The Bulwark Podcast - Bill Kristol: Authoritarian Takeover

Episode Date: August 18, 2025

Militarizing the nation's capital is not a distraction, and Democrats really need to stop using that term. Trump is trying to seize power, intimidate the public, and foment violence in the streets. And it's a purposeful MAGA marketing campaign—the masked federal thugs often have a camera person with them as they tase and tackle people. This is a fight that is central to the pro-democracy coalition, and it must become a political loser for Trump. Meanwhile, European leaders are now the ones defending liberty, and Trump may be laying the groundwork for an attempted federal takeover of our elections. Bill Kristol joins Tim Miller. show notes Philip Bump's crime rate mapping in red states sending Guard troops to DC Masked agents NOT patrolling in DC neighborhoods most impacted by crime Bill's 'Bulwark on Sunday' conversation with Eric Video of a Russian tank with an American flag *** ON SALE: Bulwark Live in Toronto, DC, NYC at bulwark.com/events *** F*%k your khakis and get The Perfect Jean 15% off with the code BULWARK15 at theperfectjean.nyc/BULWARK15 #theperfectjeanpod

Hey, y'all, the bulwark is heading on the road this fall, and we're starting off in Canada. That's right, Mounties, Tim Hortons, maple syrup. Might have some Seagram 7 on stage. We can have no fear of mass military police, you know, tackling us and asking for our passports. And, most importantly, we get to support our friends up north as they combat Trump's stupid trade war. I'm ready to start singing, O Canada, right now. I'm so excited to do it. I've got Sarah Longwell with me.

and Canada's favorite, Sam Stein. We're going to be there in September. For those of you that aren't up for stamping the passport, I get it. You can catch me, Sarah, and JV.L. in D. in D.C. and New York in October as well. To get first dibs on tickets, sign out to become a Bullwark Plus member. You get access to a ticket presale. And that's going to go live tomorrow on Tuesday.

And you get all the other benefits of being a Bullard Plus member. You get the Secret podcast on Friday. How are you surviving without the Secret podcast? So come on. Become a Bullwark Plus member. get access to the pre-sale and you'll be able to come hang out with us in Toronto, New York, or D.C.

Do you aren't a member? That's okay, too. There'll be tickets available on Wednesday and more information will be available at the bulwark.com slash events. It's thebillwork.com slash events. Up next, it's Monday. So we got Bill Crystal.

Hello and welcome to the Bullwark podcast. I'm your host Tim Miller. It is Monday. And even though he's on vacation, we've got editor at Large Bill Crystal. He could not stay away from you guys. He is at the beach. And you might hear the, what did Melania call it in the letter? The melodious laughter of children behind you behind you as we talk.

How you doing, Bill? Thanks for working on the weekend. I'm fine, Tim. It's good to be with you. I gave up the newsletter for the week, but, you know, when Tim Miller calls, you can't say no. You can't get rid of me. Well, we've got, obviously, we'll spend most of the time on what is happening with the Russia-Ukraine-Trump negotiations, Zelensky, appearing at the White House today. And by the time this is out, that will be happening.

So always a reminder that if it's as crazy as it was last time, you can check out the Bullwark-Takes feed for instant reactions. But before we get to Ukraine, I want to talk. about what's going on in D.C., especially, Bill, every once in a while, you put something out there onto the internet on social media, and I just, I'm getting out of my chair, hooting and hollering because I agree so fervently. And so I figure that's a nice place to start. You posted this about the Democrats' response to what's happening in D.C. I want to congratulate leading Democrats for their insistence on saying the takeover of D.C. is a, quote, stunt or a, quote, distraction. It's a rare trifector of intellectual failure, political stupidity, and moral

attuseness. And God, could I not agree more with this? But talk about what you mean and what you're saying from D.C. I guess I saw a couple of Democrats, one of them, Senator Murphy, and it's a little unfair. We should take a maybe a sentence out of context. Actually, you're an interview very interesting podcast Friday with Hakeem Jeffries. And I don't want to criticize it by name since we shouldn't criticize someone who's kind enough to come on the podcast. Just a couple of days. ago, but he was a little bit in the distraction camp. I don't know. Why do these politicians just feel the need to even explain that? First of all, this isn't a stunt to a distraction, in my opinion. It's kind of important. And secondly, even if it were, just address the issue. I always

get so annoyed when politicians are like trying to explain to voters what they should care about or not care about, because you might think it's a big deal when we deploy federal troops to D.C. And have videos of them behaving very badly and so forth. And Trump's inventing justifications, which are open-ended for the future, et cetera, et cetera. But you're wrong. really what's important is the big bad bill, which has to go into effect for 18 months, which already has been quite a lot of publicity. But the Democrats, that's their talking points. They were sent on break with their, you know, talking points about Medicaid. And how can they be distracted by an actual federal takeover of our nation's capital? You know, so I was annoyed.

