The Bulwark Podcast - Bill Kristol and Ben Wittes: A Subversive Enterprise

Episode Date: March 18, 2024

Trump stands and salutes the  insurrectionists during the national anthem, and may rehire the treasonous Paul Manafort to help out in '24. Plus, the dust settles on the Fani Willis' prosecution in Georgia, and Aileen Cannon seriously entertains Trump's absurd claim in the docs case. Kristol and Wittes join Tim.

Hello and welcome to the Bullard Podcast. I'm Tim Miller. We've got a big day today. On the back end, we'll have Ben Wittes just fresh off his being sanctioned by the Russian Federation. Very happy for Ben on that achievement. But first, we've got Bill Crystal. Much to discuss. Bill, how are you doing? Not sanctioned, but congratulations to Ben. Yeah, unsanctioned. You're free to take a Tucker Carlson-esque trip to check out the local grocery chains and anywhere else that you want to go still in Russia. You hate to even joke about it, right? It's so horrible. And then people treating this

election as if it were a real election. It is horrible. It is horrible. And speaking of this election as if it was a real election, I don't know if you saw this over the weekend. Well, I know you saw it, actually. So I don't want to pretend like I don't know. The former president had a pretty interesting introduction to his speech in Ohio. Let's take a listen ladies and gentlemen please rise for the horribly and unfairly treated january 6th hostages okay that's enough we had uh trump saluting during that whole time like he was Gaddafi or something, like a weird, you know, Libyan dictator. I don't know. What were your thoughts about the hostages and that new intro with kind of the World Wrestling Federation mixed with Gaddafi mixed with, you know, releasing General Raddick from Air Force One. You know, as I said in Morning Shots this morning, I thought I was inured to Trump and all of his horrors. And I've kind of told myself over and over, as you have to, I'm sure,

you know, got to just blood pressure, keep calm, you know, keep calm and carry on and all that. And I felt physically sick, I've got to say, listening to that and watching that. I mean, these are the people who violently stormed the Capitol. Trump's responsible for it in large measure, but they obviously made the choice to do it. They've been convicted, duly convicted in fair trials, in courts of law, and they're now being called hostages and the crowd is standing and Trump is saluting them. Saluting, something that our military does as a matter of protocol and order and demonstration of kind of respect for law, really, right? For what's the famous line, you salute the office, not the man, you know? I mean, it's precisely almost embodies what it means not to be in the service of a willful, arbitrary

dictator. And here Trump is saluting. I just, it really, it got to me, I've got to say. It did too, because it just, it also feels just so un-American. I mean, it is un-American directly in the sense, right, that we're saluting people that stormed the Capitol. But just the whole scene of it feels as if it is out of a bad movie or a third world country. You know, it just does not have the feel of somebody that has respect for the country and the traditions. You know, I mean, it just, do you also get that sense? Totally. And I tweeted, this is a little over the top, probably.

Impossible. About Horst Wessel, the Nazi song that was a tribute to this martyr, alleged martyr in Horst Wessel. I think he had written it, actually, maybe. And which became a kind of co-national anthem of Nazi Germany, along with Deutschland über alles. And that is what authoritarian, and let's use the word, fascist movements do, right? Yeah.

And this is a little complicated, because it's sort of the national anthem, but it's sort of a garbled, mashed up version of the national anthem being sung by this J6 choir. I mean, there is something about treating the song of your self-proclaimed martyrs, of your movement, as equal to the national anthem that's itself so at a big rally with the standing and the saluting. I don't try not to overuse the Nazi comparison. It's not really quite a Nazi comparison, obviously, but there is something genuinely deeply creepy about it. Yeah, creepy and fascistic. And I made the point that, you know, and these are also the people that were very up in arms about Colin Kaepernick taking a knee during the national anthem. And I do think it puts a different light on this, on those sorts of

