The Bulwark Podcast - Bill Kristol: A Power Play for Autocracy

Episode Date: November 18, 2024

Trump is flooding the zone with unqualified nominees who would destroy government norms and standards and create the kind of chaos that would let him do what he wants—and Senate Republicans may be too afraid of him to put up much resistance. Meanwhile, allies are already seeing the third world-style political decay, beyond the orgies and sexual assaults. Bill Kristol joins Tim Miller. show notes "Art of the Surge" doc on Apple TV; Ep 5 has debate reaction backstage

Hello and welcome to the Bullwork Podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. It is Monday, so I'm here with someone who did not go to Mar-a-Lago over the weekend to reopen communications with Donald Trump. It's editor-at-large of the Bullwork, Bill Kristol. Hey Bill. And you didn't go either, Tim. I know we both got the invitations and it was tough, right?

I mean, I had to juggle other commitments I had here, you know. I'm not really sure about that idea of opening communications with Trump and the value there, but hey. So what happened? Yeah, Joe and Mika went, they opened morning show this morning. People can look at it online to link the explanation for why they went the value of opening communications back up with Trump. They became so much a part of the resistance over those, I guess, the last seven or eight

years. But in 2015-16, they were pretty on the side of normalizing Trump, but pretty, I'd say, important, important, maybe too strong, somewhat important in normalizing Trump among a certain set of people in New York and sort of business types who watch Morning Joe. We got in a very testy exchange, I used to be a pretty regular guest on there, in September, October 2016 where I said something like this. I mean, at that point, I think they were against Trump for president, but you know, I said something about, well, you guys certainly spent a lot of time with him and made

him seem like, you know, respectable. And Joe really didn't like that. And we had a, for TV, I'd say a fairly, what do they call that in diplomacy? Frank and Candid exchange there for about 10 or 15 minutes. So anyway, that might be a fun one for the archives to go revisit. Um, the morning, Bill Kristol admonishing morning talk hosts. You know, you got to consider the importance of morning talk hosts now that, uh, that's a key qualification for becoming the head of the United States military.

There's so much to do. I do these little outlines for the show, and like usually it's like six or seven. I have 11 points, so I don't know if we're going to get to everything today. A lot happening, no shortage to discuss, but I just want to start at the biggest picture. You opened the newsletter this morning with kind of a little bit of a meditation on something our friend Robert Trudzynski wrote over at the Unpopulist about these nominations broadly. And Robert wrote that every appointee is selected as a deliberate negation, even a mockery of the function of government he or she will be in charge of.

These individuals are not merely unqualified for their offices. They're disqualified. They're anti-qualified, the antithesis of what the offices call for. So I mean, it's been a week since we last got together and the picks have just gotten worse and worse. And so I'd like to just start with the biggest picture, then we'll take each of them individually. Federsynsky's point that was so useful was looking at them together, seeing the forest, not just the trees, and that there's a pattern.

And the pattern is one of not just not caring much about good government, the good administration of government, a government well administered, very important to the federalist, but actually scorning it and mocking it and almost discrediting it. And one thing that happens when you do that, of course, is you open it up, all the rules and standards and processes all go away. So if you're an authoritarian, sometimes you'd think you will and this is the point Robert makes, you think you'd want competent people to execute your authoritarian plans, and you do sometimes, and so that's one side of the ledger. But you also want sort of people who are just going to destroy the normal norms and processes

so you can arbitrarily do what you want, order what you want, arrange things for payoffs for you and your friends for doing what you want. So, I think it's a Trump power play, a power play for centralized, personalized, autocratic government sort of masked by the craziness and wackiness of the picks. Yeah. And just kind of to beat people down, right? Like at some levels we go through each of these, it's like, you know, where do you pick the fight?

And I guess maybe some of them will probably settle on gates because of personal feelings, right? But as is the flooding the zone with shit element, it's flooding the nominees. So this is a fact, right? Because, you know, there's only going to be so much appetite, you know, on the Hill for resistance. So I guess I do wonder kind of how you think about balancing that at the broadest level.

I saw you had a little dig at John Fetterman over the weekend, Pennsylvania Senator who was on with Jake Tapper saying that Democrats can't freak out over every tweet or every appointment. It's still not even Thanksgiving yet. It's going to be a long four years. And so there is kind of that sense of, okay, well, you've got to be calm and pick battles or, you know, maybe the contrary view of just going head first into trying to stop each one of these.

So I think Trump wants to destroy the internal barriers in the executive branch, in which there have been many, the Department of Justice doesn't take orders from the White House under the prosecutor, et cetera, et cetera. He also wants to destroy the barriers to executive power, of which advice and consent by the Senate is the actual constitutional barrier. It's not even just a legislative or customary barrier. And that's the talk about the recess appointments. And the recess appointments would be the real

destruction of the barrier, but using the threat of recess appointments to get them to just confirm everyone is almost as good, right? That it just makes the barrier kind of advice and consent becomes entirely nominal. So, no, I think they should oppose, from my view, the four that are most obviously unfit and inappropriate. I accept the defense, Gabbard at Director of National Intelligence, Kennedy at HHS, Gates as Attorney General. If I were a Democrat, I'd vote against a lot of the others.

I don't think they're good appointments. I think their policies will be pretty awful. They're not really distinguished appointments, but Kristi Noem, you know, really will be an excellent, I'm sure, secretary of DHS, making sure no dogs get across the border or something, you know, alive and stuff. But that's a different level, I would say. That's, you know, okay, a governor gets appointed to some cabinet position that he or she isn't really great at, but whatever, you know, and same with Stefanik at the UN and so forth. So I think that's, I guess I'd make that distinction. But among the four, I don't like the argument that, you know, and say with Stefanik at the U.N. and so forth. So I think that's, I guess I'd make that distinction. But among the four, I don't like the argument that, you know,

I mean, it may be that Trump vaguely thinks that, well, if I lose one, it makes it easier to get the other three. I think the right position to take is those four are unqualified. And, you know, if one goes down first, the attitude should be good. Three more to go. Yeah. The Hill put out an analysis of the nine possible senators they see as creating trouble. I'm just going to give the nine names here.

