by David Ignatius, who is a highly respected columnist whose work is closely and widely read within the White House and political circles. And David Ignatius writes today, for the very first time, President Biden should not run again in 2024. So let me just read a couple of paragraphs here. What I admire most about President Biden is that in a polarized nation, he has governed from the center out, as he promised in his victory speech.

With an unexpectedly steady hand, he passed some of the most important domestic legislation in recent decades. In foreign policy, he managed the delicate balance of helping Ukraine fight Russia without getting America itself into a war. In some, he has been a successful and an effective president, but I do not think that Biden and Vice President Harris should run for reelection. It's painful to say that given my admiration for much of what they've accomplished, but if he and Harris campaign together in 2024, I think Biden risks undoing his great achievement, which was stopping Trump. Now, this sounds vaguely like something that you wrote somewhat recently. So give me your thoughts on why do

you think David Ignatius decided he was going to drop this piece now? I find this so fascinating, Charlie. First of all, David, welcome to the club. I've been writing about this since last July. That's when I started July of 2022. I have written multiple columns about this, both at Real Clear Politics and The Bulwark, and recently, two weeks ago, wrote about how a ticket like Whitmer Warnock is required to decisively end the threat of Trump and a second term of Trump and the end of democracy. And if Democrats took that seriously, they would consider how weak a position Joe Biden's in. I know the audience of the board wrestles with this and is frustrated because Joe Biden has accomplished so much. And I listed those accomplishments in the piece I actually, in every presentation I give to any audience, I go through every single unexpected, odds were against it, piece of consequential law that was passed with Republicans cooperating with no math and no margin in either chamber. It has literally been a golden era of bipartisanship that Obama and Trump could only have dreamt about. Completely unexpected. And I think, you know, he has been a really accomplished president in less than three years time, fighting serious challenges, inflation being, of course, just the latest from COVID to Ukraine and on and on. I really look at the situation that we're in

with the polling and the general election matchup showing Trump is stronger than he was in 2020. And I think Democrats have to come around to this idea that Joe Biden is written off because of his age by a large portion of the electorate and a significant faction of his coalition, Charlie, which is these young voters and also working class non-white voters who are suffering, whose wages have not kept up with price hikes. They're just looking at Joe Biden and it's like a gateway issue. They just look at him and they say, he just can't do this job anymore. They don't know about his accomplishments. They give no credit for his accomplishments. If you sat down and explained them to him, they say that sounds nice, but they've moved on. And I think that is a problem that will get worse in the next 14 months,

not better. And I actually just want to end by saying it's very brave of Ignatius to piss off the people he speaks to on a regular basis by coming out and saying this, because this is not the company line. And I think that he sees this as the emergency that I do. Well, he also makes a parallel point. He not only does not think that Joe Biden should run for election, he doesn't think that Kamala Harris should run for reelection. In fact, he basically makes the case, and I think this is where a lot of people come up against it, which is that, okay, what is plan B? And we've talked about this many, many times. And it's not clear to me that Kamala Harris is a stronger general election candidate. And he basically writes her off saying, yeah, she's not going to do it. And then he floats out

some other names as well. So that's where I'm kind of puzzled how he thinks that works, how he thinks that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris together basically say, okay, we've accomplished everything we're going to accomplish. You know, this mission has been finished and now we need to pass the baton. I can see Joe Biden doing it. I don't think he will, but I can see him doing it. I can't see Kamala Harris. So there seemed to be a little bit of wishful thinking on Ignatius's part. No, there's no question. There's wishful thinking on my part that this would unite the party, that they would put their ambition and politics and their policy agendas

behind the need to protect the constitutional order and to prevent a second term of Trump, that they would put that first. Yeah, there is some wishful thinking. I think I agree with you, Charlie. It's probably too much to ask Harris to drop out. I'm recommending, and there are many people at the board who disagree with me. In fact, everyone, except I think me and Bill, believe that a primary is too dangerous and divisive for the Democrats to go through. I don't, but I do think that advocating for an open primary, for Joe Biden to step aside and bless an open primary and say that he needs to open up the party to future leaders and that this election

should not be about him and Trump and the past, it should be about the future, and blessing an open primary where he doesn't endorse his vice president because presidents don't pick nominees. Voters do. Then you have a primary, and I would expect her to be in it. I don't expect her to do well. I don't think she has a constituency within the Democratic Party, and I have spoken to Democrats, Black, white, Latino, elected, non-elected. the woman doesn't have a base of support. We are always told that Black Democrats will rise up in rage, that she has not been quote-unquote supported and endorsed by Biden should he step aside. But I actually don't think that that's true. And I know that Black voters were pragmatic, and I wrote about this two weeks ago in the piece, in 2008 and in 2020, when they didn't back Barack Obama because they didn't think he could win.

