The Bulwark Podcast - Bill Kristol: Trump's Revenge Tour Is Backfiring

Episode Date: May 4, 2026

Acting AG Tood Blanche announced over the weekend that basically everybody in America can use the expression "86 47" without fear of prosecution—except James Comey, who Trump yearns to see behind bars.  Also, POTUS is still so steamed that NATO is not helping him with the Iran war that he's ordered thousands of U.S. troops withdrawn from Germany—even though the bases there are key to the war effort. Plus, the ceasefire looks to be in trouble, the Dems need to cool it on the 'burn the witch' culture, and Trump's vanity public projects are becoming increasingly grotesque. Bill Kristol joins Tim Miller.show notes  : Monday's "Morning Shots" Bill's "Bulwark on Sunday" with David Baer Tim's 'Bulwark Take' with Marc Elias on the SCOTUS VRA ruling JVL on the risks of Fetterman flipping parties Lauren on how some Dems want Chair Ken Martin to go Mark Hertling on Trump pulling troops out of Germany Eric Edelman on the troop drawdown Tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego on 5/20 and LA on 5/12: TheBulwark.com/Events

All right, hey, everybody, before we get to the podcast today, I just wanted to hit you with a news update. We started this morning with a rundown of everything that happened over the weekend. But since taping, we have an increase in, I guess we call it kinetic action in our decreased fire. Some missiles been fired by Iran at Dubai and the UAE. And there were shots fired going both directions at boats in the Strait of Hormuz. Donald Trump posted this on his social media platform. Iran has taken some shots with respect to ship movement, including a South Korean cargo ship. Perhaps it's time for South Korea to come and join the mission.

Well, I should just say as a quick aside here, that South Korea, everything was going fine for South Korea before you attacked Iran. So I don't know why this would make South Korea want to join the mission now. In response, Trump writes that we've shot down seven small boats, or as they'd like to call them fast boats. So as a result, we are seeing prices increase in the oil market, and obviously, tensions rising with some of our allies. So we get into most of this on the podcast today, and Bill, frankly, alludes to the fact that Iran might start these types of attacks again, and we got it a couple hours later. So that's the latest.

We'll have much more, obviously, on tomorrow's show and the rest of the week. stick around for Bill Crystal Monday. Hello and welcome to the Bullwark podcast. I'm your host Tim Miller. It is Monday. It is May. And so we're here with editor at large Bill Crystal. I do have to say,

2026 feels like it's moving a little faster than 2025. 2025 was a long slog of the first year of Trump. And my daughter last night before bedtime, she said to me, she was like, it makes me sad. The year's almost over. Like school years almost over.

It went by so fast. And it's my favorite grade. that I'm in. And so, you know, that tugged at my heartstrings a little bit. But then I was like, you know what, you're right. Maybe we can survive the next two and a half years, you know, we'll all be older and whatnot, you know, because time comes for everybody. But I don't know. No, is it not moving faster for you, Bill? No, it is. I'm trying to remember. It's hard for me to, of course, it's hard to put myself back in one's mindset a year ago a little, you know. It seemed like the whole thing might work for Trump, right? I mean, I don't mean it still is very dangerous.

don't be wrong, but Doge plus, you know, everything and sort of just... Everybody folding the law firms, the university. Yeah, yeah, just the kind of degree of the authoritarian takeover and the lack of effective resistance early on. The big thing in those first few months, I remember speaking to donors and stuff, why his numbers never go down, his poll numbers are immovable. He's, you know, he's got a mystical, magical hold over the American public. It doesn't feel that way now. Nope, uh-uh. We're going to get to the poll numbers in the politics.

I'm going to start a little bit with some of the news from the weekend. And so the Iranians offered a proposal to the president as part of our decrease. I liked the commenter that recommended decrease fire. I mean, Nick Christoph, we're trying to decide how to describe what is happening right now. And he said slow fire, which is good, but decrease fire has a better ring to it. So that's what we're going to go with. Their proposal, it would be a one month deadline to end the decrease fire and permanently end the war. And the deal would leave its nuclear capabilities unresolved.