Murkowski, Collins, Curtis, Cassidy. Curtis is the new senator from Utah replacing Mitt Romney. Todd Young of Indiana, Tom Tillis, North Carolina, Mitch McConnell, Joni Ernst in Iowa, and John Cornyn in Texas. I don't really buy the last two. I don't really buy any of them, to be honest, except for Murkowski, but I particularly don't buy the last two. How do you kind of assess that landscape? I mean, I think there could be different coalitions for different appointees,

because there is, I mean, maybe there still is some sense that the Senate should work according to some procedures and organization, and one of the organization ways in which the Senate is organized is by committees. And so there could be people who would focus on the candidate who comes up through their committee or in an area which they have some claim to expertise and special competence. So I'll give you one example, who's not on that list, Tom Cotton of Arkansas. He's not an election denier, he voted with McConnell on that, which incidentally, and he's also pro-Ukraine, which are two reasons he's not in the Trump cabinet, in my opinion, but he's pretty gone along with Trump on almost

everything. Also, no signs of sexual assault. No signs, but he will be chair, assuming Rubio gets confirmed, which he will at state, which is one where it's fine to confirm him, I think, he will be chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I do think people should put pressure on him. I would just ask him. He does not get a pass, in my view. I mean, the other is fine. He's not

going to vote against some of the Robert Kennedy judges. He doesn't care about those issues and know about them, I suppose. I mean, he should still vote against them, mind you. But on intelligence, he's chair of that committee. Is he really saying as chair of Senate Intelligence that it's fine for Tulsi Gabbard to be director of national intelligence? Is he saying he's happy to spend the next four years working with her in improving the intelligence capacities and defending the intelligence capacities of the United States government? So I think you can sort of separate some of these. There's some like Collins and Murkowski, I think McConnell maybe, who are more generally available in opposition because they're not pure rubber stamps for Trump. But there are also

particular senators's particular roles whom one could imagine opposing some of these nominees. I concur that people should ask Tom Cotton about that. I'm not exactly optimistic. You should have him on the show tomorrow, you know. He'll be happy to come on because he'll know we talked about him and stuff. Yeah, formal invite to Senator Cotton. Come on and we'll rearrange the schedule for you.

I'm really happy to talk about Tulsi Gabbard as head of DNI. Another big picture way to look at this that I think is worth considering, Sagar and Jetty is another podcast. Breaking Points, you wrote this, I saw this morning. I just realized we haven't talked enough about how big a part of the male shift to the right over the last decade is a backlash to Me Too. He seemed to be saying that in a positive way. And I guess there is some insight there in the sense that we have gotten as a result a Me Too

cabinet. We had over the weekend Pete Hegseth nominated to run the Defense Department, Washington Post story about how he paid a woman who accused him of sexual assault as part of a non-disclosure agreement, though he maintains their encounter was consensual by Heg says telling, he was drunk, she was sober, he got taken advantage of. Take that for what you will. He also published a column in college that claimed that rape required both the failure of consent and duress. And as such, women who are really drunk and are passed out cannot experience duress.

And so that cannot be a rape. That was a take that he had back in 2002. So there is some concern, according to reporting, that there are other potential things that might be coming out on this. I don't know. At this point, it seems more like a positive for Trump appointees to have these kinds of accusations that are negative. but what do you think? I mean, it is astounding that three of the four most controversial picks on other controversial,

I would say, on other grounds, have just manifest unfitness for the position, also are, what's the right generic term for them? Let's say sexual, credibly accused of being sexual abusers and at the very least- Adventurous. What's that? Adventurous. Yeah at the very least. Adventurous. What's that? Adventurous. Yeah, polite. I mean, but honestly, they could all be criminals, I mean, if we could just be honest here and

of course, like Trump himself. So I mean, it is Gates, Hegseth and Kennedy. I mean, the Kennedy stuff, people are focused, I guess, correctly, maybe on, you know, his unbelievably reckless irresponsibility about vaccines and other things, but that story about his, sadly, the wife who killed herself and the diary with 27 and cast sexual encounters that year, I don't know, the year before, something like that, and his relishing that and talking about it with his late wife and so forth. I mean, it's all horrible.

Zomed her body. There was a funeral plot that she didn't want to be in and zoomed her body, put it somewhere else that she didn't want to be against her wishes. I mean. Interesting choice. What is that? Yeah, it's not as I guess I tweeted, it's not a bug, it's a feature apparently that you have really, it's not just attitudes or slightly old fashioned or back when you, you know, stuff in the workplace that was slightly inappropriate. In each case, we're talking not just credible allegations, but honestly just evidence, truthfulness

of really appalling behavior. I mean, don't you think it's really, I mean, we're at a level with Gates and Kennedy, probably Hexeth, that I don't know. Yeah, I do think so, but none of it sounds as bad as what Donald Trump has done. I know. He's the commander in chief. And so that is what makes this challenging for you. Like how on the Hill, I mean, many people on the Hill have demonstrated that they

have just know, and they're happy to be hypocrites. So I guess maybe your explanation is based on hypocrisy or based on, you know, post facto, whatever you come up with some rationalization. Uh, they've become experts on that, the Republicans on the Hill, but it is hard to then kind of explain in long form why this thing, this accusation with Hegseth would be disqualifying whereas making Donald Trump the commander in chief is not. I agree with that, but this is their constitutional duty. They have to vote unless there's a recess of women or unless it's voice voted through, I guess.