They backed Hillary. They only came around to Obama once he won Iowa and showed he could win. They did not back Cory Booker. They did not back Kamala Harris. They did not back Julian Castro. They did not back Bernie Sanders. They backed Joe Biden because they thought he could beat Trump in 2020. So I think that Black voters, particularly the older ones in the coalition, and the older ones vote more than the young ones, are far more pragmatic than people realize. But I think Harris is very ambitious, and I don't see her saying, I'll take a pass. I am squishier on this than you and Bill might be. But the one thing that I can't get past is that we're having this conversation on September 13th, 2023. What conversation might we be having on September 13th, 2024? And what haunts me is, let's start with the premise that the existential threat to the country is a second Trump presidency, and that that trumps everything. The dangers that that would represent, the constitutional cataclysm that that would represent has to be avoided at

absolutely all costs. What would make it more likely? What happens if we have a Mitch McConnell moment from Joe Biden? This is hypothetical, and people can blow back on me about this. If you have a blank moment sometime in September of 2024, or in October of 2024, or you have another rambling performance like he put on in Hanoi, and I disagree with some of our colleagues about how that went. These are things that could open the door to something that I think that we all recognize, or at least tell ourselves we recognize, as the worst possible outcome. So the worst possible outcome is not Joe Biden stepping aside. The worst possible outcome is going with somebody who opens the door to Donald Trump returning. And I think Ignatius makes the point. Joe Biden's greatest accomplishment, his legacy, is that he rid the country of Donald Trump. He would undo that if he was not able to be an

effective candidate. Now, these are two separate questions. Being an effective and successful president is one thing. We can debate about that. But the real question, and nobody knows the answer to this, is will he be a good and effective candidate over the next year and several months? And that, I think, is really a troubling question. And I think that you've been raising it. Okay, can we switch to something that's a much more fun? Yes. It's really a troubling question. I think that, you know, you've been raising it. Okay, can we switch to something that's much more fun? Yes.

Like the best story of the day. Is there any doubt in your mind what the best story of the day is? I mean, a story that I want to wallow in. I'm waiting for it. That if I could put it in the bathtub, I would just bask in it, this story. Do you know who I am? Watch Lauren Boebert get thrown out of a musical for allegedly causing a disturbance. She was thrown out of a performance of Beetlejuice the musical on Sunday after she allegedly

vaped, caused a disturbance, and asked staff, do you know who I am? Denver's Nine News obtained security footage and posted it on YouTube, which you can see online. According to the Denver Post, Lauren Boebert was escorted out of the performance of Beetlejuice the Musical, along with one other person, after three people made complaints about the congresswoman being loud and taking photos on her phone. I just, I just... Okay, the only thing that makes this better Thank you for participating in this survey. Will use your feedback to better serve you and

Did you hear that? Yes. This is my watch talking to me. That's why you shouldn't have these up-to-date Apple Watches? You don't have an Apple Watch? No.

Well, you think it's monitoring you all the time? I just don't want to wear an Apple Watch. I have the phone near me all the time. Oh, see, I actually kind of like the Apple Watch because, first of all, it makes me get up and walk and kind of like, you know, tells me, Charlie, you can do this. You can do 10,000 steps a day. Charlie, you're, tells me, Charlie, you can do this. You can do 10,000 steps a day. Charlie, you're not there yet. Charlie, you need to, you know, I'm okay. I kind of,

it's like a little bit of coaching. On the other hand, there's this feature where if I have the watch too close to my face and I look at it sometimes, I realize it's recording everything I just said. It's like, I can read what I just said in print. That's so crazy. It is. It is a little bit creepy, but I suppose this is a lot of modern life, right? All these things we think of as conveniences, but they're also conveniences because they're watching you. And they're keeping track of everything. You are not the consumer. You are the product. Yeah.

