The Bulwark Podcast - Bill Kristol and Ty Cobb: Recapturing America

Episode Date: October 13, 2025

Peaceful protesters in Chicago and Portland have been so clever and effective at ridiculing the masked Stasi agents in their cities that the political momentum for putting troops on the street feels like it’s petering out. And while Republicans keep smearing this weekend’s No Kings day as about hating America, the real ‘Hate America’ side is the one calling patriots ‘terrorists’ because they intend to exercise their First Amendment rights. Meanwhile, the Comey and Tish James indictments are all about Trump’s mental illness and narcissism. Plus, the joy and the sadness around the release of the hostages, the Dems look to be winning the shutdown fight despite their messaging, and it may take a generation before the Justice Department is restored to its rightful role of ensuring the rule of law.  Former Trump attorney Ty Cobb and Bill Kristol join Tim Miller. show notes Lauren on Dems and protesters mocking Trump Monday's "Morning Shots" When Bill was hit with a pie

Hello and welcome to the Bullard podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. We have another Monday doubleheader in segment two is going to be Trump's former attorney Ty Cobb. And I just want to tell you, in case there are any worries. Because at our live shows, I received a lot of positive feedback about Bill Crystal Mondays. People love it. And so this is not me just sort of trying to usher him off to the side.

So surely, she says we had two weeks in her of Jane Fonda and Trump's former lawyer who want to talk on Monday. We're going to talk on Monday. And so it's a little bit of an exception. I'm excited to talk to Ty Cobb. But we are going to give you plenty of Bill Crystal time. Don't you worry. I'm happy to share the spotlight and the burden. You know, I don't want to have everything, everything depending on me on Monday.

That would be bad, you know. Yeah. I know you don't mind. But the people, the people mind. They want to hear from you. How did the shows go? I was in there, New York, Saturday, right? I was better on Saturday, so folks listened to the Wednesday show and thought maybe

you had won too many pops. That happens. But Saturday, it really was good. I thought it was great to have Catherine Rampel out there to welcome her to the team, and it was wonderful to see everybody. So thanks to everybody for coming out. And Bill, hopefully we have enough time at the end to rehash the pieing. I forgot that you got pied.

So we're going to try to get to that at the end. That's okay. You know, that's one of those, I think we need to get to tie cob, frankly. Before we get to the pie, we don't need to really go about the cream pie attack on me 20 years ago. I think we might have to talk about it. But first, we have a bunch of news across the world of the country. This morning, we have officially the hostage released 20 remaining living hostages, leaving Gaza. Some of the images are really moving and a lot to bear.

It's worth noting it's all men. None of the women hostages survive, which I guess. I guess shouldn't be surprising, which is sad. But there's something to be said for it. We talked about this a little bit with Sam Stein on Thursday. Obviously, this is just one step in the process, but it's an important step. I was just wondering what your reactions are. I mean, very mixed.

Danny Gordas, Daniel Gordas, who writes a good newsletter from Israel, moderate, I'd say, the Israeli political spectrum. I grew up here as a young man. As a very moving newsletter today about the mixture of incredible joy, I mean, they've been two years waiting for these hostages and following them. but also, of course, terrible sadness. I mean, the ones who were killed, to say nothing of the people who killed on October 7th, and there's nothing of the 915 soldiers killed in the Gaza operation to say nothing of the tens of thousands of Palestinians killed.

So, I mean, it's really, it's been a rough two years, you know, I think everyone in that area, and everyone who cares about anyone in that area. And it's great, it's good that there's a ceasefire. It's great that the hostages are back. Hopefully Gaza can get rebuilt, but it's better than, the hostages being in captivity and the bombing going on, but an awful long way to go to

get to something more solid and achievable. Yeah. Jared Kushner has brought peace to the Middle East victory lap. It feels a little early, you know, as far as what is actually yet to happen. But I don't know. I'm going to have more on this tomorrow with one of our guests. We have another doubleheader tomorrow. Let's get ready, everybody.

Back here in Chicago, the president's invasion, I guess, whatever you want to call it, military occupation of one of the biggest American cities continues apace. There's been some blocking from judges of the administration's ability to send troops built into Oregon and Chicago. There's obviously the local politicians, J.B. Pritzker and others have been standing up and opposing this. And so one of the piece of scuttlebutt that's been going around is that that President Trump might declare, you know, use the Insurrection Act to kind of get around these legal hurdles to his desired end game. J.D. Vance was on Meet the Press this weekend.

I was going to play the audio from it, but then I listened to it myself and the rage that was channeling inside of me was so great. I did not want to subject that onto anybody else on a Monday morning. But Vance basically says the president's looking at all his options right now. He says right now he hasn't needed to do the Instruction Act, but we have to remember we are talking about this because crime has gotten out of control. in our cities that kind of go back and forth on these claims about crime

and J.D. Vance basically keeping the door open to invoking the Insurrection Act. There is no insurrection. I'm not so sure, therefore, it's that easy and they can invoke it. But I don't know that courts, I mean, courts typically don't look behind the curtain, so to speak. They defer to presidents on things of national security or quasi-national

security. This is so far removed from what the act is intended for, so ridiculous, that I actually wonder if they're, you know, if that's a good legal recourse for them, but maybe it even exposes them more. Now they're doing it sort of under this somewhat murky, complicated,

federalizing of the National Guard. That has been used for other occasions and it's used for a lot of things, actually. But what it does show, of course, is they're not willing to limit anything. It's all an excuse. It was the immigrants. We have to protect the ice people.

They're under such threat, these masked guys with guns from these protests as dressed up in inflatable costumes. You know, it's really they, We need to deploy people to protect them and to protect the facilities. Well, actually, none of them has really been attacked and none of the facilities has really been attacked. But now it's crime. Crime is out of control in Portland and Chicago, I guess.

But I don't think that really supports the invocation of the Interaction Act. It feels to me like it's turning a little bit against Trump. It's so ridiculous and so disproportionate. And I really do believe this, the protesters have been courageous in Chicago, in particular, where it's been rough. And they are at risk when they go near that ice facility and get tear gas. and pepper-bombed and so forth. But also the ridicule. I mean, I feel like the protesters are being peaceful,

but also clever and making the whole thing look what it is, which is more than a stunt. I mean, what's the right way to say? A real attempted intimidation of the American people. There's a feeling of petering out in one sense. To your point on the stunts, we should shout out our colleague, Lauren Egan, who wrote about the mockery of the protesters

and how that has worked well, including the furries out there. And she wrote this sentence. in the bulwark this morning. Inflatable frogs have been omnipresent, especially after a video went viral last week of law enforcement shooting pepper spray into one of the frog costumes, posterior air vents,

which does at very serious times. It brings some silliness to this, but that's good, I think, because these things are related in a way, right? Like about why is this petering out? The one I'm talking about when I say this is particularly the sending of the troops and the National Guard into the cities.

The ice stuff is a different category. But, you know, it's because we keep using the word pretext. Like, they need pretext. They need excuse, right? And if the protesters are, you know, kind of mocking them and teasing them and it's people with costumes and handing them roses and stuff, it's harder to create rationale for this. I was listening to one of these other MAGA podcasts over the weekend of my flight back.

And it's like, the arguments for sending the troops in Portland or Chicago are, like, they're just based in nothing, right? It's like you can hear them talking about how these protesters are so violent. That's what they keep saying, right? You have to do this because the protests are so violent and out of control. And since there isn't any actual evidence of that, it becomes harder to acculturate that idea like into the mainstream. And I do think maybe there's a little, I mean, obviously this could change between now and when we, when this thing publishes as far as what the facts are on the ground. But it is noteworthy, I think.