critiques. I'm mad about the Black National Anthem also being sung at the Super Bowl. But also, we have a new flag now that has a blue line on it. And now we also have a kind of sectarian National Anthem. It kind of, I think, reveals a little bit about what was really underlying some of those critiques from the past. Absolutely. There was another thing that happened at the speech. There was a little brouhaha over the weekend about, and it was Trump using the Absolutely. folks that missed it that were actually enjoying their weekend and did not see the back and forth. Basically, what has happened is Trump, this is also the problem with dissecting these Trump speeches, is that a lot of times it's nonsense garble speak. I mean, you know, he's like an Ouroboros, the snake just kind of these sentences like goes out and comes back and they don't follow a rational, logical verb, predicateicate noun, predicate sentence structure. But in short, basically, he's talking about the plants that are being built in China and

how the auto industry in Ohio and in the Midwest is, you know, going to suffer and suffering under Biden. And then he says, now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That'll be the least of it. But they're not going to sell those cars. So, you know, if you want to call that a sentence or sentences, okay, you can dissect it if you want. Several people in the media were kind of claiming that he's saying that if he loses, there will be a bloodbath and kind of alluding to January 6th. Others were saying he's just talking about the car industry. Your colleague and our colleague, Andrew Edgar, got some attention for saying, well, no, actually, he pretty clearly says it's going to be a bloodbath for the country and that'll be the least of it. So how do you assess the kind of bloodbath brouhaha?

I mean, I wouldn't obsess on the sentence. And as we said earlier, I was kind of obsessed with the hostages and the quote hostages and that horrible part of the speech. But look, when you said the RNC was a bloodbath, you know what? You haven't called for killing people who worked at the RNC. You haven't called for beating them up. You haven't called for putting them in camps. You haven't said that there'll be retribution and vengeance against them in the future, except you might personally not choose to hire them for some enterprise that you're involved in, but that's a free country. I definitely would choose not to hire them for an enterprise I'm involved in, but yes.

So you know what? No one thinks when you say bloodbath that you're calling for a bloodbath. When Donald Trump uses words like that, and he does so routinely, of course, it's not quite like a normal politician or a normal commentator using a colorful term. And people are entitled to be a little alarmed, though, as I say, I think there are even more alarming things in that speech and every other speech. And it is not just his speeches, but in his actual program for 2025. The pardon power, which I mentioned also in warning shots. So, of course, the context of the hostages, quote hostages, I even hate to use that term.

It's so offensive after when they were real Americans being held hostage and obviously in the Gaza Strip, but also in Russia to get back to that unpleasant topic. Anyway, so why does he talk about the hostages? Because he's going to pardon them. The pardon power, that is really dangerous at a Trump second term. When he says he's going to pardon people who've committed violence doing something he wanted them to do, what is he saying about the future? You do something that I want you to do. You're outside the government. The government can't quite get around to doing it. You take law into your own hands. Here's a pardon. You're in the government. Someone tells you you can't do that. It's not really authorized by the law and the regulations. You do it anyway because you're furthering Trump's wishes. Here's a pardon. The pardon power,

the way Trump talks about it and glories in it in the context of all the rest of his rhetoric is an invitation to violence. So people are entitled to be a little more alarmed when Trump uses the term bloodbath than a normal commentator does. Yeah, I totally agree. You know, the MAGA defenders and the apologists and like the worst people in America who, you know, who are always looking for any excuse to be able to defend Trump because they can't defend him on the merits, you know, they come out and say, well, you have to look at the context. He's talking about the auto industry. It's kind of like, well, no, actually, we could, you know, take the aperture back a little bit on that context and think about the broader context, which was there was maybe not a bloodbath, but there was bloodshed after he last lost an election because he refused to accept defeat.

Like that happened after his last loss. So when you support a nominee for president that incited a deadly riot at the Capitol after his last loss, then part of the baggage associated with that, when you nominate him again, unbelievably, is that when he talks about a bloodbath after the next election, that some people might take that literally. The parted thing, Paul Manafort, there's a report out of the Washington Post today that Paul Manafort is back's a report out of the Washington Post today that Paul Manafort is back to advising Trump, at least informally and possibly formally again. I do think that it kind of got lost because of the timing. It was after Christmas, I believe, or maybe right before Christmas of 2020, that Paul