Yeah. The federal takeover is bad on the merits as it is. And I want to talk about that in detail, including a video that we got from 14th Street that Sam Stein posted. But just on the meta, conversation here about how Democrats should talk about this and how anybody really that opposes this regime should talk about this. I've just become obsessed with this. I'm going on a one-man crusade to borrow a phrase from Bill Simmons, please. Can you turn the TikTok camera on? Because I have a message for the Democrats. Please stop calling things distractions and minimizing this. I don't really know where this started, but it's everywhere. It's endemic. They say that militarizing the nation's Capital is a distraction? No, it is not. It is the core of the fight we're up against.

They were saying the Putin summit is a distraction. No, like the liberal world order and a free Ukrainian people hang in the balance. This is not a distraction. It is the fight. And even things that are actual distractions like the Sidney-Sweeney ad or something, to talk about them like that just makes you sound weird. Just like use them as opportunities to reach people and project your values. Saying that you just agree that Sydney-Sweeney has good genes and think that the freaks that are trying to tear the country apart over this ad or the weird ones is a much better response and being like, this is a destruction and I want to care about Medicaid. It's like, just talk like a normal fucking person, okay?

You can talk about Epstein and Medicaid and Ukraine. Donald Trump is capable of doing this. You don't see Donald Trump out there doing meta commentary about how the Democrats are trying to distract. Like, he just talks about everything. He just throws shit against the wall. That is what is happening. So that is what Democrats should do.

they should fight them on everything they should create distractions of their own and if they're not going to at least do that if they're not going to fight them on everything at least fucking fight them when they're taking an interior police of mass thugs to harass your fellow citizens in the nation's capital in an attempt to steve's power like that is a time to fight that is not the distraction that is that is the fight that we have here like in the so-called pro-democracy coalition like they're they're doing an authoritarian takeover of the capital like that is not the that's not a fucking distraction from epstein and medicaid cuts okay like that is that is the fight so anyway that that's my rant about this please tell your local democratic politician do you do you know

how this happened what was the genesis of this where did this come from yeah it's a good someone should go look up you know the uses of the word distraction do a google search or something and i have but i agree with you totally the democrats has to become sort of a meta, I like your formulation about the, this is a meta discussion, you know, what we should be talking about instead of just talking about whatever's in the news and whatever issues are presented to you. But the Democrats have become kind of a meta party. Wouldn't you say I found this in talking to Democratic donors over the last five, six months? Endless discussion about what should we be talking about, should we be talking about this issue

or that issue instead of just talking about the different issues, right? The Republicans don't fall for this much. They try a bunch of issues. Some of them fade by, you know, go by the wayside because voters aren't interested or the issue resolves itself, kind of, or they think it's a losing issue and they just kind of drop it. But they do address, I mean, in their own crazy way and demagogic way, the issues, right? And the Democrats think they can win by saying, well, that's not a real issue. Just the real issue was X. And say, they changed the real. When we started, when the Epstein thing began, and some of us, you and I were saying that it's a very big issue, it could be a very big issue and a legitimate issue. That was the distraction. I was lectured by

as you were too, right, by many leading Democrats. Medicaid's the story. The big bad bill. We've got polls, 62% don't like the Medicaid. And then, you know, it took like three weeks at a bunch of polls showing the public was quite interested in Epstein for the Democrats to decide Epstein's the issue. Then they decided DC's a distraction from Epstein, right? It's like, you know, it's like everything's a distraction from everything else. God forbid they should actually just address an issue, you know. Yes. And also, just on the Epstein thing, just as a specific example, it's actually just more effective to say, hey, Donald Trump is doing this takeover of D.C. while he's also engaged in a cover-up of documents that expose his relationship to people

running a massive child sex ring, right? Like, he's covering up his relationship there, and I'm upset about that, and we should expose those documents. That's, like, that is a direct argument using the active voice about how this is bad that he's doing this. That's better to do than to try to be like, well, what people really should be talking about is Epstein, to make it like a media critique or like a pundit critique just like fucking critique the president for what he's doing and and you can critique him for two things at the same time this stuff doesn't matter that much but it is just it is annoying and it contributes i think to the sense that that the democrats aren't like actually really fighting this stuff that's more of a academic exercise than it is a campaign

you know doing politics kind of a cousin to what you're talking about i say is the democrats felt need to do a lot of throat clearing on something before addressing the issue at hand. So, well, we are concerned about crime, Tim. And, you know, there's too much of it. And we don't want to look like the party that's soft on crime. So we're now going to say, again, that we are really concerned about the crime. But it has been going down, though still too high. Don't get me wrong.