They have 14-point plan. It would require both sides to lift their blockades on the strait and the war in Lebanon, release or hunts frozen assets. They also want us to pay them some cash and lift sanctions. The Trump reply to that over his social media account, because that's how things are in our Banana Republic. The president replies to foreign countries on his own social media platform. Can't imagine that it would be acceptable and that they have not yet paid a big enough price

for what they have done to humanity. and the world over the last 47 years. In the meantime, they've announced Project Freedom, subtly named Project Freedom. Who are we freeing in Project Freedom? You might wonder, is it the Iranian people? Are we protecting our own freedom? No, Project Freedom is to free some ships

from the Strait of Ormond's. We're going to put 15,000 troops and 100 aircraft in harm's way to potentially free stranded ships in the waterway. Iran says that they hit a U.S. ship in reaction to that this morning. The U.S. denies that that happened. So there you go. It doesn't seem like a lot of progress has been made. Bill, what do you think with the state of play?

Yeah, no, it all seems like such, you know, like talk and some phony military action, which is better probably than real military action. And I still kind of think it's all jostling and whatever to get Trump to some, to the withdrawal he wants, I guess. I don't know. But on the other hand, I don't know, I would talk to someone last night who allegedly follows these things and thinks, I hope Trump's really going to hit them one more time in a big way. And I don't know.

Yeah. When you look at that Trump tweet, I mean, it's sort of like, you know, it's typical, right, a little bit of its bellicose, but then there's a lot of, isn't there some talk about we're really getting along well with the Iranians these days. And I kind of think a deal is getable here. I mean. Yeah. He likes to keep optionality for himself.

The longer it goes on, though, like even supporters have got to be like, prices are going up, the straight is still closed. What are we doing? It is hard to even spin what end he's trying to achieve. The spin that he was giving people as this out is that the blockade was going to cripple and tank the Iranian economy. And so it would make them cry uncle. That's a pretty hard sell right now. And it doesn't even seem like they are pushing that cell anymore now with Project Freedom.

Yeah, that is the one cell they have, I guess. And cry uncle for what, I suppose, for reopening the straight? but I mean, I think that could be done, but then, you know, how do you know, they won't close it again? They made their point down this train and that can't be unseen, you know. And then the other thing is the nuclear thing. I'd say the people I've talked to, and I haven't talked to that many, but I was some event this weekend where there was some sort of, not really Trumpists, but people who wanted to wish. It was a secret neocon event. No, it wasn't a Beldebarger.

It was just a social thing here in Northern. Sociality, if only. It was in the claim. It was in the claim. So there are some military contractors there. We need to get those things going again, the secret, you know, the econ events. but anyway, this is more your basic social event in Northern Virginia. And there were some people there who wanted to hope that there was a reasonable plan here.

And I suppose he's tightening the screws and it's going to get the nuclear material out and make us safer because really the nuclear program will really won't be able to be started again. It could be started again, I think. Nuclear program is in pretty bad shape. Their missile programs are pretty bad. Or in any way, we've pummeled them for a month of bombing. And I don't know how much worse shape we're going to get it into. So I think that's a kind of wishful thinking on people who don't want.

want to tell themselves what I think is, I think you're absolutely right, what is increasingly the real truth, which is, what are we doing now? I mean, whatever it's original rationale, and whatever damage was done to Iran, which maybe is a good thing in terms of limiting their military capabilities and stuff like that, you know, in the first week or two or three, what are we doing now? And conversely, and this is the point I'm struck why every defender, semi-defendant of the war I talked to, the whole thing is defended and there's never a mention of the straight or four moves. I mean, it's as if we're not being. a real price for this. And every day that it's closed, it's better for Iran than for us. Yes,

they have some, you know, they lose a little bit of income from not being able to export or all that it builds up there and there's all this talk about how it's eventually going to become unmanageable for them. I'm pretty dubious about that. But the actual world economy is heading towards what most people who study these things seem to be saying is kind of real dangers ahead. And already, gas is whatever it is, right? And other prices, fertilizer is whatever it is. And that stuff, each day it adds up. I feel like... The energy experts, I'm talking to the gas buddy today on YouTube.