So it's a little different. I mean, Donald Trump is president, some of them didn't vote for him, honestly, I guess. Todd Young and I think didn't. Collins-Markowski. Collins-Markowski. So to be fair, I mean, they were, from our point of view, profiles in courage and standing up to in certain ways, but they didn't. They said they didn't vote for him or-

Cassidy voted to convict him once. This is an actual vote they cast as the United States Senator on an individual fulfilling their constitutional duty. And the Hegseth thing is just worth mentioning in the searches because it's like, in a world where Gates and Kennedy and Gabbard aren't nominated, all of the focus is on this. And it's an insane choice. He has no relevant experience to run a bureaucracy such as this,

in addition to his personal behavior. For me, the other thing about Hague Seth, and this is not a puritanical podcast, I support everybody's choices, whatever they do in a consensual manner. But I do think it's also interesting just when you're looking at the type of person you want to be in charge of the military. Hague Seth, I don't know if you know this, was married three times by age 39. He was divorced twice in 11 years. I know a lot of 39-year-olds now,

since it's around my age, and it's hard for me to think of one that is already on marriage three. I know some older people, you know, life is long. Even in those cases, though, I can't think of anybody that impregnated someone that worked for them, ending their second marriage of the three.

Even if the story is true that he's telling about this in this non-disclosure agreement, it's like, I got so drunk, like I got so bombed that this chick girl took advantage of me and like I had to pay a non-disclosure agreement. And maybe if he had the relevant subject matter experience, but you go from somebody who has no experience running big organizations, no experience leading the military, and then in their personal life, they're just a disaster. Even if he didn't rape her, he's a disaster in his personal life. It seems to me that most of the buzz on the Hill is he's going to get through it.

That's all the ones that they're worried about. And I think that's pretty telling. They seem to think he's the most likely to get through the four. I'm a little doubtful because, I haven't studied the timeline if he'd access personal life closely, but I think this encounter with a woman who did charge

and went to the police three or four days later to complain about assault, it wasn't like she just decided 20 years later to bring this thing up. This was in 2017. It was at some California Republican women maybe event, I believe, and she was there as a staffer or something, as a delegate. I don't even know. But anyway, he's excess out there and taking advantage of his, I guess he's speaking of his fame and all this, I assume. But this, I think, takes place, if I have the timeline right, while he's still

technically married to the second wife, but has already had the baby with the third wife. You know, or is about to, but I think maybe already has, I don't know. I mean, with the third wife to come. I'm going to have to get out the cork board to get to be certain about that. Yeah, no, we need a whole white board. You can do that tomorrow with some guests, maybe who knows more about how these things work. I'm sure Jen Psaki will be very excited to do that with me. Yeah, maybe who knows more about how these things work. I'm sure Jen Psaki will be very excited to do that with me.

Yeah, that would be amusing. Very high ratings. It would get more ratings. Jen Psaki with the whiteboard with Heg Seth, that would be something. Anyway, I guess we shouldn't prejudge who's the most likely to be shot down as more stuff could come out, I guess, about Heg Seth. Just to put it bluntly, the only reason why, like the conventional wisdom in DC is that

Matt Gaetz is going to be tough to get through and Hegseth is going to be easy to get through, has nothing to do with their qualifications for the job because they're equally unqualified. If anything, Gaetz might be more qualified, frankly. The only reason that that's the conventional wisdom is that Gaetz is mean to his colleagues and they don't like him personally, and Hegseth sucked up to them on Fox and Friends.

Totally. Like that's literally the only difference. Totally. The last thing I want to do is say a word that seems to be defending Gates, but he is a member of Congress. So it's like not totally, if he didn't have the personal life he'd had and if he wasn't loathed by his colleagues, it would be a very weird appointment to have such a young person who practiced law for two years and has been a member of Congress for one, the House for six, to become Attorney General.

But it wouldn't be quite as crazy as Pete Hegseth, who served, I think, honorably in the military 20 years ago as a junior officer. Since then, he's run nothing. In fact, the little groups he ran kind of didn't go very well. And that's for freedom way back in the 2007, 2008 area. I was a tiny bit involved with that. So I know a little about that and then other things. And then he becomes a Fox host and he, and you could just see his comments on the record.

He's sort of the foonish about the military and stuff. Anyway, you know, it's funny, someone I know who was speaking to some people about Hague Seth, who's someone in the national security world, a senior kind of guy. And one general said to him, I mean, this is, he asked the general, what do you think of this? And the guy said, it's ludicrous. I mean, the guy's not just unqualified, it's a slap in the face really to everyone who spent 35 years, you know, in the military or in the civilian side of national security world, building up the

standing and the experience that you need to have to be Bob Gates or Leon Panetta or Bill Cohen or whoever you want. I mean, Chuck Hagel, I kind of opposed in 2013, but I mean, how many leap years is he ahead of Hegseth? He's not a member of Congress. He's never read anything. He's of no stature intellectually or in terms of jewelry.

So he did write a bestseller about Wogue. Good point, yeah, yeah. Anyway, but I was interested in this, but this person also told my friend, I don't really think I should say anything publicly because I sort of have relationships and stuff like that. So it'll be interesting to see whether, do how many ex-generals and ex-sect-devs come out and say, this is just ridiculous, you know? I'm not holding my breath. How many people in the world would you guess have been forced to flee their homes? 1 million? 5? 10?

What if I told you the number was 122.6 million? If that were a country, it would be the sixth largest in the world. Every day, people all around the world leave their homes because of violence, ethnic, religious, or territorial conflict, persecution, political upheaval, climate-related events, or other crises. In 58 countries, people on the move can look to Jesuit Refugee Services for help. JRS is a ministry of the Jesuits, the Catholics you might know best for their schools and universities. Their work in education is especially meaningful here as they operate schools and refugee camps and offer job training, mental health support, and community building programs worldwide

to support those who have had to leave behind everything they know to keep themselves or their family safe. JRS is known for going where others don't and staying long after others have left, standing in solidarity with those experiencing the impacts of world events others have forgotten about. Their mission is to accompany, serve, and advocate for forcibly displaced people so they can heal, learn, and determine their own future. I went to Jesuit school.

I guess some of you have probably heard about that before. And though I've got some issues with the Catholics, I just love the Jebbes. They are always the best. They treated me so well. I think that they were an important influence on my maybe a little too late in life developing moral compass. But a lot of the things I've come to value and focus on, I can look back and see the little buds of them, not quite sprouting, but being seeded to torture the metaphor from the Jesuits.