I mean, they can get to that if someone challenges them as not being tough as being soft on crime. But maybe they should begin with the direct critique, not with the three minutes of self-flagellating. and self-excusing before they get to discussing the actual issue at hand, you know? I'll follow my own advice here. We'll get to the actual news now. I needed to do it 10 minutes. I'm imploring people to stop with, stop with the fucking distractions. And almost always, by the way, the distractions, this is my final point.

Now I'm doing a Sarah Longwell. And another thing. And also almost always the thing that they say is a distraction is the thing that people actually want to talk about. So maybe it's best to engage on the thing. topics that people actually want to talk about instead of saying like, you know, we really shouldn't talk about the things that people are naturally talking about and are interested in. We should talk about this other thing instead. I was out in about this weekend in New Orleans and I had, you know, some of my less stylish friends asking me about, you know, what the truth

was about this perfect gene. Is that something they should look into? Is that something they should try? And our sense was, obviously, what, you think I'm fucking on here endorsing jeans? I don't like. jeans are central to myself identity. I mean, look at all my jeans shirts. So, this brand, the perfect gene, is actually perfect. It's real denim, but not that heavy, stiff, suffocating fabric. It's lighter, softer, stretchier, but still durable and just better. Some of you are hard to shop for because you might be in between sizes or not, you know,

not know exactly what the sizes. Well, the perfect gene gives you so many options. They got waist sizes from 26 to 52, lengths from 26 to 38, and six different fits from skinny, my preference. to thick thick. I was able to easily find genes to fit my body, try out some new different cuts, you know,

see if I want to get into the dad gene mindset. No matter what you're looking for, they've got something for you. For limited time, our listeners get 15% off their first order plus free shipping at the perfect gene. NYC or Google the perfect gene and use code bulwark 15 for 15% off.

It's not just their genes. Perfect Jeans also has a collection of other things that'll have you covered. They've got teas and polos that are buttery, soft, stylish, and perfect for layering. And The Perfect Gene always has free shipping exchanges and returns. You can have peace of mind knowing that your order is completely risk-free. It's finally time to stop wearing uncomfortable jeans by going to theperfectgeen. Our listeners get 15% off your first order plus free shipping, free returns, and free exchanges

when you use code Bullwork 15 at checkout. That's 15% off for new customers at the Perfect Gene.N.YC with promo code Bullwork 15. After your purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Fuck your khakis and get the perfect gene. On the actual outrage that is the D.C. takeover. Sam Stein posted on this, you know, on our subsection on YouTube over the weekend, there was a delivery driver on 14th Street.

It's about a block and a half from La Diplomat, where all the fancy Washingtonians like Bill Crystal have brunch. So, you know, not exactly in the high crime neighborhood. And the guy's taken down off of his moped. he's tased. There's just a pile on of masked, unidentified federal police, interior police going after this guy. They're so insane in the way that they treat them that one of the cops gets hurt. I don't know if they're cops, actually, one of the, whatever they are, gets injured by another one of the masked guys because they're all so rabid. And the people around are shouting at

them like, who are you? They won't say. One of them shouts back liberals have ruined the country, which is really great behavior that you want from your, you know, neutral federal law enforcement. D.C. police said it was not them. The White House put out a statement this morning about it. The moped driver was an illegal alien criminal from Venezuela with suspected gang affiliation and order of removal from the country upon his arrest. The illegal alien criminal resisted and a law enforcement officer suffered a concussion. She's like, we're just doing the same shit they did with the people they sent to El Salvador. It's like, okay, maybe. I don't know.

But could you just, you know, do normal police work? Tell us who you are and who that is and what they did. And there's been some negative impacts of the D.C. economy, people, bars and restaurants, empty this weekend. We're saying people don't want to go out. So, I don't know, Bill, do you have any additional thoughts about what we're saying in D.C.? Yeah, I think the negative impact of the D.C. economy is probably a featured on a bug, right? They're not unhappy to have a blue city, gets a little bit of pain and suffering from this effort.

No, it's really striking. One other sort of example, again, or adjacent to what you're talking about is, so governors of Republican states have been sending in a couple of hundred of their National Guard people to deal with this crime wave in D.C., the states from which they're sending the National Guard, I think Ohio. That's for a champion. I think I know. I noticed this, but Philip Bump actually did the research. I just guessed it. Of course, they have cities with higher crime rates than D.C. And if they have such a problem with violent crime, they shouldn't probably do it either in their own state. They should just fund their police departments better or have better law and order policies. But anyway, they've got to, you know, performatively send 200 National Guard to D.C. to show they're on board with Trump's effort, which is like just really brings home how much

it's about Trump exerting federal power over the nation's capital city. It's not about any empirical, you know, dealing with crime at all. No, of course. And where they are in the city, like the maps of where it shows that. Andrager in the news center this morning makes a good point as well, which is like, to your point about this is being a feature or not a bug, like they want the violence. They want the cop violence in the street. Like the notepad video they like, right? Because that's what they're doing. It's an intimidation tactic. It's not a real law enforcement effort, right? It's a marketing campaign and an authoritarian

