The Bulwark Podcast - Bill Kristol: Glimmers of Hope

Episode Date: January 18, 2023

The shift in attitudes about defense and foreign policy in Germany has been dramatic since the war in Ukraine began. Plus, will ripping off a dying dog be the tipping point for George Santos? Bill Kristol — fresh off a series of meetings in Berlin — joins Charlie Sykes today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome to the Bulwark Podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. It is Wednesday, January 18th. Let me just start off with a quick apology at the top of the podcast for those of you that are subscribers to our Morning Shots newsletter. If you are a Bulwark Plus member, of course, you get my Morning Shots newsletter, you get JVL's Triad, as well as our entire suite of podcasts. So I put out Morning Shots every day and usually manage not to royally screw it up. I am not perfect. But this morning, I do the newsletter, which is a little bit different, I have to admit. I did something that I don't usually do, which is engage in public art criticism. Talk about the Martin Luther King Jr. debacle up in Boston. I imagine a lot of you may

have different points of view about all that. So I wrote about that and why Martin Luther King Jr. should not take it personally, because bad public art has been around for a very, very long time, something that the late Tom Wolfe chronicled in great detail. So I spent some time talking about the devolution, the uglification of public art. And then, of course, you include links to some of the outstanding pieces we have in the bulwark. Okay, so make the long story short, I press the send button to the hundreds of thousands of people who get the newsletter, only to realize to my complete and abject horror that for some reason I had sent out an earlier version of the newsletter, one that did not include everything, that had not been edited at all. So to my complete horror, I had to redo the newsletter and send out a corrected version. So if you get this in your inbox and you're reading this going, wait, Charlie promised that I was going to read something about George Santos,

and there's nothing about George Santos here at all. And what's the rest of all of this? Look again at your inbox because I sent out a corrected version. My apologies for the error. My apologies for cluttering your inbox. And hopefully you'll understand why you got two of those emails for the price of one. Now, I am explaining this because I also had to explain this to my colleague, Bill Crystal, who had to wait for 15 minutes while I fixed this problem before we began that. Bill, thank you so much for your patience. No problem at all.

I had a very pleasant conversation with Katie Cooper about where to go in Berlin and other cities in Europe. So it was a very pleasant 15 minutes without you. I hate to tell you that. And, of course, it's great to have you as well. I'm gratified to hear that. We've all screwed up those kinds of newsletters. And I sent you an open letter to sign, which you did. Thank you. We'll talk more about that next week, maybe when it comes out on Iran supporting the

dissidents in Iran, the protesters in Iran. And, you know, you send out that kind of thing, you just worry, am I sending the right copy? There have been five different iterations of it. Am I changing the name right? So it's Dear Charlie, not, you know, the previous one that I sent to someone else was, you know, Dear John. And, you know, how embarrassing is it? So these things do happen. And maybe we can talk about that letter when it comes out. But I was very pleased to join you in signing that letter. Well, as you mentioned, you just got back from Berlin where the Renew Democracy Initiative and America Purpose co-hosted a series of meetings.

So you're not jet-lagged anymore? You're back? You're tanned, ready, and rested? I'm back. I'm untanned, unready, but somewhat rested, right? Okay, so I do want to hear about this because you did send some dispatches from Berlin that suggested that, first of all,

that these conversations about the future of the West and the future of democracy were compelling and interesting and provocative, but also, you seem to be exuding a certain amount of optimism. And that's what I wanted to talk to you about. Because, of course, you know, one of the big questions, you know, hanging over a lot of this is, you know, will the democratic West, you know, continue its resolve and its unity in the face of the Russian aggression in Ukraine? And there were a lot of questions about your host country, about Germany's handling of this. So give me your sense of that. I mean, you write in the book today that you heard of, you know, a fair amount of tough criticism of Chancellor Olaf Scholz's hesitancy on Ukraine and quite a lot of skepticism about, you know, his proclaimed turning point, you know, for the West. But give me your sense. Where are we at? And how disappointed should we be in Germany? So I think the glass is more half full than half empty. And I think one does sometimes forget that.