Right. And they're trying to provoke the protesters. and so, you know, it could change for that reason, too. But no, it is. I mean when we say petering out, I think we don't mean the situation necessarily is peering out. The ICE is not backing off at all, so far as one can tell. And the assaults on the protesters of anything by ICE and other federal enforcement forces seem maybe a little stronger.

I mean, even more violent than they have been. But I do think the political momentum behind it's beating out. Yeah, political momentum is petering out. Just to be good, that is exactly what I meant as well. And I do think, you know, it's one thing for governors and maybe. to say this isn't necessary. People can look and say, well, they're Democrats, and they're always going to say it's not necessary in their own cities.

Then I can admit that they've let things get out of control. It's another thing for just tons of citizens, normal citizens, to show up and say this is both unnecessary and deeply offensive, you know, and that's why I do think the protests have mattered here. More than I expect, I didn't quite realize that ahead of time, I've got to say. You know, I mean, I didn't think about the distinction between a political official opposing something and citizens rallying to oppose it. While we're talking about the protests, I do want to come back to ICE.

We'd Mike Johnson and Tom Emmer and Sean Duffy all out over the weekend commenting on the protests, and they had a similar argument that they were making. Let's actually listen to a couple of them. The theory we have right now, they have a hate America rally that's scheduled for October 18th on the National Mall. It's all the pro-Hamas wing and the, you know, the Antifa people. They're all coming out. Some of the House Democrats are selling $2.000. t-shirts for the event. And it's it's being told to us that they won't be able to reopen the

government until after that rally because they can't face their rabid base. But again, the no king's protest, Maria, really frustrating. I mean, this is part of Antifa paid protesters. It begs the question who's funny. This is about one thing and one thing only to score political points with the terrorist wing of their party, which is set to hold, as leader Scalia just commented on, a hate America rally. So there you go. Mike Johnson, it's a hate America rally and Emmer, the

terrorist wing of the Democratic Party. And I don't know, the protests are coming up here on Saturday. Just be very clear for everybody. No Kings protests are October 18th Saturday. I said the wrong date on a thing over the weekend. I'm doing my best out here, guys. The calendar, keeping

track of the calendar is challenging. It is Saturday. Go to your local no Kings protests on Saturday. especially go, if you're a part of the Love America wing of the No King's protest, which I think is basically everybody. I think it's inverse. It might be projection. The hate America side is the side calling people that are exercising their First Amendment rights terrorists, it seemed like to me. I was at the No Kings protest, the first one in June, and it was went out of its way to be patriotic, but it was patriotic.

I mean, it wasn't just that they had been advised, which they, you know, to wave American flags. But also they genuinely thought of themselves as defending, and they are in my head. opinion, defending American principles and the American form of government and the American way of life, really, against Trump's authoritarianism. And although I've seen a fair amount of the material that's been sent out for this protest, both to organizers, but also to, you know, just on the website for citizens to read, encouraging that to come, it's all bends over backwards to be peaceful and patriotic. And, you know, the millions of people are going to show up. And they're going to be peaceful and patriotic on the whole American.

and the overwhelming whole overwhelming majority. So I'm calling it, what do they go on with pro-terrorists and pro-Hamas and hate America? I mean, it's so far, it's one thing to, I mean, why are we even saying this is what they do? But it's such a cliche, but it is Orwellian, right? I mean, it's one thing to say that, I don't know, pro-Palestinian protesters who might include a few people

waving Hamas, you know, who are Hamas defenders, that that's all pro-Hamas. That's unfair, but that's the kind of exaggeration what happens in, you know, this kind of heat political discourse. It's still bad. But this is so insanely removed from the truth that, again, I sort of wonder if they can pull this off. That's the talking point.

The talking point isn't we're proud of what President Trump is doing. He's improving the situation in this country. He's acting as a strong president. It's not that, right? It's attacking millions of Americans who are going out to peacefully protest and wave signs on highways and bridges and assemble near the McLean Library, which is where I'll be, you know, on a sort of patch of green there at an intersection of two suburban roads. The idea that this is terrorist-friendly is, it's really jaw-dropping.

But it's part of their whole strategy, obviously, you know, the domestic terrorism. It is. And it's tied to Trump's speech to the generals. We're talking about the enemy within, be more dangerous than enemy without. It's side to, in this Duffy quote, you know, he's talking about it begs the question who's funding the protests, which is like what Stephen Miller is saying about going after. these organizations. I'd like Secretary Duffy, if he could send me some information on who's funding me to drive a few months to the protest. The New Orleans No Kings protest. It was like

110 degrees out there. If we were being funded by, you know, the Bilderbergers or whatever, it could have maybe used some, you know, some fans or maybe some of those things that, you know, below mist, some misters. Could use some misters out there. It's phony, but it is a kind of united effort, messaging effort, of what they're trying to do. which is otherwise the opposition internally, menace them, target them, try to silence them, jail, certain people, obviously relates to what I've talked to about Ty Cobb, with Tish James and James Comey, and it all relates to each other as far as, you know, what their political strategy is with regards to tamping down internal political opposition

in a way that has, I would just say, fundamentally anti-American. Yeah, it's sort of almost like what a fascist or, certainly what an authoritarian government does and even beyond, like, even mild authoritarianism to kind of fascism of different kinds or, yeah, Stalinism, whatever you call. Your enemies the worst thing possible and ascribe to them some of your own actions. And it is just one point you made

that I want to emphasize, it's organized. And that it's a one random Republican congressman says something extreme. Okay, you know, they're all, half of them are idiots and they say things like that. And they want to get their clip up, you know, to go viral on in right-wing maga world. This is the Speaker of the House,

Emmer, right, who's in leadership. Of course, Vance, too, as Vance said, the version of that, I think, right? I mean, it's a cabinet member, Duffy's in the cabinet. Yeah, so it's a coordinated and organized effort to besmirch millions of Americans. I hope many more people come out than to show how counterproductive this effort is. That would be nice. I agree with that. And I do think there is, without focus on the ominous, there is some political risk to this

because I do think there is a big contrast in actual evidence of what the No Kings rallies and what folks have been doing versus, say, the 2020 Black Lives Matter rallies, right? Where most of those were peaceful as well, so folks that came out were in the American tradition and spirit, there were also, at the same time, like, looting, you know, if you look at the worst videos, what happened in Kenosha, for example, or Oakland, where I was living, right? Like, there were some examples of this that could be used to, you know, sort of other eyes and marginalized the whole movement in a way that I think eventually it was politically effective. It wasn't politically effective in 2020, but eventually it was politically effective.

There's just no pretense for that here, right? And so I do think it might make them end up looking kind of ridiculous. I do think that there is some potential political risk here to like, you know, trying to smear just everyday Americans that are showing up with their, you know, fanny packs and sunblocked and like calling them Antifa terrorists. I don't know. I hope so. I mean, I think the last time there was this sustained an effort to demonize, or that's even quite the right word, what's the right word? I mean, to really just slander Americans trying to exercising their right of assembly and making a case for individual rights and for freedoms was in the 60s with the 50s and 60s.