Manafort was pardoned by Trump. So this is during the stop the steal. It was a couple of weeks before January 6th. And it was the type of pardon that in a different administration or a more normal administration where there was not an insurrection a few weeks later, you know, would have, I think, just totally dominated coverage and would have been treated like Mark Rich on steroids, which is what it was. It was an absolutely treasonous pardon. Paul Manafort was colluding with the Russians, was dealing with Russian intelligence sources. Even the Republican Senate report that looked into the Russian interference in the election said that Paul Manafort was doing

influence work for the Russian government and its interests. That's a direct quote from the Republican Senate report. And then he did not cooperate with federal officials that wanted to investigate his work, his influence work with the Russian government. He was jailed. Donald Trump pardoned him, all the while getting an assist from Russia, of course. And now, with everything that we've learned since and all the actions of Russia since, Donald Trump is now bringing this person that he pardoned back into the mix. It's really astounding. Yeah, and really dangerous. I mean, he also pardoned, I think, Flynn and Roger Stone and Steve Bannon

between Election Day and January 6th, I think. He'd used the pardon power earlier and talked about using it earlier to attempt to thwart the course of justice. He really started to use it after, you know, when he was trying to overturn the election results. And he obviously learned, in a sense, maybe he already had the sense of it, but he really learned how powerful that could be, I think, in accomplishing his aims if he ever gets back into the presidency. And so, yeah, the Manafort re-emerging. And incidentally, all those Republicans you mentioned briefly before, senators, members of Congress, all these are reluctantly supporting Trump.

Could one of them say a word about the propriety of Manafort, or Steve Bannon for that matter, being part of Trump's inner circle? I mean, it's just, why even bother? Why am I even asking this question? I don't know. But I mean, it is a subversive, if I can put it that way, enterprise that Trump has evolved in, subversive of our Constitution, subversive of the Republic. And all these people are just, well, I don't approve some

of the things he says. I wouldn't say it that way myself, you know, but nothing, they don't take it seriously. Mike Pence takes it seriously. No one else seems to. He does. And let's get into Mike Pence. I've been, I wrote about this time. I mean, you're saying subversive. When I wrote about the Manafort thing in 2020, I pulled back up that article. I called it treasonous at the time. I just, I don't know how to otherwise explain it. I mean, Russia engaged in an attack on our democratic elections.

Manafort was speaking to and colluding with Russian intelligence during that time. He lied and concealed this effort when the American government tried to investigate it in order to protect himself. And then Donald Trump pardoned him for it. So you don't need to split hairs about that. He was literally working with the people that are attacking America. So you define that however you want. Okay, Mike Pence is somebody that does see this clearly. Over the weekend, he was asked about whether he would endorse Trump on Fox News and said no. He said he also is not going to vote for Joe Biden. He said he's not going to reveal who he's going to vote for. And he expressed dismay about a range of issues, Donald Trump, but specifically, like you just did, mentioned, you know, his use

of hostages and referring to January 6th hostages at a time when there are actual real-life American hostages. So, what was your take on Mike Pence, hero of democracy, just barely passing the bar? Where do you stand? He's progressing. I mean, incidentally, the first time he said, this was Thursday or Friday, that he wouldn't support Trump, it was kind of, because Trump's not a true conservative. He doesn't support the conservative agenda. And it's like, really? I mean, isn't there a little more abortion? He mentioned abortion. Trump's a little too weak-kneed on abortion for him. I was glad to see Pence on Sunday did move a little further into mentioning January 6th, which incidentally seems to be basically foreboding to be mentioned by any Republican, right? I mean, it's like the eye roll.

If you're like, oh, you're going to talk about that old thing again, the storming of the Capitol. And maybe it's good political advice that, you know, Democrats shouldn't talk about it all the time because you've got to talk about kitchen table issues and people don't understand democracy, quote unquote. I think they kind of do understand storming the Capitol, though. And I think January 6th has an actual issue in the fact that Trump is literally on the side of the insurrectionists. I mean, he incited them, but he could have said, and many people said right after, well, he kind of accident didn't really expect him to storm the Capitol.