And I've been a long time advocate for refugees and doing volunteer work and supporting refugees. We have attendees to our wedding actually to donate to refugee services. That's something I've long time been passionate about and so I hope that you will support this great organization. So if you want to do something good today to balance the rough few weeks, go visit JRS USA online. Read some of the additional stories about their work and then make a donation or look at other ways of supporting JRS's work like advocacy or volunteering. To check them out and show them that the bulwark sent you, visit JRSUSA.org slash bulwark.

That's JRSUSA.org slash bulwark. Moving on through the Me Too cabinet, so the Matt Gaetz story, which I appreciated in the newsletter this morning, it was a trigger warning for people. So I will give people it was a trigger warning for people. So I will give people as well a trigger warning. I guess coming forward this week is the lawyer for the two accusers, young women that were accusing Matt Gaetz of having sex with at least one of them while she was 17. The story is that when he was a freshman in Congress, they were having a lot of sex parties,

including Mac Gates having sex with one of these women on a game table, on a poker table of some kind, many witnesses. So that will be, I guess, coming out this week. And to my point earlier, the pushback against Gates seems to be much stronger right now based on interpersonal relationships. I want to play one little bit of audio from Congressman Max Miller of Ohio, who's not very great in his own right, but he had some thoughts about Matt Gates he shared with Manu Raju on CNN. A member of Congress and the job that he has done here, and it has been important. I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

I just say the quiet part out loud, and I wish other of my colleagues would have the same courage to do so, but him as a member of Congress should not be the most powerful law enforcement individual in our country, and everyone knows it, and he's not going to get confirmed. And so this is solely based off of his job as a member of Congress within this body that has caused more harm, made us spend more money, has put us in more paralyzation than any other member. It's a couple of things there, Phil, before I get to you. I want to analyze that mega Congress is not sending their best either. Max Miller doesn't sound like he's splitting any atoms there.

I think paralysis is the word that he was looking for. And I also want to note that he was very specific. He wanted to be very clear with Manu that he's not basing his opposition to Gates based on the stories with the young women. It's solely on his behavior in Congress. So this is not, don't get Max Miller wrong. Okay. He doesn't have any issues with Gates' private behavior. But like, I guess if you got to hand it to Max Miller, which I don't want to do, the rumors out there that half of the Senate are saying privately that they won't support him. But to me, it's like, I'll believe it when I see it.

Put up or shut up. So at least we have one person out there in the House, so not in the Senate, it's not relevant, but it's telling, I guess, that he's willing to say it on CNN. Totally. I mean, it was taken seriously enough that the judge was against it and that the Republican House went through with this ethics committee investigation, which apparently has produced a big fat report, which he quit two days ago from the House to get ahead of, because I guess they don't issue reports if you no longer remember of the House.

Big controversy about whether it'll become public or at least be sent over to the senators on the Judiciary Committee to read, pretty amazing not to. If an actual body of Congress run by indeed his own party has produced this report, you think you might, it's kind of relevant to the decision these senators have to make. They need to insist on that in my opinion. But the Gates defense, he realizes, yes, as a 37-year-old, I don't know, something like that, member of Congress, he went to these sex parties with drugs.

Sex parties. And had sex presumably in various forms or various, well. I think we can take out the presumably. I think that it's pretty clear that during his freshman year of Congress, he was having sex with younger women. Younger women. His defense is that it's not true that they were 17. They had just crossed, they were 18 years old.

I mean, so what are we talking about here? Sorry for partying, Bill. That's Gates's defense because legally there's a difference obviously and he needs to try to stay literally out of criminal prosecution. But I mean, how disgusting is that? I mean, I just, I don't know. I don't know, man. It does seem like you're cutting a fine line there.

There are a lot of options you have as a 37-year-old wealthy son of somebody that's very successful. You can party. You can go out there and have a good time. Nobody's begrudging you. Being on the 17, 18 line, it's cutting it a little close to say the least. If a woman was 18 and if there was no actual assault or something like that or drugging women to get sex and so forth. I'm not sure that he should be expelled from Congress for this.

I'm not sure he should be prohibited from ever having any kind of job anywhere. But again, if you're nominated to be attorney general in the United States, presumably there's a little bit of a higher bar. And you can vote against people to be attorney general or secretary of defense or secretary of HHS without thinking these people should be put in jail tomorrow. Some of them probably should be, but that's another story. You make a good point. The confirmation thing is not the equivalent of, I don't know, disbarring him, let's say, in Florida as a lawyer. I'm not sure whether that's justified or not, but that's a whole

different story. They have to affirmatively vote. This is why I think it's a little more likely that these people go down than other people think, I think. Because it's not just you kind of look the other way and they're next thing you know, they're in the cabinet. And that would be the way it would work at the recess appointments, obviously. But they are going to have to stand up and say yes, you know, in the floor of the United States Senate to Matt Gaetz as the Charity General.

Well, they might have to do that if they don't do the recess. But a very good lengthy explainer on the recess thinking from Philip Rodner in the Bullwark this morning. People want to go read that. One reason is tempting in addition to all the just obvious reasons making it easier for Trump at all. That's why some of the senators would like it. Some of the senators would get to say, oh, I am not sure I would have been able to vote

for him, but I take it out of my hands. What can I do? Right? Yeah. We were forced by this recess appointment. Yeah. You make a good point, you know, like even for the more libertine among us, it's like, Hey, you know, it's just one of those things where it's like, you want to go out and go to sex parties and bang on card tables and like do blow. Okay.

But that might limit your ability to be the top law enforcement official in the country, right? Like, unfortunately, if you want to be the top law enforcement official in the country, right? Unfortunately, if you want to be the top law enforcement official in the country, it does seem like kind of a minimum bar that you are law abiding. Those are sort of the sacrifices that you have to make when you kind of decide how hard you want to go. You think, it'll be the sacrifice you have to make, but maybe not anymore, I guess. Donald Trump gets to be the commander in chief.