Well, I was going to say 50s to 60s with civil rights protesters. We're actual governors of states, I mean, senior officials, at least at the state level, called them communist demonstrators and communist demonstrators and communist agitators and so. forth, right? And people looked up at the time when I was a kid, but I sort of remember this and saw these peaceful demonstrators for civil rights getting hosed by Bull Connor and all, and I did make a difference politically, you know, against those who were slandering them. So I don't know. I hope no one gets hosed by, you know, it gets beaten up like John Lewis was and so forth. But I don't know. You just see these scenes. I mean, it really is the violence that the eyes people are using. It's not quite at the level, thank God, Kent State or something.

but they are not holding back, it seems to me. And the free protesters, to their credit, really are, I think, and being behaving responsibly. Yeah, and that does take us back to ICE, because there are echoes of this, a way that ICE has been behaving. I interviewed George Redis last week, his story was heroin. Yeah, that was amazing. That was just amazing. I'm terrible. What they did to him, unbelievable.

And really the most amazing thing about George Edwards shouting out is the way in which, at the end of the conversation, when I was like filled with rage and wanting to like shout shout at the moon and turn my flag upside down like Martha Anolito. Like he had a very even temperament about it. It was almost cheerful and optimistic and positive about America. It was really kind of heartwarming to hear his resilience in the face of the way he was treated. But it isn't just him, right? There's another video from over the weekend that the guy, and a little bit of irony, his name is Francisco Miranda.

and who is also a U.S. citizen, and he gets menaced by the ICE agents. Let's just put up a little bit of this. What do you mean to overstay? An overstay. I don't know what that is. Where were you born? And don't lie to me. Don't lie to me.

Where were you born? California. Okay, so we're going to take you in and verify your information. No, you're not, dude. No, you're not. I haven't done anything wrong. You just told me that's you who I have here. Yeah.

Okay, so then that's you. You just told me that's you. But that doesn't make me an illegal or anything. Anything. Turn around. You're going to get the dog. The guys, you know, turn around or you're getting the dog? And then they're like, then they're manhandling him.

I just don't understand, like, how there is not eventually overwhelming pushback to all of this. On some level, obviously, there's a human question. And many of us don't want any humans, whether they're here legally or not, to be treated such a way by ICE. But if you get to a point where you really are in a stossess, situation where you have masked agents harassing and menacing people that are citizens of this country threatening to like sick the dogs on them putting them in solitary confinement

I mean like that is extremely extremely dark place that we're in and I think that it also is unpopular if if there can be enough attention given to it if there can be popular momentum to push back against it and if people see what I think is clearly true which is these are not individual rogue cases, you know, one ice agent here in the West Coast and one in Chicago was acted badly. Okay, that's life, you know, with police forces, obviously. That's not happening. They're clearly being encouraged to do this. No one that we know of has paid a price for any of these actions. And this is, of course, the message in the spirit that's coming from Kristina Ome and from people running the Border Patrol and ICE and Stephen Miller himself, right?

I mean, it is important to make, I think, to say this isn't just, gee, they didn't recruit very good people and you know it's a lot of this they're overworked a little they're tired and they get worked up and overheated you know this is what they want and they want more they've added more funding to it they're doing recruitment campaigns that's why they had former superman dean kane out there you know running the uh the little gladiator running excuse me walking meandering through the gladiator track and it is the plan and the recruitment campaigns sort of emphasize this aspect of what ice and the border patrol do right i mean it's sort of you get to have a joint ice you can you too can participate in trying to

intimidate and terrorize your other people here in america all right folks the weather is cooling especially for many of you up the northeast i was in a new york on saturday in a beanie i was in a beanie no it was on sunday morning after the show going to get coffee hate that you know i'm a summer boy and luckily we get you know the extended summer down here in the south. But even still, I have to go to New York and D.C. And so I've been starting to think about my fall and winter gear. And I've been turning to our friends at Quince that delivers every time with wardrobe staples that'll carry you through the season. Quince has the fall attire that you'll want to wear on repeat, like 100% Mongolian cashmere from just 60 bucks. Classic

fit denim like me and Ty Cobb are both wearing today. And real leather and wool outerwear that looks sharp and holds up. By partnering directly with top artisans, cuts out the middleman to deliver premium quality at half the cost of similar brand. I was eyeing a little cable knit sweater. I've had a cable knit sweater for a while that I was wearing on MSNBC. And I had somebody that will remain nameless tell me about how gay I was looking in that cable knit sweater. And I got to tell you, I take that as a compliment.

And so I took that feedback. And I was like, you know, I'm going to go to Quince and get a new one. And I got a new marino wool cable knit sweater. coming that you'll be seeing probably not anytime soon in New Orleans but you know next time I'm in DC in New York so keep your eye out from that it's going to look cute so layer up this fall with pieces that feel as good as they look go to quince.com slash the bulwark for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns now available in Canada too what's up Canada that's QINCE.com slash the bulwark free shipping and 365 day returns quince.com slash the bulwark and the other news

item for the weekend is the RIFs, the reduction in force from the government. It's happening across a bunch of different agencies that a big focus is in what is happening inside HHS. Our colleague, Sam Stein, has been doing a lot of reporting on this, as well as Jonathan Cohn. At this point, we don't exactly know who's all been fired, like, in part because these guys are so incompetent. They fired the Ebola team and then rehired them said that it was an accident. Some of the people that are fired are furloughed, and so they can't access their email and don't know whether or not they're fired. And so there's a lot of, you know, there's confusion out there.

But just as one example that Sam wrote about in the newsletter, I also want to mention. So you have the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. This Sam, HSA, is a small agency inside HHS, but it plays a vital role in funding, overseeing, and advising state and local programs on things like opioid addiction treatment and suicide prevention. It is now down to about one-third of its former size with all of the riffs on the people. I mean, part of this is part of their plan, but it is important to, like, point this stuff out, like, these guys try to have it both ways where they're saying, well, you know, we do, we really do care about the forgotten man when it comes to fentanyl, when it comes to fent, you know, like, this is the JD Vance stick, right? Like, we need to care about the Appalachian. And, like, these are the kinds of agencies, like, those are the kind of people, these are, this is meant to help. Like, the small agencies focused on opioid addiction, and these guys are just getting. mass firings, not based on performance or efficiency or whatever, just Russell Vaught wanting to, you know, chop off as much as the government as possible, cause as much pain as possible.

And chop off the parts they don't like it because of some vague ideological, I mean, distaste for what, helping people's mental health. I think they don't like that. I think in the Veterans Association, too, there's been cutbacks and parts, you know, the hospitals. Yeah, they don't believe in therapy. Yeah. No, that is really. I don't have a better help.

Right. Yeah. Yeah, they don't believe in real scientific research in scientific research on, you know, diseases either. So, I mean, I do think in that respect, again, one wonders, maybe I'm just talking myself into being optimistic this morning in a weird way, in a dark moment. Maybe that too is an overreach. Do people really want, you know, it's one thing to, okay, government shut down. Americans are used to that. Some arguments on both sides.

The Republicans did pass a budget, blah, blah, blah, blah. You know, so it's sort of who's really responsible. Maybe they should get together and negotiate. But that's taking advantage of it in this way. and in, as you say, very cruel and foolish ways, I hope the Democrats can really go to town on this. I wish they would just go to town on all of this, honestly, and stop saying, having to preface every sentence they say

that's criticizing the administration. Of course, we want to sit at the table. I mean, we're really in here, you know, if we only can get back to the table and work this out, maybe they can just drop that for a week. You don't want to get to the table? I do not want to get to the table this week. I want to spend this week criticizing the brutality in the cities

and the cruelty in their budget. and in their operations. And then let's go to the No King's demonstration and let that be a real expression of American public opinion. Then they can go sit. I guess they have to sit at the table at some point. But I'm so sick of maybe they shouldn't even.