And he could have said nothing. They're not even pretending that there's any, you know, regret or second thoughts or, you know, little bit of distancing from the insurrection. I mean, think of that was the Trump rally. This was not a, you know, what's that Charlie Kirk organization, the turning point. This was not some Trump adjacent thing. This was a rally for Trump. The announcer who presumably was instructed by the Trump campaign as to what to say, please stand for these brave, for the hostages, Trump the salute. I mean, that is what the alternative is in 2024. It was not just Pence among the senior Trump staffers that were speaking out. His former

defense secretary, Esper, had some pretty alarming comments about his private conversations with Trump and what he would expect from a second Trump term. Let's take a listen. You know, eventually it culminated, the long break, simmering break between he and myself in June of 2020, when he wanted to deploy active duty troops on the street of Washington, D.C. and suggested actually that we we shoot American Americans in the street. So, I mean, that's kind of more what you see is very hyper aggressive behavior and this, you know, willingness to flaunt norms and rules, if you will. Sometimes, again, it's like the match between the tone and the words is a little off for me. It's like, you know, there might be some flaunting of norms if you will in the next term like for example he wanted to shoot americans in the street and we had to talk him down from that

so heroism medal for uh mark esper maybe not but the pairing of those things right like to have trump's own vice president this weekend say that he cannot support him because of january 6th have his own defense secretary say he cannot support him because he's concerned that he would want to put into place some of the proposals that they discussed apparently in private up to and including shooting Americans in the street. It's pretty remarkable to have both of them kind of speaking out that clearly. I mean, there's not really an analog for that. Right. And Mark, I've known him a long time. He was a foreign policy staffer on the Hill for Fred Thompson and Bill Frist and sort of mainstream Republican. And when he went in there, he wasn't a famous guy like Jim Mattis. And he wasn't conspicuously, you might say, standing up to Trump. But I knew some people in the defense department. I think he did his best to prevent really terrible things from happening and went along with some things as they all had to, in a sense. But I remember being in one of these, maybe we discussed this once, one of these exercises before November 4th, Election Day in 2020,

what Trump could do, what people were trying to prepare, I think intelligently, for worrying about the scenario that actually happened. And I remember I played Trump because I allegedly knew more about Trump having been a Republican. And I said, well, of course he'll fire Esper. This was on Zoom. It was a pandemic. There were like 50 of us on Zoom. And so the chat thing is open, you know. And I remember getting a ton of chat things. Hey, that's great, Bill. You're really getting the spirit of this game.

It's important to make us really think outside the box. Of course, it will never happen. When's that ever happened? A president firing a secretary of defense right after, you know, losing an election. I was like, yeah, I think it could happen. He could probably fire Bill Barr, too, and he could try to take over the national security sectors, something like that, the power agencies, I think the power ministries of the government, to help advance his plans. Sure enough, he fired Esper, what, I think four days after the election. I think Esper's been pretty outspoken. Yes, there's a little mix of the tone and the words are a little maybe off. But I think he and other people I've talked to served in the first Trump administration say if he's elected, he'll invoke the Insurrection Act on January 20th, 2025, when he's sworn in. And he'll say he's doing it for the border because the border's been out of control.

But, of course, the Insurrection Act is very vague in general and it does allow you to deploy U.S. troops on the soil of the United States, as Trump wanted to do on June 20th when he got Esper and Milley to march across Lafayette Square with him. So, yeah, Esper should be promoted more as a sensible voice of alarm who has no personal stake in it. You know, I mean, he really has tried to say what he believes to be true. The substance and the stakes of the threat for Esper, the Instruction Act, etc. is super alarming. I have one more sentence on the on the politics of this. I do think that hopefully, eventually, this will accrue to Biden's benefit. Is it possible that we could live in a world where it doesn't sink in that Donald Trump's own vice president, multiple of his defense secretaries, multiple of his national security advisors, all are not supporting him? I mean, it's possible.

I hate to tell you this. That's got to sink in with some people, right? There's nobody just like, hey, I'm looking around. I'm like, well, I don't know. I'm trying to decide between these two guys and his own vice president and all of his top staff members say we should never give him power again. But my judgment from sitting here and coming Georgia is that, you know, I think that he's probably still better. Yeah, no, I think it should sink in. I think, honestly, some people say, well, Biden needs to talk more about that. I don't actually think that's right. I think it needs to