We'll see. I'm intrigued by how the Gates thing plays out because these people hate him. What becomes the stronger pole for them? Their loathing of Matt Gaetz personally, or their desire to make daddy Trump happy. I kind of think that that desire to make daddy Trump happy might win out, but we'll see. I wanted to play this audio because there's a lot of chatter on the right in the MAGA world.

And Scott Jennings I saw this morning is like, you're calling him Hitler and now you want to work with him. And it's like, okay, yeah, I mean, we did say some mean things about Donald Trump, but it's just always worth remembering what the people who worked for Donald Trump said about him and what the people who want to work for him said about him. And I want to play this video of Tulsi Gabbard just a few years ago talking about Donald Trump's foreign policy. I call upon all Americans to stand side by side, including those who've been supporting Trump, no matter what he says or does, to recognize he is simply unfit to be commander-in-chief of our patriotic men and women serving our

country in uniform. He's essentially treating our troops as mercenaries, acting as if he is Napoleon or a king. Unfit to be commander in chief, acting as if he's Napoleon or a king. She wants to be the head of the DNI. I mean, that's as bad as anything anybody else has said around here on the ball work. Some people will be like, well, politicians say that all the times about the people that oppose them. I don't know. I don't remember in 2012, anybody on the Romney or Obama side saying of the other person that they're unfit to be the commander in chief. It's a pretty extreme statement.

But she also went on in a tweet, I would mention that being Saudi Arabia's bitch is not America first. I liked that Tulsi a little bit better. But she also is flying under the radar right now. And to me is maybe the most insane choice. We're going to get to our rankings at the end. But like when you mentioned Cotton at the top, is there any sign that any of the national security Republicans like have any issues with this?

I mean, she's an Assad apologist and Putin apologist and Putin stooge, I think it's fair to say and God knows how much explicit connection and coordination there's been. She went to see Assad, I think when there were sanctions and so forth, and didn't tell a colleague she was going to do it. Well, she was a member of Congress, I mean, pretty astonishing when she was a Democrat, I think. And so, I don't know.

You could imagine, I'm not in any way defending, I hope they all go down, obviously. You could imagine the Defense Department running adequately with Hexeth as a kind of nominal secretary of defense going around giving idiotic speeches and showing off his tattoos. You can imagine, I guess, the Justice Department working adequately if Gates doesn't do anything and he has decent Deputy Attorney General, though that's tougher and that's a more real, even more real, even more for real problem. HHS, you can just imagine Kennedy again being bloviating and not actually trying to destroy the National Institutes for Health or something like that and Congress might stop him from doing so, you know. The one place I don't

think it's tenable is intelligence. What do you do if you're a senior intelligence official and you get a request from the DNI's office for a briefing on Syria and the Syrian opposition forces? Or what's happening in the fight in the House of Ukraine using their new missiles or whatever against Russia? You can't have any confidence that information is not going right to Assad or to Putin or to their people. I think the intelligence community almost becomes impossible to even understand how it's going to work.

Maybe Radcliffe, as head of CIA, cuts Tulsi out somehow. But I mean, you're now at a level of real government dysfunction in an important area. Paralysation, you might even say. Yeah, that is just almost unimaginable. That's why I do wonder where even Tom Cotton thinks to himself, I'm not going to say that publicly, I'm going to send private emissaries to Trump. I'm going to find some excuse. We'll send her off somewhere else.

You know, I can't be chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee charged with oversight of our intelligence when she's the director of national intelligence. Y'all. I'm not sure if any sponsor of this podcast has been mentioned to me more in the last few weeks than today's. It's our pals at Seoul. What kind of night is it?

A single, double, triple or a quad? I'm not talking about alcohol. I'm talking about Seoul's out of office microdosed THC gummies. It might be a quad for some of you. Seoul's out of office gummies are perfectly microdosed with HempDrived THC and CBD to give any day that chilling on the beach vibe. Did you know that you can now buy HempDrived THC products in all 50 states because of the 2018 Farm Bill?

The out of office gummies help you get that much needed me time at the end of the day when you're sitting on the couch watching Nobody Wants This or just trying to avoid doom scrolling in the box of screams. Out of office gummies give you that warm fuzzy euphoric microdose feeling without sending you to the moon. As for me, I've been a long time advocate for gummies, but in addition to that, I've got to do this morning podcast and being hung over on liquor, in addition to being sad, in addition to not wanting to get out of bed because of the state of the world,

it's just not a good combo. It's not a good combo. So, I'm going to chill out and survive listening to mega podcasts to understand what's happening out in the world. Sol's out of office gummies are a much, much more fruitful pair for me than a few bourbons. Sol was founded five years ago by brother and sister duo Mike and Angie Lee. Mike is a former world-ranked professional boxer and Angie is an author and professional speaker who had the desire to create natural alternatives to the medication that tackle problems they deal with themselves, like sleeplessness, anxiety, focus, and pain.

This holiday season, give the gift of soul. Head to GetSoul.com and use code THEBULLWORK for 35% off your order now until December 3rd. That's 35% off your order using code THEBULLWORK. One last time, GetSoul.com and code THEBULLark one last time get soul.com and code the bulwark for 35% off you deserve it. I want to move on to RFK.

We were talking over the weekend and again, just thinking about this through the prism of are these people confirmable? The RFK element has something that, that these others don't, which is like there will be a powerful lobbying interest group in pharma that is going to try to stop it. What do you think about that?

Do you think that there's any appetite for stopping RFK through people that have more concerns about vaccines or other issues? I mean, I was talking to someone this weekend and being more of a national security person was more going on about the others or in a rule of law person. And he made the point to me that he's more of the business side of things. And he said, he doesn't think, and I said, I guess Kennedy could make it. And he said, no, no, this is real. I mean, he saw that with all due respect to your national security friends, they can,

and they're doing their best. They can get organized. They can write a letter. They have some associations that kind of represent them. There's only veterans for foreign wars or something. maybe they would come out, veterans of foreign wars, maybe they'd come out. But this is real politics. I mean, pharma is a really big player, especially in Republican circles.