Maybe can't they just deal by email or something? What is? Am I wrong? The table thing is driving me crazy. It's just like the metaphor. I don't know what it's about. It's so Washington, right? We've got to get around a table.

Feel free to tell me to not feel good about something because I'm always open to a more pessimistic view. But almost in spite of, the messaging efforts, I feel like the Democrats are kind of winning the shutdown. And I think that in part because like the substance is really on their side, like maybe not the substance of the like minutia of the legislative, you know, because I feel like a lot of times we sort of have flipped the types of arguments that are usually being made. Like a lot of times you hear Democrats making arguments about Senate norms and like, and like, you know, the recisions

package and all this and you have Republicans doing like demagoguing and now it's sort of inverse not the Democrats are demagoguing but the Republicans are like talking about how well you know we need you need 60 votes in the Senate and it's the Schumer shutdown and you know you don't exactly understand how the processes work on Capitol Hill and the and the Democrats are the ones out there saying like well no stop cutting people's health care stop you know sending people into the streets of cities to harass our citizens' masks, right? Like, and they have more of a substantive complaint versus the Republicans. It feels like it's a overwhelming success or anything, but it seems like on balance it's

working. And my only recommendation would be Jeffries and Schumer in particular, most of the elected officials, they should just not go on television and instead recommend to the bookers and even push the bookers to book the victims of ICE and the people who are benefit from the services that we've been talking about, mental health. and others and put them on television as the spokespeople against what the administration is doing. But, of course, politicians think they have the best spokesmen and women, so they can't give up their spot to someone else, you know. Related to kind of the, you know, congressional wrangling is there's a Wall Street Journal story out this weekend about how the White House is crowing,

about how they have made Congress to submit this time more effectively than the last time. among the quotes from the story inside the White House top advisors joke that they're ruling Congress with an iron fist. Steve Bannon likened Congress to the Duma, the Russian Assembly that is largely ceremonial. And like,

I got to say Bannon right again. It's about to be a trend with bad people being right. But I've got to say, Bannon feels pretty right about this. Congress is not, I basically does not need to exist, the Republican Congress. And I think the degree to

which they have not demonstrated that they have any interest in actual governing, also weakens this argument. Like, oh, it must be the Democratic Party. The House has only been in session like 12 days since Memorial Day or something. I'm making that number up. But they've barely been in session. They've been in session for weeks. They went in hiding because Epstein, you know, now they're now they're back out of session again because they don't want to no negotiation over the shutdown stuff. And I do think that it's pretty bad for our system of government and balance of powers. But as a political matter, at this point, I just think that it's accepted that this is the situation. The Congress has now just completely abdicated any responsibility.

Yeah, and I guess Johnson's keeping them out even now, sort of because of Epstein, too, right? Because he, if the clock, he would have to swear in the new member of Congress from Arizona. Yeah, he does want to swear in Gravalia, I think is her name. She won a special election in Arizona. Yeah, that would give to 18 signatures and the clock would start ticking. So for various reasons, he's trying to run the clock out so they don't be discharged petition. on Epstein doesn't come to do this session. You're right, that's a good point. They should make that point more, too. I mean, that they're

they say they want to govern, but they don't want to govern, of course. And, yeah, they're off just doing whatever they're doing. They're off not having town halls in their district. I mean, where are the Republican members of Congress? They're utterly invisible. You know, they don't want to see the voters. Mar-a-Lago, Sea Island, you know, I don't know, hanging out,

Newsmax, doing Fox. It's hard to get in on the Fox circuit, though, these days, if you're a Republican congressperson, because all of the Trump cabinet is on constantly. I've done a bunch of time on watching Fox last couple days I've been traveling around. And I knew it intellectually, but watching it, it's like kind of astounding how often the Trump cabinet is on.

And it really is, there's like a state TV element to it at times. And they're sucking up to Trump a lot, right? It's not just that they're defending administration policies, which would be a more traditional thing for a cabinet member to two. Ruby, I saw maybe that wasn't on Fox. It was like a video they put out or something. but it has the Secretary of State, like the State Department skill out of it or something. And it's Rubio just praising to the sky.

I mean, this is like Stalin or something in the Soviet Union, you know, you know, lauding Trump as what amazing and wonderful president. Yeah, again, maybe people find that a little off-footing, I hope. I don't know. It's hard when stuff isn't breaking through. I noticed I went to look to see if my friend George Redis had been covered or mentioned it all in Fox News. No, he has not. Literally not mentioned.

Yeah, you'd think that a veteran who was jailed by the government, for three days, put in solitary confinement for 48 hours. That might be a story of the interest to the Patriots over at Fox. But no, I tweeted at Brett Baer to see if he was going to be interested in covering. He's not gotten back to me. Every once in a while, Brett will reply. You have whatever that's worth. If you're still overpaying for wireless, it's time to say yes to saying no.

At Mint Mobile, their favorite word is no, no contracts, no monthly bills, no overages, no hidden fees, no BS. Here's what you should say yes to making the switch and giving premium wire. wireless for $15 bucks a month. Ditch the overpriced wireless and their jaw-dropping monthly bills, unexpected overages and hidden fees. Plans start at $15 a month with Mint. All plans come with high-speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network.

Use your own phone with any Mint mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. If I was in the market for a new phone plan, this is the one that I'd be turning to. Ready to say yes to saying no, make the switch. at mintmobile.com slash bulwark. That's mintmobile.com slash bulwark. Up front payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month,

limited time, new customer offer for the first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan, taxes and fees extra, C MintMobile for details. Speaking of people that are offering unexpected truth bombs,

Marjorie Taylor Green was on a podcast with Tim Dillon this weekend that I listened to. And what I'm about to say is not a joke. I think that if you are a Democratic congressperson listening to the show or a Democratic staffer, you have to listen to the entire whatever it is, 30, 40 minutes of Marjorie Taylor Green on the Tim Dillon podcast. Because Marjorie Taylor continues to just say some crazy shit, of course. And there are some anti-Semitic stuff there, though they deny it.

But there's some concerning comments in that space. There's obviously still occasional lavish praise of Donald Trump, right? So you wouldn't want to, if you're a Democratic Congressman, you wouldn't want to use every single talking point that Marjorie Taylor Green uses. But there are a number of talking points that she uses where she is extremely blunt talking about the failures of the Trump administration's policies to respond to the needs of working class voters of MAGA voters. And the way in which she talks about it is something that I think folks in the left could learn from. I want to play one clip in particular. But we're having problems with these tariffs, and now we're having problems we can't get supplies from this country, and we can't get supplies from this country. And there's problems, but has the, has, have regular people's bank accounts been affected?

Has the stress come off? No, that has not happened yet, and that needs to be the major focus. It shouldn't be about helping your crypto donors or your AI donors or welcoming in these people that hated you. spent money to try to beat you, but all of a sudden are excited to come out to the, to the new Rose Garden patio. Yes. That, that shouldn't be the focus. The focus should be the people that showed up at the rallies.

No notes. Amen. Marjorie Taylor Green. That's exactly right. Every single word of that is exactly right. You're welcome on the podcast anytime, Congresswoman. And, you know, I've got a lot of problems with her in various ways, but that is good messaging. and also correct.