group. They sent a camera, I think, along with the 2015 or 20 federal agents, they sent to arrest the sandwich guy at his, you know, apartment building in Northwest D.C. after he had volunteered, I think, to come in. And he wasn't resisting arrest. They knew he was. And he, no, they wanted the video. of all these armed and, you know, beefed up federal agents, you know, bravely assaulting this guy on the net in his knife floor or one bedroom apartment, whatever, a few blocks from our office and these. It's like low-level, DOJ lawyer, you know, a real danger to society.

I meant to have a hoagie on hand today as like a, you know, a sign of resistance here as part of my set. I need to look into that. I know that there's a difference of opinions about Sandwich Man around the around the ball work. I'm on the pro sandwich guy. I would have told you as anti-ant- Subway needs to name a sandwich after him

and so forth, you know, and he's become a hero of the resistance. Yeah, the sandwich resistance. I mean, Patel, the FBI director, Katsfield listed that as one of the felonies that they've arrested someone for in their grand list of 16 mostly ridiculous felony arrest they'd made

in some night or two nights in D.C. with tiny, actually a rather small number. But then I think since some judge say that's ridiculous. It's not a felony to throw a sandwich or something. Yes, correct. The judge should say that. Yeah, the sandwich resistance. I'm a part of it. The last thing on this, and we'll get to a little bit of the end, because I talk about midterms and potentially how this relates to that as well. But just in addition to just the fact that what we're seeing in D.C. is un-American and wrong, right? Again, masked, unnamed agents, you know, taking out people with no, no due process, no individual rights, doing it to intimidate people. now us saying that they're going to continue this takeover conceivably even after, you know,

they have a legal rationale for it. It's a model for what they want to do in other places, right? And like that is part of, that is how this relates to the big, ugly bill or whatever. Like the funding, you know, they're going to have additional funding for this. They're looking for pretext to do it other places. And if it's not fought back against aggressively in D.C. in the way that, you know, the deportation plane is Del Salvador or whatever or fought back again. So you can see like these people

do fold if they see resistance. And if they see that it's a political loser, they will not expand this to other cities. And so it's important that it's made to be a political loser. I think that's the other reason why the distraction thing frustrates me. Like it needs to be taken on now because they intend to

expand their remit. I take your silence for concurrence. Okay, great. The children behind also agree. I can hear them cheering. I can hear them cheering for me. Yeah, totally with you. The children are pro-Tim. They're pro-Tim. They're a pro-sandwich guy, too, you. Let's go to the summit. I want to go with what's happening today. Second, let's just look back. You had Edelman on Sunday. You know, I ripped off several rants on YouTube about what we saw in Alaska, but I haven't talked to you since it happened. I don't think, no. We talked right before.

We kind of talked in the middle. We talked after the red carpet had been rolled out for Putin and our soldiers were made to kneel at the base of Vladimir Putin's plane that have not spoken to you since kind of the joint statement from Putin and Trump, which was very Russian and just the style of how it went. Putin spoke first. There were no questions taken. It was all stuff that was very common for people who watch Russian quote unquote press conferences, but it was very unlike traditional Trump press conferences and American press conferences. And then in the ensuing period, we've seen a bunch of leaks about what was being discussed and about Trump's convos with our supposed allies afterwards. So before we get into what's happening today, what were you in Eric's big takeaways looking back at Friday? Eric was open to the proposition, as it was happening, that much as one disliked the optics and the red carpet and stuff, that maybe the thing was a nothing burger.

But I think he became much more convinced after following it closely, reading the Russian press, reading the European reactions, a particular talk to people from Europe who had been briefed on what had happened, that it was actually bad. there really was a kind of Putin-elected Trump. Trump didn't push back. And I think you see that in Trump's comments since the summit, right, including the Hannity interview, which was just Friday night, but then subsequent truth social posts and so forth. He's sort of on board the Putin agenda. Best case was that he would just, that it would be a failed summit and maybe that Trump

would hold it a little bit against Putin. I think it's the opposite. You know, it's sort of a failed summit. Trump knows that. And he'll be annoyed at Zelensky today. I worry. I just think that's the fact, probably. And it doesn't seem to be pressuring Putin in any way, right? He gave up on the ceasefire. He's given up on territorial integrity of Ukraine, not a word, God forbid, about the continued assaults on Ukrainian civilians, which have marked this past weekend. They were sort of going on almost as the summit was happening. So, yeah, I think it was a bad night in Alaska, and we'll see what happens today in the Oval Office. Laying the groundwork for where we're at is coming today, Because it does. I share Eric's kind of trajectory on that, where watching it live, it was like, okay, well, maybe this was just kind of one of those meetings that could have been an email type situations where like nothing really happens. But as we learned what they kind of talked about in private and then Trump's called the Zelensky and then now Trump's public statements afterwards with Hannity and then on social media, you're seeing that he's basically reverted back to where he was, whenever that was a couple months ago, when they were berating Zelensky.