be, frankly, you know, Sarah Longwell and Republican voters against Trump, but other groups, too, that aren't part of the Biden campaign. If it's Biden, then it's like, well, somehow they're sold out to Biden. It really should be an independent effort and many independent efforts. And I encourage, much as I will, involved with Sarah. And, of course, we think we're the best of these efforts. But everyone should get involved in finding Republicans who've spoken up against Trump and finding former Trump officials, especially, who've spoken up against Trump. They saw him up close. They really understood what he was trying to do with the Defense Department, the Justice Department. Cassidy Hutchinson and Sarah Matthews

and others understood in the White House what was happening. Those people need to be very famous by Election Day 2024. I agree. Okay, rapid fire, a couple quick other things that are happening. Tom Emmer over in the House, who, as you might recall he's part of the House leadership. He was one of the more supposedly establishment whatever Republicans was castrated by Donald Trump when he attempted to run for Speaker. Apparently, that did not bother him. And there's a gathering in West Virginia over the weekend, House Republicans there. Apparently, he said that the State of the Union was so divisive that if Biden wins next year, he would not extend him an invitation. I just I feel like I have to bring this up because, you know, if Hakeem Jeffries had suggested this, there would just be, you know, wall to wall pearl clutching from the norms crowd. You know, we'd have multiple New York Times op eds about this, but it's kind of it's hard to break through with these sorts of things on the Republican side. But I do think it bears mentioning that Tom Emmer, who I supported,

you know, as we've been discussing, the man that spurred on an attack of the Capitol, feels like that Joe Biden's, frankly, pretty normal State of the Union address was too much for him. And we must now stop the historic practice of the State of the Union. Thoughts on that? Maybe he has ambitions to move up in leadership, you know, still and wants Trump to be okay with him next time. That's pretty dark. Okay, yeah. On the other side of the hill,

there's been some kerfuffle about comments by Chuck Schumer. I've just been kind of wondering what Bill Kristol thinks about this. Chuck Schumer basically calling for a new government in Israel, a lot of more pro-Israel folks in the Republican side of the aisle creating a stink about this, talking about how inappropriate it was. You know, where do you fall on that? I'm sort of of two minds. I mean, I wish there were a new government in Israel. I wish, you know, it steps aside the week after. And the custom in Israel has been in a way to stick with the government you have, get the war over with, and then make a change. That's happened two or three times. But he's so divisive, and there's so little trust in him, that having a national unity government led

by Gantz or someone else, I suppose, would have been so much healthier, I think. And that's probably still the case. So I think substantively, I agree with Schumer, to a large degree, it's a little unusual for one of the leaders of one country to tell another country they should have elections, but he's not telling them. I guess he's suggesting them, but he's not making any of our aid contingent on that. And he is a genuine friend of Israel. So as I say, I'm slightly ambivalent. As a true supporter of Israel, as I think Schumer is, I really wish Netanyahu would step aside. I kind of agree with that. That's sort of where I landed on this too, but sometimes I feel like I'm out of my element on this stuff. Okay, finally,

also very important issue. I just had to get your take on it after seeing your social media posts. Kate Middleton, I don't know if you've noticed, she's still not seeing the sun. One of the tabloids in the United Kingdom has said that she was spotted this weekend, but there are no photos of it, which is actually weirder than putting up a photo or than saying nothing, I would think. But I'm just wondering if you have thoughts as, you know, I feel like we're two of the most prominent anti-monarchists in, you know, all of the West. And it seems like you might see an opening for, you know, finally toppling the monarchy somewhere here in the Kate Middleton saga. You would think, I didn't really watch The Crown, but someone on social media put up the last,

you know, one of the very last segments, I think, of The Crown, where Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth are saying this, we're the last, we're the last who can keep this going, and it's not going to be sustainable once we leave. And I think there's some truth to that. So yeah, it's time for Kate Middleton to, I hope she's well and she can emerge and then she can start an anti-monarchy party, you know, enough of the crown. That would be exciting. The labor party, as I did eight seconds of research on this, the labor party has never been, I think as a way of making themselves seem less radical, has never been anti-crown, anti-monarchy. In fact, they've gone out of the way at different times, Clement Attlee way back

after World War II. No, no, we're fine with the monarchy. But I think enough already, you know, and let's, they can become a republic and follow in our footsteps 250 years later. Yeah, enough already. To a constitutional republic led by, let's go even a step further. You know, Kate, I don't know, I can take her leave, Kate. Maybe it should be led by an American, Meghan Markle.