If she comes on this on the Boulevard podcast, that will be a moment. You and she, that'll be great. He's welcome. It's a launcher campaign for the Democratic nomination

in 2008. Well, I think probably that's a little bit out of step. But the plain way in which she's speaking is good. And also just this contrast of like people's lives

aren't getting better, mega voters' lives aren't getting better. That was what your mandate was for. And it seems like you're spending more time catering to the tech oligarchs. You know, she doesn't use the oligarchs, the big tech donors, tech billionaires,

the crypto billionaires, and having your little parties on the Rose Garden patio. And that is exactly the right thing to be saying, because it's true. Is she reflecting any broader sentiments rippling beneath the surface in Maga World? Do you think, or is she just herself? I don't think she's reflecting any broader sentiments in kind of active, maga political world right like i think that people are generally pretty happy and and maga media world mega the grassroots like the biggest spores and scared of criticizing trump yeah yeah but that next layer down yeah i don't know and i'll just say that she goes on in this interview and literally

she'll listen a whole thing she's got three kids in their 20s like she represents a district it's like rural Georgia right so you're you're out there she's seeing if you have three kids in the 20s you're seeing the challenges financially right now that people are facing in this world. You're experiencing that in a maybe a more direct way than some of these older members of the house, right? And it's people who live in big city. It's just it is different, right? So I think that her experience there is part of it. I think that she has like the cred to do this, right? There's not a ton of worry that she's going to get probably married from the right. It's like she doesn't live in fear of that like all these other guys do.

So I think there's a little bit of that that gives her a chance to do truthiness. Maybe there's some political strategizing here. I don't know. I mean, in that podcast, Tim D. It sounds like maybe you're a better MAGA representative for 2028 than J.D. Vance. But she doesn't take the bait on that. Maybe that's for, it's a weird time to do that, though. October of 2025 is kind of a strange time to do that.

But maybe that's in her, I don't know. And she is a crazy person. I mean, she starts screaming if David Hogg on the street thinks that they're space lasers. She wishes of Jews are controlling the weather. So it's hard to get fully inside her head. But I guess I'd say this. I think if there are a lot of people talking like Marjorie Dela Green was talking, I think it would resonate with people because it's true.

It has a benefit of being true. Like people's lives aren't getting better. And Donald Trump does care more about his Rose Garden patio parties and, you know, helping the Silicon Valley tech leaders that have come belatedly to his effort, then he cares about the struggles of regular people. And so it's just like nobody's really convincingly able to make that argument for a long time. And so maybe it will be Marjorie Taylor Green that will do it. That's my analysis.

Here we are. Here we are. Bill Crystal and Marjorie Taylor Green together. Who knows? Who knows? Life is long. You know, it's a strange trip. You know, the journey, the roads, the twists and turns.

Who knows how things will end up? You wrote in the newslet is funny, you were feeling oddly cheerful. So I want to end on an oddly cheerful note. You were speaking into college. And you referenced, as mentioned, the podcast. I said, you haven't always had a oddly cheerful moment on colleges at a college. You were at Earlham College. And members in the audience, jeered a student who threw a pie at you and that splattered on your face.

You wiped the pie from your faces, the New York Times write up and said, just let me finish this point. Then you finished the speech and took questions from the audience. It didn't seem like you went on a campaign to cancel the student afterwards. So that's nice. What kind of pie was it? Do you remember? This was 20 years ago at Erlham College, which is in Eastern Indiana. I think it was in Mike Pence's congressional district,

because he called me the next day to sort of not apologize to say, gee, it's terrible. I'm so sorry. That happened to you in my district. And it was a Quaker school. And it was a very nice visit. It was a speech and a paid speech. And they had nice dinner before. And the president there was emphasizing that they're very proud of their Quaker roots, of course,

which is appropriate, and that they've always tried to have diversity of viewpoint and tolerance for unpopular viewpoint. points, and I was there sort of defending basically Bush's foreign policy, which is not popular. I would say at this school north, most campuses at the time. And it was just kind of funny that that's where this kid took it into his mind to sort of rush up to the stage and throw this chocolate cream pie at me, which hit me, sort of splattered onto the president or something behind me. It was on the stage, too.

A chocolate cream. That's it. It was soft. Did you get a lick? Did you taste it at all? Well, you couldn't help. This was kind of, you know, wipe it off maybe a little bit. Yeah.

There it was on my jacket when I went back to the holiday in. afterwards. It was a moment. It was a moment. I wouldn't traumatize it. It was not the most traumatic thing that ever happened. Think about how far you've come, though. 20 years ago, getting pied on campus and to where you are now, think about what could happen to Marjorie Taylor Green in 20 years. Yeah, that's a good point. Maybe she can go on a similar journey. Anyway, you're oddly cheerful because you're doing a little campus tour. No, I saw these students out in California, USC, and Claremont,

and I was giving speeches, but, you know, obviously they arranged some sessions with students who were active in various institutes there and politics and political science department and stuff. And they were good, they were great. And I'm sure huge self-selection are the ones who want to spend an hour talking to me and so forth. So I don't want to exaggerate this. But I was struck that they were sensible.

And, you know, all this talk among people my age, or even your age, or kids, the kids are all messed up. What's going to happen? I don't know. It felt to me like the kids were more sensible than people my age who were busy, you know, supporting Donald J. Trump, which the kids aren't active there.

You know what? If only the kids had voted, in this last election, it would have been a lot better. All the boomers who were going on and on about how the kids' minds have been ruined by social media and warped by this and that. I'm a little more skeptical of that. And so they were nice visits. And as I say, they sort of maybe a little artificially cheered me up, but that was good to be cheered up. We could use some artificial cheer.

Bill Crystal, good to see you as always. No pies here on this podcast. And maybe somebody, maybe one of our listeners will send you a pie, you know, to, to, and, and, to, to, to, to, it. to enjoy. Are you on a healthcare? Are you maha now? I noticed that the bulwark office is a little maha for my taste, and I sent an all-staff miss of complaining about how the only chocolate in the office was like the protein chocolate that was low in sugar. It's like, come on, okay, I'm all about health, but I wanted a Reese's peanut buttercup. We can do that. We can treat ourselves. I'm going into the office shortly here, and I will weigh in. I think the two of us together will have no influence

at all. I would actually is purchase as snacks for the office, but whatever, I'm with you. Get me some goddamn crunchy M&Ms in the office. All right, everybody. That's Bill Kristall. Up next, Todd Cop. We'll see you next week, Bill. All right, we are back. I am delighted to welcome to the show and attorney and the former special counsel for the White House during President Trump's first term. It's Ty Cobb. How you doing, man? I'm doing great, man. Thanks so much for having me.

You're looking good, you know. We're both in our, both in our jeans shirts. You know, you're looking a little tan. You know, you don't have the weight of the world on you anymore. I don't know. I feel like you're looking better than you did in 2017. Is that possible? Yeah. Well, I've lost a lot of weight, you know, and gotten in some pretty good shape. But for the current circumstances, I'd be, you know, I'd be on Cloud 9. All right. Well, I want to talk a little bit more about your journey. Before we got like some news stuff, we want to get to get your take on. Obviously, since we last posted on Friday, Grand Jury came back with an indictment against Tish James over this mortgage. I guess she bought a $137,000 home for a grand niece and some questions about the way she filed the mortgage. That seems like a pretty ticky tech.

indictments. That comes obviously on the tales of Trump directing his attorney general to indict her. So what do you make of the Tish James case? Oh, I think it's pure vengeance, pure revenge. You know, this, I mean, Trump fundamentally is just crippled by his narcissism. And that plays out in terms of, you know, any adulation you can get, any power that he can accrue to himself and any revenge that he can take. Those are the things that fuel that, you know, psychology. Like Comey, Tish James had the temerity to charge him with something that he committed to appellate courts in New York have upheld the finding of fraud, although that there's a dispute over the damages and the courts have ruled that the damages were improperly calculated. Keep in mind, you know, you've got Ned Martin and Bill Pulte, two little pit bulls of little character who are out there trying to help Trump punish his enemies.