And I think that that's the case. Okay, so the only thing that makes the Lauren Boebert being escorted out of a performance of Beetlejuice the musical is that today was the day that, okay, I'm going to step on some toes here. This was the day that Politico decided to go with a puff piece with the headline, and I kid you not, the headline, Lauren Boebert, rabble rouser in D.C., public servant back home. On the day she's escorted out, saying, don't you know who I am? This just in, Lauren Boebert is normal. Yeah, but public servant back home. The Lauren Boebert you don't know. The responsible, sober Lauren Boebert, who is now on videotaping, escorted out of the musical version of Beetlejuice. I don't know. I understand that every once in a while that you want to write a profile of somebody that's a little bit contrarian, but you think

that somebody at Politico would have thought, hey, you know what, maybe not Lauren Boebert, maybe not right now. It's like, ouch. I just love that a member of Congress so lucky to have survived her second election by just a couple hundred votes, I believe. And she may not survive the next one. Right. Is not interested in carrying herself with any dignity. She's happy to be there vaping against the rules, taking pictures, being loud. And then, of course, when they ask her to leave, she has to say, do you know who I am?

I'm going to call the mayor about this because I am important. Well, you knew that it was going to be entertaining. Speaking of entertaining, when one of the storylines of the year was Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert hate each other. Oh, that's my favorite fight in Washington. It is. Come on. You know, it's not all doom and gloom. There are things that that are, you know, amusing and entertaining. Okay, so somewhat less entertaining. Switching gears again. I don't want to get too far out ahead on all of this because the cock gun is still on the table, but it appears as if Wisconsin Republicans might be blinking about their intention to impeach and remove a newly elected Supreme Court justice. Yesterday, the Speaker of the Assembly, Robin Voss, who I've

described as not a stupid guy, came out and said, you know, all of you have been helping raise money about this, make this a cause celeb, but I never said that we were going to impeach Janet Protasewicz for ruling on the redistricting. I never actually said that. So that sounds like a pretty epic walkback. Basically, for people who are just catching up on all of this, yes, the Republicans were threatening. They were rolling toward it. Former Governor Scott Walker said the assembly was obligated to impeach her because she had described Wisconsin's incredibly gerrymandered and rigged legislative districts as rigged. And because there's a lawsuit and she has not recused herself from that, Republicans said, we have to remove this Supreme Court justice who received more than a million votes. We need to undo the election so she does not rule in a case that might put our super

majority at risk. Okay, so this just blew up in their face. And I've talked about this before, knowing some of the players that it kind of made my head hurt a little bit to think like, don't you know how this is going to backfire? And don't you know the firestorm of denunciation? Don't you realize how you're going to be flooded with outside money and what the ads are going to look like that you have just erased an election over an issue of redistricting because it's all about your power. And apparently they're going, yeah, maybe this is not such a good idea. So Robin Voss came out and said, hey, having opposed this for years, I'm now willing to embrace having an Iowa-style nonpartisan commission that will draw these lines. And so he's basically kind of folding his hand.

I'm saying that it's not yet over because, first of all, sometimes it's hard to control with the base demands. If the base demands that you remove the Supreme Court justice, it's hard for them to push back. That's number one. Number two, Democrats don't trust Robin Voss farther than they can throw him. And so they're not buying this new conversion. And so it's certainly conceivable that in a couple of days, they'll go back to saying again what they claim they didn't say before, and they're going to try to impeach this justice. But this is kind of an indication of just how radicalized they've been, that you'd even think about taking someone who won a statewide election in April by 11 points with more than a million votes and essentially say, we're going to nullify the

election because we think you pose a threat to our power. It's unthinkable. And yet this is where we're at in American politics right now. I think this story has been so fascinating, Charlie. I think Robin Vos is this really interesting figure from here. You know everything about him. I know just a little enough to know that he goes in to the swamp of mega only and then tries to come back and sort of restore his credibility. And then he goes right back in. And so he's sort of always leaping in and out of the heated waters.

But it's a good description. It's quite obvious that Pertus FFavre's election is one of the most exciting things that's happened to the Democrats. It really energized the grassroots. And the fact that they've just come around to the fact, as you point out, that this would be a supercharge to fundraising and get out the vote and volunteering is hilarious. I don't know if Ronald McDaniel had to call them from RNC headquarters. I wonder who it was that pointed this out. But it is very interesting that he suddenly got a little bit nervous. And you're right. The base comes at your house. You know, they come to your text. They come to your house. They jump out of your bushes. They threaten your lives. Who knows if next week he'll be back onto it. But it is a it's a wonderful story.