And not just pharma, the doctors, the hospitals, I mean, and others in various worlds that RFK has said terrible things about. Can they accept RFK as Secretary of HHS? Maybe they get private assurances that they'll have no power, but I think you're looking at real lobbying by powerful groups who will privately tell these senators, this is key for us. This is key for us if you want to. Now, maybe they won't have the nerve to.

Maybe they'll back off too. Maybe Trump's people can go to them and say, you don't want to do this because you're going to lose contracts and this is the trouble with having an autocratic leader. He has leveraged the other way as well. But I guess that changed my mind a little bit about Kennedy being maybe the more likely one to get through because I think this is a serious lobbying effort. I gather, at least my friend expects there to be one that should be underway very soon.

Maybe it's underway privately even now. Now they'll want to keep it private. They'll want to find an out. Maybe he just goes to the White House. Trump says in a week, look, I don't want to go through all this mess. He'll be sitting in the White House at my right hand and we'll have a quote normal HHS secretary.

I guess that will be one way out. I'll take the other side of that bet. If your friend wants to have a friendly wager, I think that there's a lot of false confidence among the traditional DC class, the old interests about what their power is. And I think that at this point, you know, they do have a ton of influence. I think they're even more influenced than in the old days on some elements of the legislative process, right? Because just you have a lot of younger people, frankly, working on the Hill. There's a lot fewer and like, you know, there's been a lot of turnover. So there's a lot of fewer, you know, people with institutional legislative knowledge.

And so there's a lot of writing of legislation happening from interest groups. And so, you know, getting little things plucked into bills and stuff, I think they have a lot of influence over. But these sorts of fights, I don't know. I don't see it. It's a good point. I mean, I'm just thinking, you know, going through the scenarios here. So Pharma hires, I mean, they're not idiots. They're going to hire every single Trump-related firm they can and everyone. You know, Suzu Wao's old firm, Kellyanne Conway, Scott Jennings, $30,000 a month, or week, God knows what, these rates are these days.

Kellyanne is gonna make bags in the next four years. They're all gonna make fortune. I assume Jennings still does this kind of stuff, even in addition to being a CNN guy. So they're all gonna try to go to the US. Here are the two questions, I think you're right. One is, they might tell, look, we're gonna work with you quietly

to make sure your reimbursement rates are good, and they're not putting price caps on your drugs and at 19 other things That's different, but we can't take on Trump frontally on an extremely high-profile Nomination. I think that is possible. I'm not sure well those here's a question. Well, those people work for farmer I mean in this moment on this issue some of them will our boy Brian Ballard will and you know the big firm But I mean, maybe they'll work they'll work later to mitigate the damage. So I think you make a good point. This is sort of old Washington. You've got Farmer going after you. It's pretty hard to get confirmed as agent. Yes, secretary. New Washington trumps Washington. Maybe that doesn't

matter as much. They still will be powerful, as I say, in the actual legislative process. And this administration will be more corrupt than any of the other ones. Right. So they'll put in their former Pharma head as Assistant Secretary for Drug Reimbursement and they'll do great. And Kennedy won't know what's going on because he'll be out giving speeches about how many chemicals are in McDonald's french fries or something. Hosting meetings about how we're going to stop research into drugs and gathering people together, feeling

important. If you're going to UFC fights, being on the plane with Trump, there's just going to be a lot to keep him busy as Secretary of HHS. I want to move to the domestic side and talk about Treasury first. And Marco Pudo was writing with us for us over the weekend that this guy Howard Lutnick was in line to be head of treasury. You might have remembered his insane speech at the Madison Square Garden rally. He's a finance executive and apparently he is also running the transition. I was going to kind of do a

Cheney type situation where he appointed himself and apparently he's been annoying Trump. So I guess that's the one thing you can't do. Right. You don't hear about a lot about this usually in confirmation processes. The person is bugging the Napoleon, but in this case, Howard, let me check has been getting under Trump's nerves. So he's going back to the drawing board, looking for other people. And it's one interesting situation for me where Trump seems to be acting a

little bit more pragmatically because of one thing. He cares about the market, right? He doesn't want to spook the market. He knows the market isn't getting spooked by Tulsi or Matt Gaetz, so maybe they should be, but they might get spooked by a crazy person at Treasury. And so he's trying to balance somebody that will do the insane tariffs, but also won't spook Wall Street. And he's trying to kind of get the Goldilocks there.

Yeah. I think, and maybe someone who won't really do the tariffs, but will pretend to enough that Trump can declare victory, sort of like what he's heard in the first term a little bit with China and stuff. I, yeah, I was struck by that. I was on some of these finance TV shows for, you know, eight minutes on Friday. And I've been on these kinds of shows of some and

they're pretty pro-Trump because this is, you know, this CNBC, Yahoo Finance world. Cutting red tape. Yeah, exactly. Deregulation. And the markets got up when Trump was elected quite a lot. And I remember, I was struck that they were a little more open to the notion that this stuff is double edged.

I mean, you got to be, this is the just total arbitrariness of the way he'll run things combined with a couple of the actual policies of which tariffs is probably the biggest. And I guess the markets have given back most of their gains from the first few days after his election. I have not followed that closely. And so I do wonder how much Trump, if he's following this stuff closely, if he does follow this stuff closely, is worried that someone who's going to just not be reassuring to the markets, who's not a Gary Cohn, he's not going to go all the way to Gary Cohn, but maybe

this in-between place he can go and sort of semi-reassure the markets and He's not a Gary Cohn. He's not going to go all the way to Gary Cohn, but maybe there's an in-between place he can go and semi-reassure the markets and lay the groundwork for not totally spooking the business world. The business guys do have some clout, the donors, though I don't know. They're so intimidated. That also strikes me in the old days, for better or worse, and maybe you could say for worse. If you appointed someone who all your donors are against, you would hear about it, right, or thought about appointing such a person.