People can go check that out later, but are saying that we're really potentially going to a tipping point, at some point, whether that's at the end of this month or after, where you get kind of exponential increases in prices because of shortages and, you know, Adam Smith's supply and demand. The only thing that runs counter to, I think, both of our view, which is like Trump wants an off ramp and he's looking for some face-saving off-ramp. is this story over the weekend about how much he's talking to Mark Tieson. Mark Tison, who is this Washington Post columnist and kind of C-List Fox pundit,

who has been the biggest cheerleader for the Iran war. He simultaneously, the article about him was weird. Tison was kind of taking credit for Trump siding with Ukraine more than he would have otherwise. I don't know you've done that great of a job if that's your, the mark of your influence. But anyway, and Tiesin apparently is talking to Trump a lot and just posted that he believes Trump's going to go finish the job. So, you know, if that is true, that that is who Trump is listening to and there is no

real like rationale for the status quo, you know, then you need to create a new story. I mean, that's what Trump does, right? It's tabloid. Guys got to have a new episode, a new season of The Apprentice. And so I mean, that's the argument for. them continuing to escalate it. But eventually there has to be something because the status quo is a nightmare, right?

And it makes them look very limp. And maybe he doesn't care. You may not care about the polls as much as he once did since he, you know, for various reasons. But some of the other Republicans care. I don't know. And there's no good argument. The gas prices thing,

and you just watch the senators over the weekend. John Cornyn, who's up for this election in Texas, posts on Twitter, 369 a gallon in Austin this morning, exclamation points. I don't think this is going to work for people. It's not as bad as they're saying. Only 369. You know, you had Tim Scott was out there saying that the gas prices are going down. You had Rick Scott out there saying, well, this is just a needed sacrifice

that the American people need to make for our long-term safety and because of the importance of changing the regime in Iran. We're not trying to change the regime in Iran anymore. you know, he's not giving them anything to work with. Yeah, I agree. And also, don't you think, I mean, politically, these things sink in at some point that it's failing. And then it just is harder to turn that around, you know, without a dramatic. And maybe that's the reason for it to do something dramatic.

But man, that is risky. Are we really, he's going to, the bombing wouldn't be that risky, I suppose, a kind of 48-hour. You're really going to show them, make them pay a price for 47 years. Maybe they'd be okay support for that here. Anything with ground troops at this point, having, in a way, weirdly, after two weeks, if you'd said, okay, the next steps, ground troops,

This is our, it's all in a plan. Now it's so obvious than flailing for a month. And then we're going to put in ground troops. I just feel like that's kind of undoable. But, you know, I guess he could do it. He could order it. And Hexeth would make sure it happened, I guess. The military would go along.

But, man, that is, and that would be. And also what Iran does at that point. I mean, they have not hit energy sites, right, in the region and done much damage in the last month. There has been a ceasefire, really, in that respect. But they made clear they could. Right. Why wouldn't they do that again if Trump starts up, even with a big bombing? I just feel that's one thing that's holding Trump back.

Even he knows that that really capsizes the economy. Especially with the economic, you know, the global economy is even shakier now because of the months of shutdown in the supply chain. So we'll see. Trump on his social media posted a meme over the weekend that we have all the cards. And it was a picture of him holding a bunch of Uno cards. It's like the wild card or something in Udo. The problem with that is for anyone that's actually played Uno with a child recently, which I have, you're trying to get rid of all your cards in Uno, so having a lot of cards is bad.

And one of the Iranian guys posted a picture where they were only holding like three Uno cards, plus four. And so it's like he can't even win the meme battle against Iran. It's an American card game, Uno, that the Iranians understand better than us. Not good, not pretty right now for Trump. All right, you got the big wire. carriers out there trying to keep everybody's money. I don't know about you,

but you look at that wireless bill every month. I'm like, really? This is how much I'm paying? I am on my phone a lot, but it's not a minute-by-minute service. How's you looking around? And I want to point you to our friends at Mitt Mobile. With Mint Mobile, you could save a ton of money

compared to the big wireless carrier. Stop overpaying for wireless just because that's how it's always been. Mint exists purely to fix that. MintMobile is here to rescue. with premium wireless pans starting at just 15 bucks a month, all plans come with high-speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. We looked into this, and all the discussion in the parents' chains is what are you doing with kids' mobile plan?

You don't want to give it to them in second grade. We're fighting hard right now. We have a bulwark, if you will, of parents uniting together to make sure our second graders aren't getting up with older kids, ones that have older kids, and eventually they're looking into it. Do you want to go to your big wireless plan? What's going to cost more and more?

This one, 15 bucks a month is a good option for, I don't know, the ninth. I don't want to get in trouble with anybody. The seventh grader in your life, the ninth grader or whatever. If you like your money, Mintmobile is for you. Shop plans at mintmobile.com slash bulwark. That's mintmobile.com slash bulwark. Up front payment of 45 bucks for a three month, five gigabyte plan required, equivalent to 15 bucks a month.