That's right. I mean. You said how exciting this was toward Democrats. It is impossible to overstate how angry Republicans were over this election, how bitter they are, how bitter the political and personal animosity is to hear the members of the Supreme Court talk about one another. I mean, they hate one another. It's hard to imagine them even sitting in the same room. Election night, when Pertusiewicz won this big election, her opponent, Dan Kelly, who used to be kind of a normal conservative, was a Supreme Court justice for a few years, refused to congratulate her, basically said, no, you know, she's, you know, run this lying, despicable campaign. So there's a great deal of bitterness. But also the consequences of this are

huge because for the last decade and a half, Republicans have counted on the Supreme Court to be kind of the ultimate trump card, to back them up. And now, for the first time in a decade and a half, liberals are in charge. There are a lot of things that are about to switch. The redistricting is one of them that obviously, you know, got their attention first, but also this changes the entire political environment of Wisconsin for the abortion issue, because we have an 1849 law in the books that is a sweeping ban on abortion, and the Supreme Court will ultimately have to decide whether to enforce that or whether or not to throw it out. So the Supreme Court election was have to decide whether to enforce that or whether or not to throw it out. So the Supreme Court election was very much a binary choice about abortion.

But there's so many other things, the way elections are run in Wisconsin. We are obviously a crucial swing state that's become almost a cliche. But the Supreme Court, when it was controlled by conservatives, came within one vote of hearing Donald Trump's bogus challenge to the results. It was a 4-3 vote. But now that there's a liberal majority, that's going to determine how elections are run, whether or not things like drop boxes are considered legal or not. Things like Scott Walker's legacy of Act 10, the elimination of many of the collective bargaining rights of public employees. That's going to be perhaps up again. Virtually every single public policy issue might ultimately

come before this court. And even though Republicans have this super majority in the legislature, now there's this new power center. And I can't tell you how disorienting that is for them, which is really kind of the backstory for why they would consider something as reckless as removing a justice and basically undoing an election. They couldn't help themselves, but we'll see where we go. But you're right. It is an absolutely fascinating question. And I say that as somebody that's watched Wisconsin politics become very, very partisan, was part of that for a very long time. I know many of these players. And to watch how this has played out, even knowing everything that's happened, has been It's fascinating, but it's stunning. They're not thinking straight, as you just described. They can't accept the place shifting, you know, with their foundation of power. And to try to impeach her over this is, it's such a joke,

but they are driven to desperation. And it is all about holding power. I mean, that's what's so interesting about what's going on in the Congress is that what Kevin McCarthy is doing is only about keeping his seat because in doing what he must do to keep his seat, he will help Republicans lose the House. No one's thinking straight. Yeah, I mean, so let's go back to Joe Biden, you know, being thrown a lifeline. You know, we were just talking about the David Ignatius column in all the doubts about Joe Biden. What we know is going to happen is if once the spotlight goes on, Democrats are going to rally around Joe Biden and swing voters are going to see what a clown show this is because trust me, James Comer, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee is not ready for prime time. This guy has been a mess. He makes allegations. He backs off. He's challenged on them. He can't support them. He loses whistleblowers. I mean, it is a joke. pay attention. Democrats become engaged, rally around, and then the normies begin to think,

you guys are not serious. And the fact that they're doing this right on the cusp of shutting down the government will add to this sense that they are just not serious, that they're reckless and they're extreme. And this is the strongest weapon right now that the Democrats have going for them. It'll be pretty potent for a while, because as you say, Goldman Sachs is predicting a two to three week shutdown. If that's happening right as this inquiry is launched in multiple committees with multiple goofball chairmen going all over TV and having to answer questions about evidence, I mean, I'm not saying it's going to help the Democrats long term all the way to next November. But Republican donors are probably literally on the phone with Kevin McCarthy begging him to stop this.