And it's like here, the people we met with were on the hawkish side, let's just say, the pro giving Ukraine what they need faster and more thoroughly than perhaps we've been doing side of things, just as we've been here. So think of it as our counterparts over there, think tank people, journalists, but also pretty senior government officials and members of the Bundestag, some of them from Schultz's own party, the Socialist Democratic Party and Democratic Socialist Party, and others from the Christian Democrats or the Greens, who interestingly have been the most hawkish, and the foreign minister who's a Green has been pushing Schultz to do the right thing. So it's a little bit like here. Are there things to complain about with the Biden

administration? Sure. Have there been missteps and hesitancies and just a general sense that they just should be a little faster and a little more aggressive? Yes. But at the end of the day, sort of like here, I think, if you compare it to where we were a year ago, it's what we might have expected before February 24th. It's a pretty big change. And so in the piece Jeff Gedman and I wrote for the Bulwark, we used this, our peg, the speech that Chancellor Schultz gave, what, I think three days after the invasion, where he said it's a zeit und Wende, which, as I understand it, means – zeit means time. You know, Wende means, I don't know, turn, like wending your way, I suppose. So it's used in German to mean a watershed, a turning point, something like that. And he said this is a real turning point.

And I've got to say, there's a lot of, gee, it's a turning point, but he hasn't quite come through as much as he should have. And there's truth to that, certainly. But I think if you look at the forest, not the trees, it's pretty startling. I mean, Germany has spent decades saying, you know, since World War II, really, we don't get involved in armed conflicts. We don't sell arms to participants in the middle of armed conflicts. They've violated that a little bit, I think, in the last two, three decades, but not much. And here they are, they've already sent a ton of arms, a lot of arms, I mean, to Ukraine. And now they're about to send, I think, the leopard tanks.

And that's a pretty big step. And they are increasing the defense budget. And what struck me the most, though, was a little like here, I think, too, the general mood that, OK, I mean, what Putin has shown us is the sort of implications of a world in which the democracies are kind of passive, don't do much to penalize or deter aggression, give a sense of weakness. I will say, incidentally, for those of us who, as you and I were critical of the Afghanistan withdrawal, I was struck how many Germans brought that up unprompted as something that they think influenced Putin. He obviously had ambitions on Ukraine way before that, but that he really suggested to Putin that Biden wouldn't react strongly. I mean, again, that was not something I hadn't really thought that way.

I mean, I'm aware of that argument, but it wasn't something I brought up or Jeff, but they did anyway. But the degree to which, as with here, they have just, I think they have liberated themselves from that post-Cold War kind of, everything will be fine, things will get better on their own. In any way, trade is more important than democracy. In any way, Russia, Germany has a particular issue with it. We've got to work with Russia and so forth. It was heartening. One thing, I'll just say in conclusion, a little bit like here too, the younger people were more forward leading in terms of the ones we met with, at least,

in terms of defending freedom and helping Ukraine and standing with Ukraine. Obviously, that's not true of all young people there any more than it is here. But the older politician, Schultz is 64. Think of him a little like Biden, honestly. You know, he'd been around a long time, cautious, mainstream, and in his case, a social democrat. Not terrible on things, but not interested. Three years ago, if you had told him, hey, you're going to be the person who's the Harry Truman of the moment and reorienting, totally reorienting German foreign policy, people would have said, what? Are you kidding me? He's done it reluctantly, but the people pushing it are often 40 years old,

not 70 years old, and are younger people who've seen Putin a little more up close, who know people from Ukraine, who are following the protests in Iran, and who think this is the time to really step up and defend freedom and democracy against the autocrats. Okay, before we let Germany off the hook too much, though, they have been slow, and the cost to the Ukrainians has been huge. As you point out, the U.S..S. has also, you know, despite, you know, the tremendous aid we've given, has also dragged its feet. I mean, the Ukrainians should have had American Patriot missile defenses, Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, and they should have had these things months ago. But it does feel that whatever criticism you could direct at the slow pace of American aid,

you'd have to multiply by many, many multiples for Germany. I mean, I'm stuck on the whole, you know, remembering when they announced that they were going to send helmets at the start of the war. I mean, talk about a slow roll by the Germans, the helmets. So, I mean, how much criticism is warranted for Olaf Scholz basically sitting back while thousands of Ukrainians were killed? I mean, it's not, you know, OK, he's finally getting it right, but he's gotten it right after, you know, a horrific failure to step up at a crucial moment. Too harsh? No, that's fair enough. And we had Ukrainians, both Ukrainians and people who are living in Kiev or Lvov who came to these meetings. So we got that Ukrainian sense of point of view and

sense of urgency and sense of terrible tragedy and disappointment that more hadn't been done by a lot of people. So I think that's important to stress when we set the glass is a little more than half full, but that still implies it's, you know, 40% empty or something. One thing this did bring home to me is the U.S. has to lead. I mean, there was zero chance that Germany was going to go further than the U.S. And I would say very small chance that Germany was going to go quite as far as fast as the U.S. So if we want Germany to be at, you know, to put it in a simple, minor way, at 80%, we have to be at 90%.