in the Oval. And so just to kind of lay the groundwork for that. The meeting that is today in the White House, Zelensky this time, has learned that he needs some muscle, he needs some heavies with him. So, Macron, Starmor, Merritt, Germany,

Stub from Finland, I guess Trump likes for some reason. Maloney, from Italy, are all with him. J.D., on the other hand, will attend. So we'll see if what Trump's heavy does. It should be important to note that overnight there's a Russian strike in

Kharkiv, killing six, including two children, leaving 20 injured. A lot of video from that going out so the Russians are not slowing down their attacks on civilians at all. And then I think most telling was this Trump bleat from yesterday ahead of the meeting. President Zelensky of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately if he wants to, or he can continue to fight. Remember how it started. No getting back Obama given Crimea 12 years ago. and no all caps no going into NATO by Ukraine some things never change so again and that posture is just basically Zelensky you need to to fold and you need to wave the white flag and understand that you're not going to have a self-government going forward that can choose to align militarily

with countries that that you wish that you think might support you and that's really where it comes down to But I think that's where we are this morning. Yeah, I mean, Trump's no going to NATO undercuts. Some people were taking a little hope from Whitkoff saying something about security guarantees, even like Article 5. Well, that's literally what NATO is. And Trump is basically ruling out any kind of serious security guarantee, let alone whether it would actually ever be enforced the way other ones that Putin has signed onto haven't been enforced.

So that part is very bad. Yeah, let's just sit on that point for a second because this struck me as well. Marco was also doing the rounds this weekend where he was saying this. He was like, look, there's going to be real security guarantees in writing, et cetera. You can't square those two things, right? There's no going into NATO by Ukraine, but there will be real security guarantees. And like the whole point of NATO is that it's a security guarantee. How is the U.S. going to provide a security guarantee to Ukraine without it looking like, essentially,

something like Article 5, where if Russia attacks Ukraine, America will defend it. Like, what's the difference? Because that's the whole point of why he doesn't want Ukraine to be in NATO because he doesn't want Ukraine to have security guarantees, right? It doesn't make sense. Yeah, we could have a bilateral security guarantee with Ukraine the way we do with Japan or something. Defense the truth is there, the way we do with Japan and South Korea.

I don't think Trump's really on board for that. The Whitcomb thing is so insane. If we had an Article 5 relationship with Ukraine, we would be committed to fighting to help them defeat Russia, which I don't think Trump has, he won't even give. them arms, let alone obviously talk about any kind of U.S. involvement. So no, it's totally fake, I think, the security guarantee thing. And yeah, that was sort of the talking point they used to try to pacify some critics like us. But I don't think it has lasted very long, obviously. You know, on the Europeans, Erickson talked with them. He was an ambassador to Finland.

He actually knows. The Finns have done the current Finnish president has done a very good job of sort of buttering up Trump, I think, in a hard-headed way and a way that's consistent with Finnish national interests and NATO's interests. Is he the one that's been golfing with him? He's a very good golfer. Apparently, he was a varsity golfer at Clemson or something. He went to college here. Okay.

I don't know if it's Clemson, but something like that. And so he's played golf several times with Trump, but I'm sure he lets Trump win. Furman. Important difference. Furman. Sorry. LSU has Clemson to kick up his season. I don't want to offend the South Carolinians watching here.

Yeah. How can I confuse those two? Yeah, he probably lets Trump, you know, cheat and win a little bit in golf. And so he's done his duty. I mean, it is amazing how far the Europeans have got. I've got to say it's obviously distasteful in a way. But I give them credit, you know, they're serious. They don't want Ukraine to lose,

and they're willing to swallow an awful lot of pride and dignity, you might almost say, in dealing with this clown we have as our president of the United States, unfortunately. But I'm gathered the Europeans, I don't, Zelensky may have asked them to come, but I think a lot of them volunteered to come. It is really astounding. It's one thing to have one, you know, maybe von der Leiden, you know, the EU commissioner show up or one of them kind of come with an effective mandate from the others. I should mention that she is also going on, I didn't include her on list and Ruta of NATO.