You combine launching an inquiry without a House resolution vote and at the same time that you're shutting the government down. They can't pass the defense bill today. They can't pass the rule. It is around the clock chaos. It's everything Republicans who want to protect the majority don't want. It is a recipe for disaster. But in McCarthy's view, it's like, this is what we have to do to survive the week. Well, but meanwhile, Donald Trump did get the coveted Vladimir Putin endorsement. You saw that, right? I said, let me read you this account. Vladimir Putin could barely contain his excitement

Tuesday while discussing Donald Trump, telling a forum in Vladivostok that the criminal cases against the former president are good for Russia, and the Kremlin took delight in Trump's claim that he is swiftly forcing an end to Moscow's war against Ukraine. Quote, as for the persecution of Trump, for us, what is happening in these conditions, in my opinion, is good because it shows the whole rottenness of the American political system, which cannot claim to teach others about democracy. Putin said, echoing the former American president's oft-repeated claim that, quote, what's happening with Trump is a persecution of a political rival for political

motives. Because, of course. What's so interesting, though, is this is the kind of thing Putin, I don't think, would have done before. He really needs Trump to win a second term, and he is so weakened and in such a state of chaos. This saying the quiet part out loud was not Putin-esque in the past. So this is an interesting, like he's disoriented Wisconsin Republicans right now, because that's, I was shocked he said it. I see. I thought it was kind of inevitable because the one thing that Vladimir Putin has an instinct for is he knows how to play Donald Trump. He knows that if he kisses up to Donald Trump and throws out stuff like this, that Donald Trump will be pathetically grateful

to him. He plays Donald Trump will be pathetically grateful to him. He plays Donald Trump like a violin. I understand, but then it becomes a DNC ad next year. If they do it. Yeah, right. If they're smart enough to use it. Think about the DNC ads. I mean, I imagine, you know, sitting around like, which one do we go with? Do we go with the criminal indictments? Do we go with Republicans who want to defund the FBI or the DOJ? Do we go with the Republicans who are blocking military promotions or abandoning Ukraine or shutting down? I mean, which one do you go with? One would hope, but can you explain, by the way, why I've asked this question of so many people, but I figure you might actually know. What is with Chuck Schumer? Why does he let Tommy

Tuberville get away with the shit with the military? And number two, what's with Chuck Schumer not having hearings about Jared Kushner and Ivanka? I mean, why not? I do agree with this idea that Senate Democrats should be probing the Saudi Arabia deal that Jared Kushner got on the way out of the White House. What do they do all day? Exactly. As well as the fact that they left, before the $2 billion deal, they left the House with $760 million that they earned while not having salaries, or they took in while not having salaries. Well, like the average American, yeah. There should be some kind of hearings about the kleptocracy that Trump was running in his term in office while the House is looking

at Hunter Biden. There's no question in my mind. You and I have talked about Schumer before. He is very effective at hiding and taking no heat. He's not coming to the Senate floor and making cable headlines and soundbites about Tuberville, and he's not getting into an argument about it. And he tends to do this. He's very cautious, and he kind of hides. And he tends, even when the Senate was going through a really rough stretch at the end of 21 and the Build Back

Better and everything, he tends to sort of, you know, hide. I mean, he doesn't want to, he knows that Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin are going after each other. He talks to them privately, but he doesn't pull them off the field from fighting each other. He, I have so many issues with Chuck Schumer, but he somehow always, he's happy to not be a star like Pelosi. And he seems to, to never take any heat. But at the same time, he's not taking on the fights that the White House would really benefit from the Senate taking on right now. Well, also, the country would perhaps benefit from him taking on, including, you know, getting the military unstuck and actually finding out whether or not we have sold out to the Saudi government. By the way,

okay, so there was a lot of criticism of Joe Biden, of the Biden administration for congratulating the Saudis on some deals that they made, putting this out on 9-11. Okay, fine, it was bad timing, but that seems to pale in comparison to on 9-11 not saying, and what about the Trumps continuing to do business with the Saudis? What about Donald Trump and the Kushners and all of that? I mean, why is that not a 9-11 issue? And I'm sorry, I'm going off on a rant here. Charlie, I'm with you. One of my pet irritations is that the man running for president, a former president, on the Republican Party ticket likely is, for all intents and purposes, the presumptive nominee, although we won't call him that until March or April, is on the Saudi payroll, and no one in this country seems to care.

Yeah, right. Yeah, it seems like a relevant detail. But then what do we know? A.B. Stoddard, once again, welcome to the Bulwark team, and thank you so much for coming on the podcast today. Oh, I'm so happy to be with you. Please have me back when other people are too busy, Charlie. I'm thrilled to be on Team Bulwark, and I love to do the pod with you. Thanks so much again. And thank you all for listening to today's Bulwark podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. We will be back tomorrow and we'll do this all over again.

The Bulwark Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper and engineered and edited by Jason Brown.