He's Bill Pulte searching the mortgage files everywhere on, you know, Comey, James, Lisa Cook, others, you know, trying to find anything that can be brought. And this, this mortgage was not the mortgage that, you know, they made a big deal out of. In fact, the mortgage they made a big deal out of, the evidence showed that, you know, the bank knew and she had told them that it was going to be a vacation home. So Abby Loll wrote a declination memo to the Justice Department to present a counter to that alleged case, which is how the Justice Department originally got started. So what they did was, well, they said, well, let's find something else. And that's just not the way the Justice Department works. Usually you have a crime that is referred, and you investigate it, and you find the perpetrator, and you prosecute. Here, they got a list of enemies from Trump, and they went out to try to find anything in the world that they could pin on.

This case was also one, like Comey, where seasoned prosecutors, the head of major crimes in the Eastern District of Virginia, told Halligan and others that there was no case here. This was not something that should be prosecuted, but they did it anyway. So this is pure vengeance. I think that's the story. I always get a little worried when people start getting in the weeds about, well, you know, what about this? What about this in terms of the allegations? The reality is people should focus on the big picture, which is a president should not be out there using the Justice Department purely for revenge. Yeah.

What about the argument that the maggot folks would make, which is like turnabout as fair play. Tis James kind of did this to Trump, basically, like decided that he was a criminal and was looking for something to charge him with. What would you make of that argument? Well, it wasn't hard to find something to charge him with. He had committed real estate fraud at a level rarely seen in American history. The damage award from the jury, or from the judge, keep in mind with $347 million. That's a little bit more than the $3,100 that's really an issue in the Tis James case. Now, they say, you know, well, no, it's not $3,100.

It's $18,900. Well, that's not true. that's only if you took the mortgage all the way out to the end of its duration. Right now, they're five years into a 30-year mortgage, and the alleged benefit to her is $50 a month. I think it'll be very interesting to see what the bank's testimony is in terms of whether anything about the process actually resulted in her getting any benefit. But $50 a month, I mean, that's compared to $347 million worth of real estate fraud

and impropriety by Trump. Give me a break. You were involved, I guess, as special counsel, when Trump had fired Comey and there was probe into that and defending the administration's actions and all that. I just wonder, looking at this Comey case now with like that perspective of eight, nine years, what do you make of why Trump is so mad at Comey? I mean, Comey kind of helped Trump in the election and Comey's behavior from that time through now. So I think trying to look at it linearly is probably the wrong perspective, in my view.

You know, Trump fired Comey in large part because of, I mean, this is nothing new from me, but in large part because of the manner in which Trump felt he was shaken down over the phony intel report. And he just didn't trust him instinctively. fired him. He had the absolute right legally to fire him. You know, it was handled in typical Trump fashion, which is awkwardly. And that wasn't really the stated, and they gave a bunch of bullshit stated reasons, too. Yeah. But at the end of the day, I think the real motivator was the preparation of the intel report, you know, the, you know, the buy-in to the, you know, Russian misinformation that Brennan is now under investigation for and the leaks, the timing of

the leaks. Now, you know, all of that's, I guess, interesting historical But at the end of the day, this is an act taken out of mental illness. I mean, this is this is Trump's narcissism in full bloom. This is not something that would have happened under any other president. And trying to do what aboutism, you know, is really a fool's errand. So I know, probably I assume, I guess you tell me if I'm wrong, that the end of this will be both James and Comey, like having charges dropped or being acquitted, you know, based on political prosecution. and also just based on the merits of these cases, the weak merits of the cases, if you agree at that and we assume that happens.

No, I believe that to be the case. Yeah, okay. So then what do you think the implications are of that then, right? Because I do worry, you know, that folks who are not as steeped in kind of the law and the norms and the way things work might just look at this and say, oh, well, kind of no harm, no foul there when obviously, like, there's a lot of potential danger to, you know, the government targeting people, you know, people feeling chill. people having to pay, you know, having their lives upended and ruined, having Comey's daughter

got fired, you know, so what do you think about? Like, it is a little bit complex as a political matter in that case, don't you think? Absolutely. This is sort of so little about the law and so much about, you know, cruelty and intimidation. You know, I mean, what government official is going to come forward in these times and criticize Trump or or say no to some initiative that Trump wants to do. I mean, look at what Bonte has done in, you know, just a few months where her loyalty is so patently to Trump and not to the Constitution. I mean, she's abandoned her oath and, you know, is willing to do these despicable things that no Attorney General in history, with the possible exception of John Mitchell, has ever thought about doing. It's pretty

stunning. But I think the cruelty and the intimidation factors are really intended. to, you know, quell any internal criticism or any, any government official or actually any official from criticizing. So what do you say, though, I mean, to people, or maybe don't, I don't know what your kind of relationship is now to folks who are still supporters of the president or, you know, who had been around him. How do you break through to them the severity and the seriousness of the moment if it doesn't, you know, and if the consequences aren't tangible?

Well, it's interesting. I'd be interested in your response to that, too. Okay. Because you and I have spent, you know, long time in, in or around Republican politics, centrist Republicans. You know, you were very helpful to Jeb Bush. I was a big contributor to Jeb Bush. I thought that was the way for the country.

I'm sad we didn't go that way and went with Trump instead. But that party's gone. That's gone. It's all MAGA now. And trying to reach them is insane. I mean, it's, you know, Tom Holman with $50,000 in a paper bag, you know, people think that's okay. And if they think that's okay, you know, how are you going to tell them to, you know, cross on green and stop on red? They don't get it.

Do that takes you to your part of it? You mentioned it, Jeb supporter. We appreciated your donation. though I don't know if we spent it as judiciously as maybe we could have. Why did you go in in the first place? That's an excellent question. I think at the time I said in response to a question from Caitlin Pollens, who was, I think, at Law 360 or one of the legal magazines, it's a time that I likely made this decision because I had rocks in my head and steal balls.

So I was never a Trump supporter and quite the opposite. But, candidly, I thought it was a very, very dangerous time for the country. I mean, nobody knew at the time whether, you know, Trump had actually colluded with the Russians, which he hadn't. Kind of had wanted to. Well, he might have. But the reality is, I mean, it was, it's just sad that, you know, that event, you know, the Clinton campaign paying, you know, Michael Steele through Jake Sullivan and Mark Elias. Christopher Steele, you mean? Oh, yeah, Christopher Steele. I'm sorry. Not Michael Steele. Not my, not my former lieutenant governor in Maryland. So it's unfortunate that that happened. But in typical

Trump fashion, the response is, you know, far more powerful than the initial insult. But I thought at the time, nobody knew whether Trump had colluded with Russia. Mueller had been appointed. Mueller was a close friend of mine. And I'm sad that he's got health issues these days. because I don't I don't really know many people in American history who I think more highly of than Bob Mueller. But we had a long relationship. And I thought the country might be able to get through that issue in a slightly less divisive way if I could help manage it from the, you know, Trump White House side. Now, you know, as a lawyer, it was a assignment. It was not a, you know, passionate, you know, I got to defend the president kind of thing.