No, but I mean, from Macron and merits and Starmer, I mean, it's like, you know, it's a NATO summit, in effect, in the Oval Office, which is a real attempt, which incidentally totally confirms your view and your excellent, you know, analyses that you did over the weekend. And then Eric Edelman's view that this was a very bad summit in Alaska. They wouldn't be a lot alarmed if they hadn't gotten readouts that alarmed them. They're not, you know, they don't like just hop on planes to come to the U.S. for, you know, if it's just, hey, meeting, let's go fund me. in the Oval. It was just a nothing burger. It was the initial thought. Right. By definition, not be anything for them to, you know, jump to do. They've been really good, astonishingly good, to be honest. Most, all of them. I mean, I think Starmer's got some domestic issues. Maybe you should focus on, like, McCrone, there's.

Even Maloney has been surprisingly good. We were very concerned that she was going to be more kind of in the urban camp and has not been from Italy. So, I mean, it is, it's a little dispiriting to the fact that, like, as an American, as a patriotic American, the fact that we have the Europeans, like, flying here to beg our president to not be a surrender monkey. I mean, it does, it hurts me as a, as someone born in the 80s, you know, who grew up believing that, you know, America as the leader of the free world was something that I had some pride in, clearly not the leader of the free world anymore.

I were talking a little bit before. show. And, you know, Eric was in the Foreign Service for three decades and very senior, I was ambassador, very senior positions under Secretary of Defense. And he said, you know, one consistent theme was he was in, as he said, you know, hundreds, maybe thousands of meetings trying to push European allies to do more and step up, to be a little tougher-minded, not to go, not to fall for some Russian propaganda stunt, you know, way back into the 80s with the deployment of the medium-range missiles and a million instances, obviously. And even in my four years government, obviously a lot of that. And here we are the opposite. It's heartening that the Europeans

have done this, but what has to root for the Europeans, I don't want to root for the Europeans against the American president, exactly, but certainly the European. Yeah, the European leaders are much closer to the core, you know, mission of defending liberty and helping our allies than the American president is. So that's, but look, I hope they succeed, honestly, just for the sake of Ukraine, obviously, and for the world, and to stop Putin. But I don't know. I, I, I don't I don't know. We'll see. I'm worried that Trump is, Trump is a little more dug in than who knows. Who knows? He's Trump. It's important to remember that Trump's a coward that doesn't like to make big decisions like this. Like fundamentally, he wants everybody like him. Like that trait, you know, the fact that Fred didn't hug him and tell him that he loved him as a child has been the thing that has saved us from the worst case outcome in a couple of different areas, I think, over this decade. The hope, right, is that it's just this Trump is responsive to the last person that talks to him. type thing and he was susceptible to Putin's flattery and then now he'll be susceptible to whatever Ruta calling him daddy again and maybe that'll buy them a couple more months like that's a

pretty sad place to be that that's like the best case hope right that that is what happens you buy more time Trump here's the other perspective is convinced that it's you know Putin it's trying to snub him he doesn't want to seem like he's whatever getting pushed over and the thing that we've been worried about from the start is that eventually this thing comes to a head where Trump really has convinced himself that it's up to Zelensky to give up, that that is the way for this to end, and that if he refuses, then he's not doing, he's not whatever, doing what Trump wishes, and then Trump just takes his ball and goes home, right? And it's just like, good luck, you guys. That's the negative scenario that, who knows, what comes out of today.

or just that drifting on doing nothing but not providing serious assistance to Ukraine also ultimately it's hard for Ukraine to sustain it but they have i got to say we i think back in february january we were correctly very alarmed one piece of the alarm was that ukraine couldn't sustain it without a fresh infusion of arms and support even over the next what was then the next what four or five months in that respect ukraine's doing better than we expected and russia is probably weaker than we thought actually and which makes it all the more infuriating that trump is kind of propping up this dictator who's suffering terrible casualties has fought the war brutally but kind of idiotically actually and may be susceptible to actual it's real real pressure right but whatever whatever that's

lyncy graham that sanctions bill 85 co-sponsors it's any moment any moment coming now you know i mean the degree to which these people who do know better leave aside wubia which is but lindzy graham types they're not ever willing are they ever going to yeah no no john thune And forget it. Forget that I even began that question. Jonathan's planning on bringing that bill to the floor tomorrow. He's got to wash his hair. He's got a big week. Maybe next week that bill will come to the floor.

We'll see. I don't gain much help. Similarly, how it feels silly at this point to even say, when will the Republican sender show? It's fine. It also feels silly to say this, but it's like, how we even got into this bizarro world where the president of the United States, the vice president, and a huge swath of the country just like accepts the, the,

insane perspective that Zelensky is it's incumbent on Zelensky to be the one to end the war right now where it's like there actually is a person that can end the war and it's Putin and like that is the person that they refuse to put an iota of pressure on to try to do it and you know it's just this total a kind of bizarre world assessment of what is happening that underscurds you know our entire idiotic strategic positioning when it comes to these negotiations. So anyway, we'll see what happens today. I want to talk to you about the mail-in ballot stuff. Here's what Trump said this morning on truth social.