And the fact is we were at 60%. Obviously, these are pullings out of a half, but you know what I mean. And Germany was there for 40%. And this was true. There were participants from other countries in some of these informal, off-the-record discussions.

The degree to which they all look to the US is astounding, apart from really the Baltic and a couple of states, Poland, right near Russia. None of them was going to go out ahead of us. And some of them have been terrific, those Eastern countries and the Baltic countries. But for the mainstream countries in Western Europe, they need us to go to lead. So again, such a familiar theme. Some of us have been arguing for a long time, but it really was brought home in a very concrete way. And people said, look, if you need to send the Abrams, then Schultz will

feel pressure to send the Leopards, which is the German tank. And he will eventually, I think he will agree to on Friday at Rammstein, there's a big meeting, which our defense secretary is leading. But if you hesitate, if the vibes you send out are ones of uncertainty or hesitation, there's so much pressure within the system there to continue to hesitate that he'll do so. So the irony is, it's the opposite where people say, well, Europe will step up if America pulls back a little or if America's got to let, Europe will only step up if we step up first and even more. So the more decisive and I think the most clear departure from past policy, which you identify, is the idea of change through trade. There had been this naive notion that Germany and the West could induce Vladimir Putin to

be more reasonable if you just open the doors for trade. And as you point out, this belief that commercial ties coupled with earnest dialogue could soften the heart of a cruel dictator. That's been dropped. And we're seeing this rapid elimination of dependence on Russian energy. That strikes me as a long-term shift and the end of a very strong illusion that gripped the West for a very long time. No, that's well said. And I think that's important. And China came up several times in these discussions with a sort of correct sort of caution,

a little bit of, geez, if we could do this with Russia, it's not that powerful an economy at the end of the day. And most of it is oil and gas. I think behind the scenes, the Biden administration did more than I realized, at least to help the Germans liberate themselves from Russian gas with LNG

and various small things they did that made it a lot easier for us to export natural gas and the Germans to import it and others to import it to them and so forth. But anyway, they are liberated now from German gas, which is kind of amazing. Yet just a few years ago, they were building and defending the building of the gas line that would have made them permanently dependent on Russian gas or much more dependent on Russian gas. So it's a pretty big change. But I mean, a lot of people said, you know, China, not letting ourselves become dependent in the same way on China, that's really going to be a challenge. And obviously, that's something that we're debating here in terms of some of the high tech stuff and all that. These changes take a little longer than one would like. But I guess I'm

somewhat encouraged that intellectually, I kind of felt in terms of attitude, some people at least have turned the corner or are turning the corner might be a better way of saying it. And there was surprisingly, there was someone said he had made a point in a meeting with very senior government officials. Someone had said, when do you think this kind of ends and we go back to business as usual? And he said, ends and we go back to business as usual? And he said, we're not going back to business as usual. It'll be a new normal. And there was a little bit of bristling at that.

And, you know, we don't know that. But he said that was actually a lot of people just said, yeah, we may not like it. We may have hoped that it would work out. They had a pretty good run in Germany for the last 20, 30 years. But they have to adjust to and think through how to shape a new normal. The other point I'd make is there's still a little bit too much of they're reacting to Putin, which obviously we all are, and to the invasion and to the war. But they haven't quite crossed the bridge to, okay, let's shape the future,

not just deal with this very terrible invasion. I think you and I, months ago, I used this analogy of, you know, are you sort of fixing up an accident on a highway and maybe correcting some of the unsafe aspects of a highway, or are you building, like, a new highway, basically, you know? And I think they've kind of moved to, yes, they need to rethink what you just said, the belief in trade, the sense that they can stay out of things, the sense that they don't need to be pretty aggressive

in helping those who are fighting to defend themselves. I think a lot of that has, again, it changed a little more than I expected. So I'm slightly upbeat. It's very important on Friday at this Rammstein meeting that they announce the tanks. I mean, the tanks aren't the only weapon. Some experts say they're not even the most important at this point, but it's become symbolically so important to signal that they're overcoming, and we're overcoming that kind of fear that, oh my God, this is an escalation,