I don't know, do they even have the nerve to call up Mar-a-Lago now and say, you know, I raised $40 million for you and I would just appreciate it if you take a look at someone else? And there's a Trump documentary, some of the clips have been going around. And the one that's been viral on social media is like him dictating the tweets. For some reason people find that interesting. The one that jumped out at me is it's a short clip maybe about a minute after the debate with Harris. And the documentary crew is with them backstage.

And Trump talks to Rubio in advance. And the camera's kind of behind at a distance. It doesn't seem like it's for show. It seems like he got off stage. It's their first conversation. It's like, what do you think? What do you think? And Rubio and Vance both tell him how great he did. And it's like, I don't know. It wasn't caveated. It wasn't like, well, you know, I mean, these guys are going to get you on this one. But I was just like, no. And then Trump said over there going, no,

I thought it was maybe the best I've ever done. And anyway, it's where I'll find the clip and put it in the notes for people. But I don't think that people give them bad news anymore. I just don't think that there's a lot of evidence that people do. No, I'm sure you're right. I mean, as you know, having been there and after debates and tried to give bad news sometimes. It's hard.

Rubio wanted to be Secretary of State. He was not going to give any bad news. Vance, VP Pick, Mets Jr. That's a little tricky and awkward, I would say. You'd be kind of... I mean, I think the normal person in such circumstance would sort of say, I think it was fine, sir. You were excellent in so many ways.

I do think we have this one issue we probably should clean up, you know what I mean? Yeah, sure, sure. Now the staff and all the people who give the semi bad news, I mean, you know, even after a little hemming and hawing, I don't know, does none of them even, I guess, I don't know. I don't know. It's like the Susie Wiles thing, people are like, Susie's normal, we're going to put her in there.

It's like, I think that Susie will probably be pretty good at like preventing Nick Fuentes from getting an Oval Office meeting, you know, whereas some of the other people might not have even gone that far, but there's no intervening, you know, there's been no breaks on the Matt Gaetz appointment or any of these appointments we've been discussing. So like, I don't think there's any evidence that nobody's reporting is like, well, you know, a lot of people internally were saying out saying, sir, you should be a little more careful.

I don't know. They're going to come at you on this Gates pick. I would none of that has leaked out. No, I think that's really a good point. And Caputo's reporting has been excellent on this for the board. But Mark Caputo, but the just two points, I mean, just Susie Wallace, I think, yes, will be a chief of staff who keeps the trains running and so forth. But I can't believe she's going to have that much substantive

effect and maybe a little bit of warning. This one could be controversial, sir, but who's the top policy guy in the White House? Steve Miller. And who I think behind the scenes is having a lot of influence? JD Vance, especially on the issues he cares about. He's the one who said, if you voted for Ukraine aid, you're not it. You're not cotton. Pompeo went up to the Hill to argue for it. No, you got to have voted against it as Rubio did and Walz did and Stefanik did,

even though they had all been supporters of Ukraine before. You need to bow, bend the knee on these issues that Vance cares about. I think that would also be true. I wonder on Treasury, you'd think you'd have less influence. It's not his area, so to speak. And someone told me this is sort of third-hand kind of thing, that Vance's influence, and it will continue, it certainly does. Vance knows that personnel matters. So he'll be interested in the second and third level appointments, too, deputy secretary of this, assistant secretary of that. So I think Vance and Miller, and they're working together with Tucker Croson on the outside,

and Elon, that's a powerful cadre of people close to Trump. But again, it probably trumps, so to speak, the kind of people we're talking about weighing in and saying, oops, this is a little risky, right? For sure. And the Elon thing takes me to the other point I wanted to get to about the domestic appointments. It's not a cabinet thing, right? So it's a little bit of a category difference.

But Nikkei Cobbins of the Atlantic today was talking to some folks of our allies in Europe. And it was interesting that some of the people he talked to were actually pointing to the domestic elements as almost more concerning than the foreign policy stuff, which they kind of expected. The Portugal's Europe minister said to McKay about the Musk influence. I don't know. If you saw this in another country, you would see it as an acute sign of political decay

when billionaires and oligarchy are taking over political policy. I do think that's a fair point. At some level, the Musk, we see the FCC appointment as somebody that is very friendly to Musk's interests when it comes to Starlink. Musk apparently is living in Mar-a-Lago, maybe he'll overstay his welcome eventually, and this will go away. But at some level, from the farthest remove,

you look at it and you're like, I mean, if this was happening in a third world country, it would just be evidence of a total loss of credibility of democratic institutions. No, I think that's a key point. I mean, a lot of people are saying, we'll look at the corruption, the amount of corruption will be unbelievable.

And I think that's true. But also, it's beyond corruption. I mean, OK, maybe that's price you pay, so whatever, you can tolerate that. The system can tolerate that. But it is the kind of merging of aspects of the private and public sector, the oligarchs and the government becoming

one and the need to therefore, if you just want to survive as a business, to be on good terms with the government types and the government types being pressured to do favors for the oligarchs. It feels like Putin in the 2000s or Orban actually quite a lot in the last 10 years. So they can't quite do in the US what Orban succeeded in doing in Hungary, I guess. But the degree to which we could get down that path, I would say one last point. I mean, people are still underestimating. Now it's like shock and awe.

So oh my God, it's a real look at these people. Can you believe it? But people need to also think, what's it going to look like three, six, nine, 12 months from now when they do get more people in the government at second and third and fourth years, when they do change schedule, do the schedule F thing to make so many more of these civil service appointments political. I think that, so it's a real governance crisis of democracy. It's not just a unpleasant four years of corruption.

I think the first term is a little more like that. You know, Jared gets his two billion from the Saudis, but the government mostly sort of still worked, you might say, in the way it should. We cannot count on that this term. So now we get to our alarmism rankings. It's a tough little exercise to think about which of these things alarms you the most if you had to rank them. So Bill Kristol.

You want to go first? Sure. I'm happy to go first. Me and Sam Stein did this last week on YouTube. You can check out our YouTube feed if you haven't subscribed yet. And our rankings were opposite, which shows you kind of like how it's in the eye of the beholder. But for me, Tulsi is one for the reasons that you laid out.