I'm going to lead a movement to get rid of mail-in ballots, and also while we're at it, highly, quote, inaccurate, very expensive and seriously controversial voting machines. With their horrible radical left policies, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Democrats are virtually unelectable without using completely disparate. proven mail-in scam. Elections can never be honest with mail-in ballots voting. So this, to me, is, like, extremely ominous. Trump sends out a lot of crazy bleats. Like, we don't analyze every single one of them. But I should just mention among the states with all mail-in voting, my own

state, Colorado, California, Nevada, Oregon, Utah. A lot of these states are places where Democrats probably are looking to pick up seats, certainly in California and California. Colorado and Nevada, and depending on how things shake out in Utah with the potential court fights, maybe Utah. So this is just straight back to stop to steal 2020 stuff, like laying the groundwork, like the writing is on the wall. You do not need, this is not bluster. You don't need to read through the lines.

He's just absolutely saying that he is starting to lay the groundwork for if the Democrats win the House next year, they will call it rigged and fight it and use every power they can. and to not seat people that come in in these states that have mail-in voting. I don't think there's any other way to read this. I'd go a little further. I think there's laying the groundwork for acting in the summer or spring to stop states from actually using mail-in ballots, including not only the all-mail-in states, you mentioned,

but here in Virginia, we have pretty generous early voting, pretty easy mail-in, and then obviously same-day voting. I've done all three in the last several cycles, depending on where I am on Election Day and the like. Glenn Yonkin won the governorship here in Virginia in 2021, the Republican Slate won all three statewide offices. No one's ever said anything. It's like zero problems, you know, I'm literally zero. And Democrats have, however, gotten more used to mail-in voting and used them a little, use of a little more. So stopping it would presumably help Republicans. I was struck, I think

there's a draft executive order. I have here at the Beach, I'm followed up quite as closely, but I saw some texts about this executive order. And one of the things he apparently says in passing the states, the 50 states, are agents to the federal government somehow in this respect in conducting the elections. That is really ominous, that we have a very federalist election system. Obviously, the way it's conducted in one state isn't the same as others. Some are all mail-in, some are very restricted mail-in, and so forth, different voting hours, different this and that, some basic federal requirements, obviously 18-year-old vote and non-discrimination and requirements and the like. But he's laying the groundwork for a federal takeover of a lot of our

elections or as much of it as they need to either distort the results, challenge the results afterwards, and throw them out, as you say. I mean, you could imagine the Republican House refusing to recognize certain results in certain states, as you were saying, and then obviously for 2028, with a bigger runway to this, a huge attempt to put a major thumb on the scale of the actual conduct of the election, as well as the counting of the ballot. So I think this is really, I need to study up more on this, and maybe we can talk more about it next week. I mean, we'll see exactly what he's ordering or not ordering, and they're talking about even legislation that the compliant Republican Congress might pass next year, apparently.

There's some internal debate, one of the text chains someone said, whether they can do this all by executive order. It's the president, Article 2, or they're going to try to get legislation to curb state's ability to shape their own election procedures within certain limits, obviously, which is the way it is now. But all at all, and then you put it together with D.C. If I can loop back to that for a second, right? Yeah, just before we go back to D.C., let me read, because here's what he said about the executive order, because I want to look back to D.C. too. We don't have the actual text

yet, but here's what he wrote about it. An executive order to help bring honesty to the 2026 midterm elections. Remember, the states are merely an agent for the federal government in counting and tabulating the votes. They must do what the federal government, as represented by the president of the United States tells them for the good of our country to do. well that's even worse than I realize it so that set off for it's worth huge alarm bells in the this one text chain I'm on with very sophisticated election lawyer types they see where this is going and the term that seems a little innocuous if you're a civilian agent of the federal government what does that mean is really a code for takeover and that's something that's not been considered to be the case right there's been huge deference to the states yeah i don't remember Madison is that in the federalist papers that the federal government that the states must do exactly exactly what the federal government tells them for the good of the country? Is that, I don't, I miss that. Yeah, I mean, there are areas where the federal government obviously trumps the states, you know, interstate commerce and stuff. But that's why it sets off such a large,

was this would be turning the states into agents in this area in ways that has not been the case before and is very dangerous. And so the federal government, what does he say, as exemplified by me, the president of the United States or something. Yeah, it's represented by the president. Yeah, so the president just gets to decide how are our elections. He doesn't like what's happening in Virginia. There's too many mail ballots showing up. He just voids them, I suppose, right? I mean, I don't think that's incidentally, that sounds alarmist and crazy. I don't think that's at all beyond the pale.