Maybe that, I think that is where the United Kingdom, it's sort of reaching its inevitable conclusion. You know, sort of the final battle of the revolution, if you will, is Meghan Markle acceding to the prime ministership. It can't be called the United Kingdom anymore, though. It'll have to be just Great Britain. Fair enough. Okay, Bill Kristol, we're up next with the recently sanctioned Ben Wittes. I'm very excited to talk to him about what's happening in Russia as well as the Trump trials. Bill, see you back here next Monday. See you then, Monday. author of Dog Shirt Daily on Substack. But Ben, your most important recognition this week comes as you've been officially sanctioned by Russia. Well, technically, they sanctioned a guy named Ben Witts, a journalist, but we're going to assume that that was just, you know,

maybe a translation error and give you the due congratulations that you deserve. How does it feel? It feels great. You know, I started these operations against the Russian embassy two years ago. I've done 11 countries projection operations. And as you know, they frozen out of the Grammys for 30 years or something, and then you get a Lifetime Achievement Award. The Russians came through finally and, you know, gave me that Oscar. I projected my thanks to the ambassador on the wall of the embassy this weekend, along with a request that next time they do spell my name correctly. And, you know, all is right with the world now. Is there any bittersweet element to it to know that you're not going to be able to visit

Vladivostok in winter or, you know, see the beautiful gleaming grocery marts of Volgograd? There has been an element of regret. But, you know, here are some things that I'm thinking of doing. I'm thinking of applying for a visa just to get the letter that says, no, you're sanctioned, you can't have a visa. And that would be like an awesome thing. You know, I'm thinking of that. Although there is this problem that, you know, I can't really set foot in that building because there are sort of Jamal Khashoggi-like concerns. You know, can I apply for a visa by mail? And will there be polonium on the letter that comes back? So there are like, you know, challenges associated with this project.

But yeah, no, I have actually, all jokes aside, I've always wanted to go to Russia, and I have a lot of Russian friends, and I actually would, under different circumstances, like to go to Russia. But here is the thing, any circumstances in which I would go would involve a different government that would rescind these sanctions anyway. So I don't think the marginal impact of not being able to visit the hermitage under Vladimir Putin is pretty close to zero. Plenty of beautiful places to go in the world. I wouldn't sweat it. Exactly. Before we get to the Trump trials, one other thing I wanted your take on related, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, we're liking this guy. Oh, yeah, he's great. Trolling Mike Johnson on social media over the weekend saying,

look at Odessa, how many more arguments do you need to make a decision? There was maybe a little bit of movement at the Republican retreat that we discussed with Bill Kristol about potentially having a vote on Ukraine funding under suspension. What are your thoughts on the state of play there? So the state of play in Congress is simultaneously awesomely depressing and a bit encouraging. So the depressing side is that we're having this conversation. There is literal rationing of artillery shells on frontline positions. The Russians took Avdivka not so long ago. This is a really costly bit of gamesmanship and bullshit.

And it's costly, you know, in terms of actual Ukrainian lives and that we're looking for hope in marginal discussions of, you know, the chicken entrails of Mike Johnson's... The criminology, if you will. One might say, is really depressing. And that said, the news late last week out of the Republican retreat was in that context encouraging. I do think it suggests that he's looking for a way to get this done and get the monkey off his back. It's not playing well for Americans actually support Ukraine. And so it's not like abortion, right, where you're adopting a view that very large numbers of people feel incredibly strongly about. But you are adopting a view that very large numbers of people feel incredibly strongly about. But you are adopting a view that the average voter does not share, and that the

administration's position is very close to that of the median voter. And so it's a bad position for them to be in. And it does suggest that he's looking for a way out. And, you know, this is one where as much as I want to take every little bit out of their hides, the administration and all people who care about Ukraine need to help them find a face-saving solution to just get this done, because we actually really do need that money to free up as quickly as possible. So thank you, Mike Johnson, for entertaining something approximating reality and let's get this done. Right. Concur over. Well, I don't know if I concur on the thanks, even if it was a sarcastic thanks. I'm not sure I could get that out of my mouth for Mike Johnson.