And we worked through it. I mean, there was never a subpoena. There was never a dispute about the quality of the White House response. You know, the one frustration for Mueller over, you know, the White House response was, you know, Trump refusing to be interviewed. But legally, the quality of the response made their ability to force him to be interviewed virtually impossible under the law, which is a bunch of cases, the most prominent case. being SB. So at the end of the day, you know, once I had largely completed my task,

I was ready to go. I mean, I had opportunities to stay in the administration, stay in the administration in more consequential roles. But that's not why I was there. I wasn't there, you know, to add to my resume. I was there to perform that one task and I got it done and I left. And I guess the big complaint about that was at the very end, which was the bar letter, though, or the way the bar kind of handled the dissemination of the report. Yeah, I think that was controversial. On the other hand, what I think people don't understand is that letter was required by statute, by the special counsel statute. I think the difficulty was the fact that the Mueller report sort of did not adhere to the guidelines for a special counsel in

terms of resolution. They sort of left a bunch of things up in the air, forcing the attorney general to make some decisions. So I think you can criticize Barr for, you know, word smithing, but I don't think you, I don't think it's fair to criticize him for actually the conclusions he reached because I think they were really dictated by the facts. But that, again, shows you how divisive the whole thing was. Back to the question about you being kind of in there and whether or not to be in there. People are going through this at this time. And there's just this huge difference in my perception from the period we were there, 27, 18 to now. I mean, you're obviously focused on the Russia probe, but you have Don McGahn in there, John Kelly. And there are a bunch of people who I don't

have a ton of love for her and who did a bunch of things that I would not have gone along with. But yet, there were folks that were like trying to put limits on him and fences on the president and make sure that he kind of stayed within the bounds of the law. And, you know, there were less known people that were also doing that, particularly on the legal side and the Justice Department and elsewhere. That seems to be totally gone. And I'm wondering what you think about that like now and whether it was good to have those guardrails there back then or how to, you know, what the right way is to handle that. It's a real tough question. I think that's a great observation. Certainly Kelly was one of the people that tried to restrain the president. And actually, I don't

think the country will ever know the full story behind the efforts and the successes that Kelly had in that regard. And under circumstances that were incredibly, you know, frustrating for him. I mean, he's another guy, a man of honor who, you know, loves his country and has made some enormous sacrifices, including the death of his son in the service, which is particularly significant, I think, because it goes to that day at Arlington where Kelly's son is buried and Trump's talking about these guys as losers and what was in it for them. He suffered some just shocking disappointments, but he served brilliantly and forcefully. There were other people. So I will say that certainly Mattis, the General Mattis, was effective in terms of preventing

the president from doing some of the things that he's doing now in terms of the he's, you know, isolated, well, the war crimes in Venezuela and many of the things that he's doing internationally. I think Nikki Haley was very effective. I think there were people who were experienced and talented and that Trump recognized knew more about what they were doing than he knew, as opposed to now where he, you know, appoints his friends or neighbors or, you know, people who said nice things about him on Fox News, you know, to position. they're clearly unqualified for, have no expertise, and, you know, are busy running the government into the ground.

And so I guess the question is then how people should handle this. And I've had like a long-running debates with like Steve Hayes and then O's the Farah and some other friends. Sure. Like, should people go in to try to do that or do you become complicit with him? You know, now I think this question is very acute among people that like work for justice. or work for the FBI, you know, and you are an assistant U.S. attorney early in your career. If you're somebody like that and you are now being directed to either prosecute Trump's

foes or focus your entire department only on immigration crimes rather than, you know, any other crimes, what do you say to somebody that is right now in the Justice Department and FBI or FBI trying to figure out whether it's worth having people that follow the law in there or whether it's or whether they should be. be hitting the road? That's a question that hits at home for me. I've been, I get contacted frequently by senior FBI people and others in the intelligence community about, you know, I got to get out of here.

And I try to, I try to urge them to stay. That's not everybody's view. There are a lot of people who would like to see mass resignations, you know, as a, as a, you know, protest against Trump. but as we now know, those jobs will be filled by loyalists and... Podcast hosts. Yeah, I mean, the Walking Dead, yeah. I mean, it's, you know, anybody who will serve Trump.

My recommendation is I've always believed that the more good people you can get into government, you know, the better the government is. And I hope people will stay and resist, you know, in the military, in the Justice Department, anything involving the rule of law or the world order and not follow the president's desire to have a war against American citizens and occupy blue states and not to create a justice department where if you're a friend of his, you can take $50,000 in a paper bag as a bribe, not only avoid prosecution, but retain a significant job in the administration. This is not America. And we need to see if we can recapture America. I don't think the justice.

Department can be restored in less than a generation, it may take longer, and that assumes that at some point people wake up. I'm very pessimistic about the decline in where we're at. I'm not sure that people can hit the brakes. I think it's got to throw the parachute out there and hope that you land safely. I also worry about that. I don't know that the Justice Department, I mean, it would take, I think, some type of outsider candidate to run on a mandate. of cleaning up at Washington to do it because, you know, obviously I think that the Democrats will be more well-intentioned than Donald Trump. But if you're just a regular Democrat, you get back in there in 2029, it would be rational

to say I want to use the Justice Department to go after the people that are doing the crimes right now. And I would be for that, I think. And if I'm for that at the bulwark, then who's going to be against that? And so I don't know how you, I think it's over. You said you're pessimistic. I feel like I'm even more pessimistic. Well, we should probably expand our group and have a therapy. I would love some accountability

at the conclusion of this, but I would be happy if it just ended. A Nuremberg-type session with, you know, Bondi and Hengsteth and Nome and others, I think that would be a wonderful event. On the other hand, I think America's got to figure out a way to unite. You know, a house divided. The language of that is, you know, a few hundred years old. And, but it's so true. And look at us now. I mean, we've never been more divided. We've never been more isolated in the world. We've never been, you know, we've never been reviled the way we are around the world. And internally, every institution that, you know, that sustained, you know, the American dream or the vision of America as the shining light on the hill is on fire and burning down. And that's in part by design. I mean, you know, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the. The people that are implementing the, you know, 2025 strategy and the racist, violent approach to immigration that we have now as opposed to a measured legalized process, they understand that if you can take away America's confidence in their institutions, it forces you to, you know, be true to your leader because there's no power left, except in the way they're trying to accumulate it in the executive. So I think it's very destructive and trying to rebuild it is just going to be hard. Yeah, and I would also enjoy Nuremberg, but just even at a smaller level,

just like you're going to have to clean out the people that were the hacks that were brought into these institutions, right? And there are people that have done crimes that are more mid-level, right? And I'm like, how do you change the way that the DHS is treating people, right? And you don't have to completely change the policies around ICE, the federal government. And all of that is an unimaginable undertaking, kind of, for me. It is. On the other hand, I mean, it does highlight one of the problems we have, which is the dearth of true leaders out there to, you know, help us.