and God knows what Putin will do. You use the word epiphany, you know, saying that what you're seeing now is as close to an epiphany for a country that in the past defined itself as civilian power, now rediscovering the value of deterrence and hard power. And as you were talking, I was thinking, I wonder, maybe it hasn't happened yet, but you did mention, you know, how this might color our attitudes towards China, because there had been this deep belief that if you engaged in trade and dialogue, this would soften the Russians. Obviously, that has been discredited. Now the question comes, okay, you know, so what should our attitude now be going forward to China? I wonder whether or not it hasn't happened yet. But as you suggest,

there is that feeling that maybe we're undergoing an epiphany in relationship to that power as well. I mean, I don't know whether you had the same reaction. I was struck by how strong the bipartisan vote was for that select committee on the threats posed by China. It's headed by Wisconsin Congressman Mike Gallagher. I just sense that a similar change might be happening here. You know, the Germans have had their scales fall from their eyes about, you know, engagement and dependence on Russia. And perhaps Americans are going, yeah, do we really want to ever be that dependent on the Chinese? I think that's happened in the last five, six, seven years.

You just look at this overall debate. I do think that committee is a little more important than a typical congressional committee. I haven't followed it as closely as I maybe should have. But Gallagher's head of it. It is genuinely bipartisan, and I think not wildly lopsided. I think that maybe they made that one nine to seven or something, nine Republicans, seven Democrats. Some of these other committees, they make 14 to five or whatever. So I think Gallagher wants to end up with bipartisan report, bipartisan recommendations. And he himself, though I think you and I have been critical of him for going along so much with,

of course, McCarthy and not helping, not supporting Liz Cheney and stuff. Still, his instinct is he is more of a Republican who understands that you've got to have the country united to make these things work. And that could become a bit of a model, I don't want to overstate it, it's one committee, for at least in some areas, Republicans just getting off the, you know, insane performative demagoguery and idiocy and actually being serious and Democrats saying, okay, on this area, we're going to kind of bracket some of the other stuff. And, you know, Mike, you're voting for all these idiotic things McCarthy wants you to vote for, which he is, unfortunately, in terms of, you know, all the party line votes on

the other committees and so forth. But in this thing, we need to work together. So I think it'd be interesting to see how that plays out over the next two years. Okay, well, speaking of the House of Representatives, we're now getting the committee assignments. And that should not come as a surprise to anyone at all. But Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, George Santos, all getting their committee assignments. Looks like Marjorie Taylor Greene's getting some pretty significant assignments. Both Greene and Gosar have spots on the Oversight and Accountability Committee, which is going to be launching all those investigations into President

Biden. Marjorie Taylor Greene's also on the Homeland Security Committee, which, of course, they're going to use as a cudgel to beat up on the Homeland Security Secretary. So your thoughts about that? I keep coming back to the fact that it wasn't that long. It was in 2019. The Republicans still had enough sense of red lines that they were willing to strip Iowa Congressman Steve King of all of his committee assignments when he embraced white supremacy. That was 2019. Fast forward to now. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, both of whom have trafficked in conspiracy theories, lies, sedition, et cetera, named some of the most powerful high-profile committees in the House of Representatives. So, Bill, we knew it

was trending this way, but this really is MTG's house, isn't it? Yeah, you know, it is. And she got two plum committee spots, which is pretty unusual. I haven't looked personally, but if you go through very senior members of the House, they're on one very important committee, maybe, but not that often on two. And these are the two she wanted the most. She supported McCarthy. She obviously has credibility, if you want to call it that, in MAGA world. She ended up being a bit of a broker, I think, in getting the votes at the end from the, you know, 16 or something of the 20 that McCarthy needed. And also a broker, I think, in getting the votes at the end from the 16 or something of the 20 that McCarthy needed, and also helped him before that, I think, lock up the 200 he had.