New customer offer for the first three months only. Then full price plan options available. taxes and fees extra, C-Mint Mobile 4 details. The other news item over the weekend that's related to this was Trump moving 5,000 troops out of Germany. Like a lot

of things with Trump, which is like if you came with a proposal, it was like, hey, you know, we're spending too much on our military installations in Europe and, you know, we've done a review and we've looked at this. It's like, you know, we could do with fewer troops in Germany or this place or that place.

You know, I would be open to that type of proposal. that this is a temper tantrum. He's mad that the Europeans weren't helping us enough in Iran, but it also seems to be a pretty ominous signal for NATO. So both Mark Kirtling and Eric Edelman wrote about this for us over the weekend. I was wondering if you have any thoughts on that. No, you're absolutely right. I mean, there's no law of nature that there for a 35,000 U.S. troops in Germany instead of 30,000,

and for all we know, it could be reasonable ways to get it down to 30. But the idea that this is punishing Germany is insane. I mean, Germany is happy to have those troops. I was not clear that net net they gain that much economically from it. But we gain a lot, you know, this war in Iran. What hospital do people go to after the attacks on the U.S. basis in Kuwait or when soldiers get injured in the region? And they have been, incidentally, many more unfortunately wounded and injured

than Hengs' Defense Department has allowed, it seems like. And they get taken to Ramstein in Germany. Where do people refuel? Where do troops go? I mean, it's part of our former presence. Now, if Trump wants to go full America first and get rid of our forward presence in Germany and in Korea and Japan, that's in a way a coherent strategy. But taking 5,000 troops out of Germany isn't coherent. And I do think the most important thing about it from political years, it just makes him look childish.

I think that narrative is now, which is true, of course, has kind of hit some kind of critical mass. It's just people do have the sense of what's he doing? I mean, it's just like he doesn't, he gets annoyed at them. And so he pulls some troops out of there and everything is kind of just little hissy fits. Yeah, Hissy Fitz is not making America great again. And actually kind of watching just the shambolic actions in Iran has brought some clarity to kind of why we need bases in other places, right? It's like if we don't have access to a base, like let's say that that's the logical end of this, right? Like we're taking out some troops, but then we end up just taking out all troops out of Germany.

And it's like, okay, well, it's a lot longer flight from wherever, Greenland or the U.S. over to the Middle East than it is from Germany. than it is from Germany. And if there was actually a situation where we had real acute security threats for our troops in the region, allies, anyone else, it matters in that way. And Trump is not interested or capable of articulating that for sure. But I think understanding it is probably the reality. But I do think didn't he do that shortly after some long-file conversation with Putin? It does signal.

I mean, it's not a- That's true. Those troops were not going to be rushed to the front to fight Russia, presumably, if Russia did something in the Baltz, Balt or whatever. I think they're mostly support troops and, you know, refueling and medical and stuff like that. But symbolically, it just is, again, you know, he has a call with Putin and then let's, I'll take some more troops out. And, of course, with all of his other assaults on NATO, it just brings home the fact that we are not a reliable custodian of NATO or of the free world, you know. David Ignatius over the weekend. I saw this.

It just kind of caught my eye. Said that he feels like because of the strength of Ukraine and the way that the amount of resilience that Ukraine has showed, you wrote about this little bit of morning shots this morning too, that Putin, it's probably overstated to say he's in a corner, but like that, you know, he has fewer strategic moves than maybe he might have, or might have looked like he had when Trump first came back into power. And that one thing that he might do is strike one of the Baltic states. right, to just sort of test NATO even further.

And he might do that while Trump is in power just to show, you know, kind of that really that NATO is officially dead because, you know, it's presuming that Trump would not come to the defense of Estonia or whatever. Who knows? I mean, David Ignatius doesn't have like any inside sources or crystal ball, but I did, I thought it was an interesting observation, particularly in context of the move in Germany. Yeah, and Ignatius does have actually good sources over the years. especially in the intelligence community.

So I wonder if they're seeing something that makes them a little worried. I mean, Putin, why is he attacked Ukraine? I mean, repeatedly it's not in NATO, right? I mean, one of the things we learned from the last 10 years is NATO is a deterrent. Putin does not want a war with NATO. But he does think, oh, you know, that could trigger the U.S. And then we're in a whole different military situation and also the European nation, the big European nations.