I think historically, even 20 years ago, there were people out there of character and courage who could come up. Now, money sort of talks, you know, these positions are largely bought through campaign contributions or otherwise. you know, we're not going to get there with Schumer and Jeffries. I mean, it's pretty weak sauce. There's really no democratic message and nobody coming forward. But, you know, I mean, I guess my frustration is I think if a Bashir or Mark Kelly or even a, you know, Gretchen Whitmer could be, could be anointed at this stage of the game. So you have a counterweight to the, you know,

tyrannical dictator that we're all enduring. And the Democrats could sort of have a debate with the country about, you know, what do you want? Do you want, you know, the America that we once had where the world looked up to us and we fought for democracy and freedom and civil rights? Or do you want what's going on now, domestically and internationally? I just don't see the Democrats, you know, doing anything helpful at the level at which we need them. Woke Thai Cobb is out here, you know? It's a racist, authoritarian, and the Democrats need to fight harder. It is telling, I guess, that so many people that were around him and close to him come out of Trump's world sounding like you, sounding like they could be with the bulwark. In some ways,

not being right does be no good, but it is noteworthy, like the folks that saw this up close and personal who are trying to sound the alarm. Yeah, I wish more of them would speak out. Why do you think that is? Like you mentioned earlier that he's going after revenge. And you said, you said he did nine hits yesterday or whatever. Why are you doing this? And, you know, there is no Pence, no McGahn, no Kelly. Why are you doing it? That's a great question. I ask myself sort of every day. I'm doing it largely because I think I should. I did all those hits over last week, so it wasn't just yesterday. But I'm doing more now than I have historically because I think the stakes are so high. I think these revenge prosecutions sort of pulled me out of the once or twice

a week mode into, you know, almost every day now. I wish I wasn't doing this. I'd rather be at an airstream driving around the national parks out west or playing with my grandkids. But, you know, through circumstances that, you know, are historical and largely accidental, you know, I'm in a position where I have spent time with Trump. I think I have a pretty earned assessment, and I've spent a lot of time in government in positions where, you know, the exercise of discretion was the paramount activity every day. And the guidelines on that discretion always had to do with, you know, is it legal, is it ethical, is it moral? And those questions are not being asked anymore by people in power. I'm going to Catholic priest you for a second.

Is it, it's not a sense of penance. You don't feel like you're doing your 10 Hail Marys by coming out and doing this? Oh, no. I mean, you know, no, not that. You know, as I actually felt that the task that I was asked to perform, you know, was done in a way that was beneficial to the country. Like I say, avoided any, you know, divisive legal fights during that process and got it done.

And I left. I mean, I didn't, I wasn't there out of, ambition, you know, I mean, I had other opportunities, but that's not why I was there. I went to do that one task and I left. In some ways, the fact that it's not about penance actually speaks to the gravity of the situation. Right. Right. That it is about the merits of the threats that are facing us and that you are looking at it and feel like not enough people are on high alert. I think there are a lot of people who share my views who would be, you know, more perfect spokespeople, you know, I wish they would, I wish they would get out there.

Do you hear from any of them? Do you get, do you get texts from any of the people? Well, I do sometimes. I do sometimes. But, you know, for example, you know, a few years ago, General Kelly was very, you know, full-throated. On the other hand, I don't know anybody who endured more and, you know, deserves his retirement. But people like that. I mean, you know, there are people out there, Mattis, you know, and Kelly and others who have condemned the president and talked about how dangerous he is for America. And, you know, I try to repeat things that they've said so that, you know, it's clear that they get credit for it and not me. But, you know, I'd love to see some mainstream Republicans come out and, you know, say the things they said the

week after January 6th when they had a chance to put Trump in the rearview before they caved and let him back in. But more importantly now is I'd love it if Republicans came out and, you know, rejected what's going on. But I'd also love it if the Democrats got organized and had a message. You're not hearing from the folks who agree. Are people pissed? Are you hearing from people that are like shut the fuck up, Ty? I get a lot of that. From like just regular folks at the grocery store or from your former colleagues? So not so much from my former colleagues. Not so much. I mean, some, some yes, but not so much there. Yeah, I mean, people I grew up with. I grew up in a little town in western kansas uh yeah i mean and uh people you know who've been lifelong friends uh it's not

for the faint of heart but at the same time i just think it's important all right um last thing what you think it's important when you look out at all this like what do you feel like is the most acute threat like what is the thing that has you keeping an eye open at night so i'm not sure i have a you know great perspective on that so much um you know for me i've got sort of a a focus on the, on the disintegration of the rule of law. And I do think that is, if not the greatest threat, certainly among them, because historically it's what's distinguished us from third world countries and Pinochet's Chile and Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany and the Khmer Rouge. But, you know, I think the attacks on institutions, colleges, law firms,

turning the Department of Justice into his own personal, you know, police and revenge force. I think those threats are eroding the rule of law at a pace we've never seen. And the distinction between us and tyranny is disappearing. I lied. I have one more follow up to that. Because here's the thing that keeps me up at night that maybe you can tell me what you think about because it's related to all that. They've put a lot of clowns in the FBI. But I worry, when you look at what has happened with the intimidation,

efforts and these prosecutions of Comey and James, I've always felt like the thing that worries me is if they wanted to start doing this, there are a lot of ways that you can hassle and harass people before indicting them and like a lot of powers, surveillance or otherwise that the FBI and DOJ has. You said you get some calls from people in the FBI. Do you think that that is a fair worry as you start to look at the trajectory that these guys are on? Oh, very much so. Very much so. I mean, I mean, the FBI has been decimated at the leadership level. You know, the number of agents that have been forced out is certainly in the hundreds. You know, some merely because they, you know, did a perfunctory task in connection with the serious investigations of Trump's refusal to peacefully allow the transfer of power and the 1-6 exercise and the classified documents case where, you know, unlike the indictments against Comey and James, you've got.

page after page of quotes from emails and documents and stuff that demonstrate that those crimes were clearly committed. So I think, you know, we're eradicating, you know, the protections that America has, and the same thing's going on in the military. And that's, I think, equally serious, if not more so. I mean, I don't think we've ever been as isolated. We've never successfully united our enemies and offended our allies in a way that is going on now. And, you know, safety, I mean, with with Hague Seth, including his wife and, you know, meetings and phone calls and reporters from the Atlantic, you know, I mean, it's, it's ludicrous what he's up to, bringing 800 flag officers to town to talk about how his physical strength and exercise routine. It's

ridiculous. But yeah, I think the country's in great danger. And I think the military and the rule of law are probably the two things that bother me most. All right. That's, now that is the way to end Bullwark podcast. That is in the spirit of the show. So I appreciate you very much, Ty. Thanks for coming on. And if you find yourself in New Orleans, a bourbon on me, all right? Well, thanks so much. And I just want to say, I can't tell you what a great service you performed by getting these conversations out there. And I hope people are actually listening and thinking about it. We're doing our best. Thanks so much, Ty. And I hope to see you in person sometime. And everybody else will be back here tomorrow for another edition of the Bullwark podcast. It's going

be a banger. See you all then. Peace. I'm still looking for my own version of America, one without the gun where the flare can freely fly. No bombs in the sky, only fireworks when you and I collide. It's just a dream I had in my heart. It's just a dream I had in mind It's just a dream I had in mind I flew back to New York City Missed that Hudson River line

Took a train up to Lake Placid That's another place in time Where I used to go to drive-ins and listen to the blues so many things that I think twice about before I do now I'm still looking for my own version of America

one without the gun where the flag can freely fly no bombs in the sky Only fireworks when you and I collide. It's just a dream I had in mind. It's just a dream I had in mind. It's just a dream I had in mind. It's just a dream I had in mind.

It's just a dream I had in mind. The Bullwark podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.