So I think this was an explicit deal that she made with McCarthy. She's ridiculous in so many ways, you might say, but she's not, I think, without some cunning as a kind of inside player. And she really maximized her role in this. And so it's not just that, oh, gee, McCarthy's being nice to someone he shouldn't be nice to. She is an actual power player, as is Jim Jordan in the House. And that makes me very skeptical of people who say, well, McCarthy can manage them and stuff. Jordan is going to be head of judiciary and the Judiciary Committee and pretty ruthless, I would think, in exploiting the powers of that committee. And Marjorie Taylor Greene is there on oversight and Homeland Security with a direct line to the Speaker. So I'm going to be at a panel later today and, you know, talking about the new

Republican House majority. And one of the questions that I'm going to be asked, I'm guessing, is, well, you know, are there still moderate Republicans? Are there still normal Republicans and what role will they play? And I think my answer is going to be, well, yes, there are moderate Republicans, but they keep empowering the crazies. And yes, they could play an important role in some of the upcoming debates, including on the debt limit. But so far, we haven't seen any willingness to break with this new majority. So the face of this Republican majority is not the moderate Republicans or people like Mike Gallagher, quite frankly, who's gone along with all of this,

but it's going to be Marjorie Taylor Greene, Jim Jordan, Paul Gosar, and people like George Santos. And apparently Kevin McCarthy thinks that that's a good idea. But I mean, give me your sense, though. Where are the moderate Republicans and what should we expect? Should we expect anything different than we've seen from them over the last five, six, seven years? You know, I think people do expect that at the end of the day, you know, 20 of them will vote to raise the death limit and sign a discharge petition if it comes to that, if McCarthy tries to hold it hostage. But I don't know, I've become a little more nervous than I was just two, three weeks ago, partly because of this Marjorie Taylor Greene, you know, getting on the committees and the way the fight for the speakership played out. I'm more nervous

that, I don't know, will all those people be willing to break simply with McCarthy or will they sort of try to be negotiators and then suddenly we're negotiating up against some deadline with things that the Democrats can't then hold all their members for. Clearly, the Democrats are going to take the burden of increasing the debt ceiling, which I don't know is that much of a burden anymore. It used to be considered politically so damaging. I think people kind of know that it's all posturing and ridiculous and dangerous to not pay your debt. So I kind of think the Democrats can do this, but it would be very helpful. I mean, Mike Gallagher, to take my, he and 10 other Republicans should just say now they're going to vote to increase the debt ceiling. That would take a huge burden off the markets. It

would mean that at the right time, they can do the discharge petition, which does take a little notice. I think it's 30, it has to sit for 30 days before it can be brought to the floor. And, you know, they could begin to tee up, they could get the Republicans in the Senate to go along. And if they, if the Democrats want to give them one or two little things, you know, that would be fine too, I suppose, you know, but it doesn't feel like that's going to happen, but that would be the responsible thing to do. So that's exactly what they should do, because even the threat of this is dangerous to the economy, but they're not going to do this because my fear is that any of these grown up normal Republicans, you know, allegedly, you know, whatever, you know, they put the quotation marks around that, that if they were to announce that they're going to support a discharge petition, that they're going a primary and that they will be excommunicated in exile. And Mike Gallagher is not going to do that because he just got his own plum committee assignment. And he knows that if he breaks with fellow Republicans, I mean, you know, cry havoc and let loose, you know,

the flying monkeys of the right. So I guess the best alternative to that is they privately tell the Biden administration they'll be there at the end, but they just don't want to talk about it. And they just want to make it one quick vote at the last minute. But it's not as good, obviously, and you worry how firm they'll hold. And again, it's not as if Jordan and Green and McCarthy are going to be passive, right? They're going to increase the pressure. Trump will be saying whatever he says. What if DeSantis also weighs in, and suddenly all the leading Republican presidential candidates are on one side of this? And I'm more worried. I sort of dismissed the debt ceiling stuff, not dismissed, but, you know, minimized in my own mind how serious the threat

that was. But I'm more worried about that now. I am too. And I generally, my default setting has been to tune out those debates because, you know, there's a lot of, you know, heavy breathing and there's drama, but ultimately it's a kabuki dance because they'll come up with a deal at the very end. So if you tune out to it, you kind of know the end of the movie. I'm sure you're concerned about this because I don't know that's possible because we don't know how much Kevin McCarthy has given away. We do know this, that anything that was around that Kevin McCarthy could give away, he gave away. Anything that he could slice off of his soul, he sliced off of his soul, et cetera. I mean, if you want me to go back to the self-guilding reference, but the guarantees that he made may make compromise impossible.