At some level, we might have somebody that is actively rooting against U S interests in charge of intelligence. I like the downstream effects of that are hard to really calculate. And we just might be out of the intelligence business actually for four years. And how Malian actors will be able to take advantage of that over the next four years. I think it's tough to calculate. She's one for me. Hagseth is two, just because the absurdity of the choice and, you know, the broad remit

that he has. And so number three for me, this is where it gets tough because I think that Elon's role and RFK and Gates, you could make a case for any of them. I think that RFK though, I'm going to have third just because we're already seeing declining vaccination rates. I mean, the potential impact of that, the potential of my buddy's an infectious disease doctor, and he said that he wants to freeze all infectious disease research for four years. I just think it's hard to kind of calculate what that damage could be. So I put that third, and then Gates' fourth, and Musk's fifth.

The Gates thing, I think it's an absurd pick, but the legal system quasi held in the first term, right? And like the idea of targeting foes and all that, like, you're still going to need to get prosecutors to do it and gather evidence and go in front of juries. And I just think like there are a lot of potential checks there to limit the worst behavior, though there will be some bad behavior. And so in some level, I almost think Musk might be worse than him. I might switch those last two. So, anyway, that's my list. Yeah, and, Raj, we're including Musk. I mean, Musk is very bad, I think.

You don't have to include Musk. No, I mean, he's not just, he's not getting a government job. He's getting this fake government job. They've been very careful to specify it's not a government job, this fake office of government, whatever the hell it is, account of, you know, something, doge, or whatever. Because, of course, if you've got a government job, there still are regulations about conflict of interest and disclosure, which he of course doesn't want to do for a second. The degree of corruption with the must thing, he goes around, he's got Trump's in Permanent or he can find out anything he wants anywhere in the federal government.

Who's going to say, no, I'm sorry, I'm not giving you this information. It's proprietary. It's not something we're supposed to share outside of the government about bidding on contracts. I mean, the degree of advantage he has now in terms of his businesses and the Unwillingness that anyone's gonna have outside or inside inside or outside the government to take him on So I think the boss thing is actually very bad But but a slightly different category tall see number one for the reason you said I agree with

The others are a little hard I guess I would make the slightly different argument that Kennedy is probably more checked because he can't actually, he can't personally change the way NIH works. He can't change the appropriations there. I don't know that he can even change the drug review process. A lot of that is congressional or could be congressional. And there would be, as we were saying earlier, that's the case where a farmer can weigh in and say, wait a second. Every state gets billions of dollars, and it budgets 40 billion, it's not every state, but states get hundreds of millions of billions of dollars of NIH grants to their own medical schools and hospitals and research organizations, and their senators are going to be aware of

this. I kind of think you could imagine most of that stuff going on despite Kennedy. I agree that the effect though of him just dedicating vaccines and what that does to parents and their willingness to get their kids vaccinated and then when you don't have a critical mass of people vaccinated and so forth, that's dangerous. Gates and Hegseth is, I guess also I would say, I kind of think defense probably runs out of stone a little more than justice.

I can argue that one either way. You made a good case that a lot of the legal stuff, of course, you still have to get juries to convict and all, but I don't know. They have quite a lot of discretion of justice and they can decide to investigate a lot of things. They get to including people like you and me and organizations that we were part of and so forth. I don't know if he can penetrate justice down to the second, third, fourth levels. I mean, you could have a lot of abuse of power.

And instead of the final point, both justice and intelligence community, I've personally not talked to people and I'm not out there looking to talk to them. I don't know that many people, but people have gotten in touch who are looking to leave, career people. Not even particularly left wing or anything, just career people. They can't operate sincerely and honestly in this environment. So I think you get a little more there.

If you're at NIH, maybe you figure, you know, at the end of the day, Congress will protect me. So slight differences with you, but, um, not much difference. Yeah. Steve Bannon will be clipping this like Crystal RFK, least bad, Miller Gates, least bad appointees, endorsement from the Never Trumpers.

No, they're all bad. All the appointments are bad. You know, risk assessment is a valuable exercise. And then I take your points on, on justice. All right. Well, I didn't get to the Russia Ukraine wars escalating. We talked about that a bunch last week. And so I refer people back to our conversation then, and I think you're very

insightful points about how you see Putin now moving into Ukraine further and maybe we'll decide that he doesn't actually need to deal with Trump on this and we'll continue pushing forward with TBD on that. I wanted to also mention at 4.03 a.m. this morning, Trump sent a belief confirming he plans to declare a national emergency and use military assets to engage in a mass deportation campaign. I thought it was interesting he did that at 4 a.m. and also more to discuss on that later this week. So Bill Kristol, any other final thoughts for me?

I didn't even know about that 4 a.m. thing, but yikes. Well, that's a whole other thing we should talk about. You'll talk with other people about it. We should talk about that. Mass deportation remains one of the biggest, don't you think, sort of— Top of my list. —terrible things, but also potential backfire things it feels like for Trump. Yeah, top of my list. Okay, we'll make sure mass deportation conversation. Unfortunately, we'll have many Mondays, I think, to discuss that, but we'll do our best

to get to it next week. Thank you to Bill Kristol, everybody else, as I mentioned, we got Jen Psaki tomorrow. And so come hang with us then. We appreciate you tuning in and we'll see you all tomorrow. Peace. They told you your music could reach millions. The choice was up to you. And you told me they always pay for lunch. They believe in what I do And I wonder, will you miss your old friends?

Once you've proven what you're worth Yeah, I wonder when, when you're a big star Will you miss the earth? And I knew you'd always, always want more I knew you'd never, ever be done Not me, not all of everyone is a fucking Napoleon Everyone is a fucking Napoleon is a fucking Napoleon And the next time that I saw you

you were larger than life Yeah, you came and you conquered and you were doing alright You had an army of suits behind you Oh, you read that he was willing I said I used to make pretty good living But you must make a killing, a killing