Let me rephrase. Mike Johnson, you are part of the way toward stopping my campaign of giving $50 a day to trans rights organization in your home state. All you have to do is hold that vote or schedule that vote even. Fingers crossed. Okay, on to the Trump trials. On Friday, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee ruled that Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade cannot continue to prosecute the electoral interference case against Donald Trump together. So Nathan Wade is withdrawing. What say you? And I think obviously this is going to cause a delay, but I don't know if a delay really mattered that much in this case, at least with regards to Donald Trump. I don't think there was a lot of hope that

this was going to come to trial before the election anyway. What other kind of downstream ramifications are there of this? So I'm not sure it is going to cause a delay, actually. Fulton County, to appeal this, requires the permission of either Scott McAfee or the Georgia Court of Appeals. It's not clear to me that either of them is going to be eager to put this case on hold for 18 months in order to revisit Fonny Willis's sex life in more detail. The opinion is sound and good, and it actually forced her to get rid of Nathan Wade, who had serious credibility problems at this point. And so I think it actually potentially frees up Judge McAfee to move this case forward. Now, as you say, the case is not going to move in time to be resolved before the election. It's, among other things, the state estimates that the presentation of its side of the case alone will take four months. So even if you

had a, you know, a reasonably prompt start time, and there's still some more issues to resolve before you could have a trial, you know, four months is a long case, and I don't think this is likely to start before August. And so you're not going to get a verdict in Fulton County before the election. That said, you could have a trial begin. I mean, there are some obstacles, but I think you could have a trial begin sometime in the late summer or early fall. And I think one of the things that is attractive about Judge McAfee is that unlike Eileen Cannon in Florida, he is moving things along and he rules on motions pretty quickly. And I think he's got a pretty expeditious way of handling things. Now, he also has, you know, 15 defendants, which, you know, was Fannie Willis's choice, not his. He actually

has a hard job, unlike some of the other judges in these cases but i think this case is put back in a position now where it can move and that is a healthy thing i want to get to island cannon just one more thing on this i gotta say i'm still pretty annoyed at fonny willis and nathan wade and rightly so yeah and just it does feel like from the PR side of this, even if the legal element of it moves forward, it was just kind of like the way that they kind of responded to this relationship and was handing this club to Donald Trump to bat them over the head with in a case that is very serious where they've already they've already gotten guilty pleas, right? I mean, there was so much progress in this case, and it was so encouraging that it is, you know, it's just annoying. It's annoying and disappointing, and it feels like it was preventable. I have thought about this a lot over the last few weeks as I watched the evidentiary hearings and the arguments, and I have to say the person whom Fonny Willis reminds me of most in the world is Bill Clinton. That is, she is dripping with talent. I mean, she's one of the most electric

courtroom presences I've ever seen. She is incredibly bright and watching her argue emotion is a genuine thing of beauty. And she's arrogant as hell and does not concede an inch ever, even when she can save herself, as you say, a clubbing by just not handing the club to the other side. And I do think it's very frustrating in exactly the same way that Bill Clinton was the, you know, attack on her dignity and her integrity that she could not see that there was a real problem here. And, you know, I do think she gets some real blame for that. The Bill Clinton comparison, not really a winner on the Bullard podcast, but I see what you're saying though, talented. There was just unbelievable, sometimes people too talented for their own good at times. Okay, Eileen Cannon, briefly, the delay is the theme of the podcast today. We also have a delay, another one in the documents case over what your colleague Roger Parloff called a breathtakingly baseless claim of selective or vindictive prosecution by the

former president. But despite it being breathtakingly baseless, Judge Eileen Cannon's like, yeah, we got to chew this over for a little while. Yeah. So there are two issues argued on Thursday. And without going into the details of them, one involves the Presidential Records Act. You know, these are arguments that a normal district judge would deal with in a very expeditious and, I wouldn't say disrespectful, but they're not arguments that require a great deal of time and energy to resolve. And she is treating