I don't either. Here's one of the points you made there. I just want to sit on for a second because I think it's really right is even if they fail on the maximalist version of this, right, like some federal takeover and who the hell and I guess what the DC stuff will get into what the Nat Maximil's version of this might look like. At a smaller level, as you say, because of the disinformation, that Trump and others have been putting out in the conspiracy theories, the type of voter that votes MAGA doesn't usually use the mail anymore, right? Like they've bought into a lot of these

conspiracy theories. And so, you know, this is why on election nights you see these things where you have these huge dumps one way or the other because the republic, now these days you didn't use to see because Republicans vote in one manner, Democrats want another manner. So if you look to the midterms, it's not just in blue states that like Democrats are poised to pick up seats, right? Like they are, you know, poised to, I think, potentially gain also in some of the red areas. I mean, just like I was talking to my head, like the Nebraska, Don Bacon District with him retiring would be one example. So now, you know, in those states, you could, who knows, monkey with the rules, you know, again, at the smallest level, you could just change the rules to make mail

on bowling harder, which makes it harder for Democrats to vote. Maybe the next level up of nefariousness, there could just be an intense level to challenge mail-in ballots, where those are, you know, it's a close election, you know, those are looked at much more closely and thrown out on technicalities much more closely than ballots are. You know, and then obviously there's even more chicanery than that they could get into. To me, like that at this point is like the minimum that we can now expect to happen. No, I think that's right. I think if you add to that the more sort of racially inflected ways in which they could also do things within states.

Philadelphia's got a particular problem with some of these mail-in ballots because, you know, we've seen in the past a higher rate of challenge. Central Pennsylvania, you're fine, but super strict scrutiny in certain areas, right, which coincide with democratic votes and minority population and stuff. So I think the degree of munking around that can happen once you open this door as widely as Trump wants to. do is yeah really alarming on the DC point again now as we get more towards the maximalist scary side of this again why stuff has to be fought now like this is another thing that is absolutely on their mind as far as something they're plotting which is if there are protests about new election rules you know if during the early voting you know you remember this during 2020 where there'd be like a video of

of them moving a box the wrong way. And some MAGA account would look at it and say, oh, this is evidence that they traded out one box. All this stuff starts to come out during early voting. And they use these things as pretext and rationale to send in federal troops, National Guard troops, to guard voting places, maybe particularly in blue areas, to intimidate people, to prevent them from coming.

There's just a whole range of potential threats. on that vector as well. And I think that the combination of D.C. in this executive order or a mail-in balloting, it lays the groundwork for that pretty clearly. And for real, I mean, really dangerous things. The governor of Virginia might say,

we don't need any help in 2026 if it's Abigail Spanberger. He even gets evil, believe it's Glenn Yonkin or whoever the Republican is Sears. Win some Sears? I kind of think she'll go on. Yeah, but probably Spanberger. But this is where the Ohio and other states, West Virginia and National Guard showing up in D.C.,

I think it's a little unclear. or to whom they're reporting now, to their own governor or to the Defense Department? You know, there's some complicated issues of how the National Guard works. But the idea that if Governor Spamberg says, we don't need to mobilize the Virginia National Guard, I'm not doing it. The Trump says, well, actually, the West Virginia National Guard solidit to come in to help make sure that the elections and inner city, Richmond, are really legit, you know? I mean, you could get, well, the showdowns between different states, but this is why I think

it's interesting that they've clearly got out of their way to encourage these Republican governors to send in, you know, a couple of hundreds. It's not really changing anything, you might say, National Guard from their states, but they want to establish that predicate, that even if the governor is not friendly to them where the state legislature is not friendly to them, they can call on other states to provide for it.

And in addition to what the forces they can unilaterally deploy, I suppose, you know, the federal forces, they can call out other states to help out, so to speak. I meant to get to this during our Russia section. The image of the day, I guess when we're talking about how dispiriting it was that we're just hoping, for our European friends to save us and to give us a backbone. The other dispiriting image from this morning was, have you seen this,

the Russian tank that was moving into Ukraine in Zaporizia? Is that right? Is that how you say that? The Russian tank that was going to storm Ukrainian positions there in eastern Ukraine was waving two flags above it, a Russian and American side by side. So it tells you what the Russians think about the state of play. So, I don't know. Bill, I'll leave you at that image. That's a horrifying note to leave on all, but I'll go out to the beach and try to forget that last image.

That really is terrible. Turn off the phone. Turn off the phone. You don't need to watch the Louisville office today. We'll give you the highlights. And we'll be back next week, hopefully still aligned with the West and not with Putin. We'll see how that turns out. Everybody else will be back here tomorrow for another edition of the Bullwark podcast. See you all then. Peace. We're going to be able to keep a man.

I'm going to be able to be. I'm going to be able to run this story. What we're gonna be, gonna be, wanna be right now Why do we gotta do, but we're gonna do, wanna be right now, is you? To go to. The Bullard podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.