So that's why they're trying to talk themselves into thinking, well, we can play this game of fiscal chicken without too much damage because we'll pass this resolution telling the treasury to prioritize payments to the bondholders, Social Security payments, and the military, and we'll basically cut everything else, and that'll be a political winner for us. What could go wrong, Bill? Yeah, exactly. And the George Santos thing, which you've commented on both on these podcasts and also in the newsletter, very wittingly, I say, and interestingly, you've kind of noticed all this stuff. It's unbelievable the key's coming out.

You know, it's not a trivial thing because one could imagine an alternate universe, which Kevin McCarthy's doing a lot of things we don't like, but he does say, look, I mean, we need to crack at the question of George Santos, and there has to be an investigation. There are real questions that have been raised. I'm not going to support a motion to kick him out of the Congress

right now, but it's a legitimate question. You can imagine him saying that. He hasn't said that. You can imagine McCarthy deciding the last couple of days, look, we're going to put off putting him on committees because we just don't know, frankly, what's going to happen with the Ethics Committee investigation and the legal investigations. If he clears it all, he can join the committees in two months. But for now, we're just going to let him be a, you know, he can join the committees in two months. But for now, we're just going to let him be, you know, a member of Congress, but not on the committees. That wouldn't have been a crazy thing to do.

And of course, he didn't. And he put him on committees. I don't know if they're very important committees. But the degree to which McCarthy is digging himself into a situation where he can't support getting rid of Santos, I think, unless he's like literally convicted of a federal crime or a state crime or a state crime, is pretty striking, right? And so again, I think it shows the way in which something we've seen so much over the last six years, right? The kind of one step leads to another,

the slope is slippery, and they're going to dig themselves into defending George Santos, and not just Marjorie Taylor Greene defending him, which is already happening, and at least Stefanik maybe, but McCarthy at some point saying, well, forget it. The voters can decide on this in 24, but we're not doing anything. Okay, so the latest on George Santos. Now, here's the question to keep in mind. Is this the tipping point? We know all of the sleaze and all the lies that Kevin McCarthy has been willing to,

to tolerate. We, we, we know that he swallowed everything, all of the stories, the amazing stories. Yes. I was a star volleyball player. You know, I, whatever. I mean, all of the lies, um, from, from George Santos that he was able to brush up. But now we have this story, this latest story, um, disabled veterans saying that George Santos stole $3,000 from a dying dog's GoFundMe campaign. Spoiler alert, he steals the money, allegedly, and the dog dies. These two New Jersey veterans are saying that George Santos, who at that time was going by the name Anthony DeVolder, promised to raise money for this life-saving surgery for a service dog and then disappeared. Now, the reason I'm raising the question, there's some people online are raising the question, okay, is this the tipping

point? Have you ever noticed that people will tolerate almost everything, but when it comes to dogs or small children, actually dogs, even more than children, you know, the cruelty to dogs, ripping off, you know, for the service of that's going to be the red line. What's amazing about this story is that it is so cinematically awful that on the one hand, you're laughing at it. On the other hand, thinking about what it says about our democracy and our political system, that this guy is in the Congress of the United States and sitting on committees. And the Republican Party has decided that it's going to make itself hostage to him. So does the dog rip off thing? The dog who died because George Santos ripped him off. Bill, could that be the tipping point?

I don't know. I mean, for you, certainly, obviously. I'm way past the tipping point. We had a dog we loved for 17 years. And so, yes, it's terrible. And the degree of just flat-out grift and stealing from his roommate. Didn't he wear a $500 scarf that he stole from a roommate? I didn't know there were $500 scarves, but anyway.

No, thank you, Bill. That was to the January 5th rally, right? I mean, it is cinematic in the sense that he stole from everyone. He lied to everyone. He seems to have stolen in Brazil. He stole in New York. He stole from roommates. He stole from GoFundMe funds for service dogs.

He lied. We have the text, don't we? I think the veterans put up a couple of texts from the time. Oh, yeah, yeah. We have a 501c3, a charitable foundation. Your money is being audited. I mean, just flat out, 100% grift. I've got to think he's breaking laws when he does that.

I've got to think people are going to bring charges. And maybe at that point, finally, the Republicans say enough. But it is amazing. Sapphire. The dog is amazing. Sapphire. The dog's name is Sapphire. I'm looking at this one post by Rich Osthoff. To everyone who helped me and Sapphire raise the money for her surgery, I'm sorry to say that we were scammed by Anthony DeVolder and Friends of Pets, United, whatever.