each one like it is a major question that you have to hold a hearing about. And even when she denies emotion, like she did on Thursday, she does it in this fashion that makes it sound like the issue has a lot more gravitas than it really does? And she does seem to be setting up a perhaps an evidentiary hearing on the matter of selective prosecution, which is frankly somewhere between meritless and trivial, whatever this is, Trump's handling of classified documents is so beyond what other presidents have done that the idea that you would prosecute this case but not others is intuitive, not merely defensible. Okay, final delay in the Hush Money Stormy Daniels case. We are looking to start that in March. You were planning on going up to New York for that, being our special correspondent here later this month. That's been kicked to at least mid-April after, I guess, there was a bunch of documents by the federal prosecutors and Southern District of New York, a bunch of, I guess, new material, new documents. Can you explain what the delay is in New York? Yeah. So this is one that I don't think is going to be a serious issue. It's just going to require a couple of weeks of additional time. The federal prosecutors, remember this case arises

out of the federal investigation of Michael Cohen. So the feds, both the Mueller investigation and the New York Attorney's Office, the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York, have a lot of documents from their own investigations of this matter and related matter. These were requested a long time ago, and they were finally turned over, you know, like, well, the other day and more of them are coming. What was the delay on this from the feds? Where was Merrick Garland? Was Merrick Garland just shampooing his hair instead of turning these over? Not a Merrick Garland issue. It's a US Attorney's Office in New York issue. And I don't know the answer to that question. I don't think anybody else does either. But it's, it's basically indefensible. And so the feds dumped this very large, I mean, it's tens of

thousands of documents on the prosecutors, the New York state prosecutors, and they turned stuff over to the defense promptly. But the defense, of course, argues that therefore the case should be dismissed because these are discovery abuses. The prosecutors say, hey, shouldn't be dismissed. Come on, don't be ridiculous. But if you need an extra month to review material, we don't object to a month's delay. So the judge has ordered a delay. And on March 25, the day that we were supposed to have the beginning of trial, we will find out how long that delay is, my guess is it'll be two to four weeks, and not a lot more than that. All right, lastly, biggest possible picture here. I'm just looking at all this. And, you know, there was a moment, I guess, maybe three months

ago in December, where you looked out at the calendar. And it you know, there was a moment, I guess, maybe three months ago in December, where you looked out at the calendar. And it looks like man, like Donald Trump might be in trial a lot, you know, in courtrooms a lot during the general election. I'm starting to feel less like that is the case, you know, with the behavior of cannon, you know, it seems like he will still be in court in New York at some point, just maybe a little later in spring. How do you kind of assess the broader legal calendar between now and election day? So I think there's one high probability event, that's New York. I think that's going to happen in April or early May instead of in late March, but it's going to happen.

The second is something that's not going to happen. I don't think anybody should plan on a trial in Eileen Cannon's courtroom between now and the election. And the third is a matter that might or might not happen. These are the wild cards. One depends on the Supreme Court. That's the Washington trial, which I think everybody kind of agrees is the most important case. The judge in that case is clearly interested in getting things done and in quick fashion. Judge Chutkan has moved with alacrity and I think'll move as quickly as she can subject to whatever the Supreme Court does. And the other one, of course, the other wild card is Georgia. I think it is likely that neither of these cases will be complete by the time of the election, but both of them could be,

or one of them, you can't do two trials at the same time, one of them could easily be ongoing at the time of the election. And so I still think we are likely to have one or more trials, but it may just be one trial complete and one ongoing at the time of the election. So I still think the premise is right, but it's different and it's unlikely that I think we're going to have, for those who want to say he's been convicted in two jurisdictions of X number of charges, I don't think we're going to be in a position to say that. All right. Ben Wittes, a bulwark salute to you, my friend, a defender of democracy salute. You have officially been sanctioned by Russia. Our congratulations. And we'll be talking to you once some of these

trials finally start. I'm excited about it. Thank you to Ben Wittes. We'll be back here tomorrow. And we'll look forward to seeing you all then peace dead in the water it's not a paid vacation the sons and daughters the city officials attend demonstrations it's hardly a single swim when all is, if the ticket sells Out with the whimper It's not a place of glory You look down from the temple As people endeavor to make it a story And chisel a marble world and all is lost if it's never heard But damn my luck and damn these friends

That keep on calling back their smiles I saved my grace with half-assed guilt And laid down the quilt upon the lawn Spread my arms and soak up congratulations So come, congratulations The Bulwark Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.