Through a series of bad veterinary contacts and subterfuge regarding payment, Sapphire has not received veterinary care, and her growth is three to four times bigger than it was when the campaign is fulfilled. She is facing euthanasia within months. And I'm sorry to tell you that Sapphire died on January 15th, 2017. And after being out of work with a broken leg for over a year, Ossoff could not afford the dog's euthanasia and cremation. He said, I had to panhandle. It was one of the most degrading things I ever had to do. This is a disabled veteran who was ripped off by Sandoz. I contacted Sandoz, told him, you're messing with a veteran.

You need to give back the money or use it to get another dog. He was totally uncooperative on the phone. The guy's a complete sociopath. And Santos, you know, came up with some bullshit story that he planned to use the money to help other animals. And these veterans said, but you can't do that because you raised the money specifically for this service dog, for this disabled veteran

and his service dog. And George Santos screwed him up. I mean, at this point, it becomes less comedic and more like this is a really horrible human being. And Republicans, do you really want this horrible human being to be your outwardly facing, you know, symbol? And I guess after six years of going along with Donald Trump, I think we know the answer, right? I mean, we've kind of already crossed the horrible human being thing, right? Yeah, they crossed that line a while ago. Yeah, that ship has sailed, I guess. But on the other

hand, of course, it was dangerous to take on Trump as president and as leader of the party with his, you know, huge support among Republicans. It's presumably not quite as dangerous to take on George Sanders. One point that hasn't gotten quite enough attention, and I haven't followed it super closely, but you should certainly hammer away on the dog thing, Charlie. You have a lot of credibility on that issue. I intend to, yeah. But I'd say the other thing is a lot of Republicans knew a lot about this in 2021 and 2022 when Santos was running for the second time. People who had encountered his lies, he had an aide who pretended to be Kevin McCarthy's chief of staff

to raise money from big donors. And McCarthy's chief of staff found out about this. I guess they got the guy to stop. Presumably he told McCarthy about it. And they just thought, well, it's appropriate to say nothing about a congressional candidate who's doing this. They could have moved in 2021 and probably blocked him from getting the nomination, found someone else to run,

let some of this stuff out to news media. The degree to which the Republican Party is complicit in Santos' lies today, because they're defending him being in Congress, but also in the two years, at least the two years, maybe they're not responsible for what he did in 2017, but at least for what he did for finding out about this and doing nothing is really, I don't know, kind of amazing. I mean, they're all just- It is kind of amazing. I mean, they're, and they're all just, it is kind of amazing. It is. And I think the, uh, the New York times documented the fact that they knew about him. Uh, they had done the oppo research. He had members of his staff who resigned, you know, key players and donors who realized that they had been lied to. So there's no secret here.

It's, you know, and there are things that they could do. I understand this is more about math for the Republicans right now than about morality, because they have such a small minority. They need his vote. And they know that if he goes, that seat's going to flip back to the Democrats. But they could have denied him seats on the committees, right? And still had him, you know, it'd be one of their 222 votes to preserve the majority. Right. The fact that Kevin McCarthy is not even willing to do that. You know, it'd be one of their 222 votes to preserve the majority. The fact that

Kevin McCarthy's not even willing to do that, you know, it's a tell, but unfortunately, Bill, it's not telling us anything that we shouldn't know about these guys and shouldn't have known about these guys for a long time. I guess what it's telling us, and maybe we should close with this, but what it's telling us is that even though Trump personally may be fading, may not, we don't quite know, but some indication certainly that he's not as strong as he was three, four months ago. Trumpism, fear of Trump voters, other forms of Trumpist behavior seem unfortunately pretty much as strong as ever in the Republican party. Well, and I think it's been ingrained and internalized that as long as somebody votes your way, you're going to look the other way. And it

really doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if they lie on their resume, if it doesn't matter if they cavort with Russian oligarchs, or if they come up with, you know, mysterious, funny money, or even if they rip off, you know, dogs. It was predictable that there would be a cultural and moral disaster for a party that decided to embrace Donald Trump, particularly after Access Hollywood. I don't think that any of us realized that the rot would go as deep or as persistent as it's turned out to be. But that's why we do this. That's what life is about, is that we continue to learn. Bill Kristol, thank you so much for joining me and for your report from Berlin. I appreciate it very much. Thanks, Charlie. And thank you all for listening to today's Bulwark Podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. We will

be back tomorrow. We will do this all over again. Bulwark Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper and engineered and edited by Jason Brown. you