So I think he wants to destroy NATO and he is probably thinking, well, is there some way to kind of confirm that the U.S. guarantee isn't real. And they can always manufacture excuses, especially in some of those, in the Baltic nations. So I don't know. I don't know that he's going to do it. He's, he's somewhat cautious, and he's very cautious in taking on NATO. On the other hand, that's his alleged grievance that NATO expanded, right? So it would make a certain amount of sense from his point of view. If we then didn't do anything, it would be the end of NATO would cause all could. Now, it might also lead Poland to Germany and have been armed even faster than they are.

So, you know, so I don't know which way it cuts ultimately for Putin. This episode of the Borg podcast is brought to you by the Freedom from Religion Foundation. You hear us talk a lot on this show about defending democratic norms. And this is one of the big ones. As we approach America's 250th anniversary, remember this country started as a rebellion against a king who claimed divine authority. And their founders didn't replace that with a new religion of their own. They wrote a secular constitution. No religious tests, no state church, power comes from the people.

That's the system. But right now we're seeing more and more. efforts to blur that line. We're seeing it here a bunch in Louisiana with mandatory 10 commandments in the classroom. It's like maybe we should get our state out of 50th in performance in the classroom before we worry about putting God's mandate on all the walls. The Freedom from Religion Foundation is working to protect the First Amendment because it protects you. If that matters to you, go to ffrf.us slash religion or text religion to 511-511 to join or learn more.

Go to FFRF.org. slash religion or text religion to 511, 511 now. Because this is one of those guardrails, we can't afford to lose. Text religion to 511, 511, today. Text fees may apply.

Todd Blanche, our interim acting attorney general, was on the Sunday shows this weekend. Why? It's uncroup. Before I play the clip, I actually don't know the answer to that. Why? Why are they still doing Sunday shows?

They don't have to. I understand it on the jawboning on the economy part of it. You know, the jawboning on Iran, you want to send people out there to be like, deals around the corner. I understand why Trump called into squawk box before the market opened last week. But like I don't really understand why they're doing. I guess it's good that they feel like they still need to do this to exert some legitimacy or maybe, I don't know.

Do you have any theories? Merrick Garland didn't do the Sunday shows? Why is Todd Blanche doing? doing the press. I just assume he wants to be the real Attorney General, not just acting Attorney General, and he wants to show Trump that he will defend, he will defend this ludicrous prosecution of Comey, I guess. So it's a humiliation routine for Trump. Trump is making them go through the paces to demonstrate that loyalty. That feels right. That's a good answer. All right, well, the degree of the humiliation, if you were not, if you're like me, you're a jazz

fest on Sunday, or you're just at church, or you're enjoying your Sunday and decided not to tune in, haven't seen any clips. It's quite a doozy. Let's listen to Todd Blanch, explain the Jim Comey indictment to Kristen Walker. That on Amazon.com, we look this up. There are dozens of products with the same terminology. We're showing it right here. 8647 being sold and purchased right now. Should individuals selling or buying 8647 merchandise be concerned that they're going to be prosecuted by the DOJ?

This isn't about a single incident. Okay, this isn't, I mean, of course not. That's posted constantly. That phrase is used constantly. There are constantly men and women who choose to make threatening statements against President Trump. Every one of those statements

do not result in indictments, of course. You are suggesting the seashells themselves are not at the end of this indictment. No, I am suggesting that every single case depends on the investigation that's done. And of course, the seashells are part of that case. I mean, that's what the public sees. Okay.

So some good news there. I can feel pretty good, it sounds like. like that I can say 86-47 right here on the podcast and not have fear that I'll be indicted by the DOJ because it was specifically an indictment about Jim Comey saying 86-47 via seashell art. Those seashells are threatening in a way that just saying it isn't or having a baseball cap isn't. The T-shirt. Yeah, there's some message in the shells. Trump said, oh, everyone knows in the movies.

You know, the mobsters always say 86 when they want to rub someone out and then everyone's producing. No one's actually found that in a movie, but everyone's found people saying 86. that when they want to get rid of something at a restaurant or shove someone. 86 your side burns or something like that. I mean, we laugh about it. Of course, it is, I don't know, maybe they can get a friendly jury. They got an indictment from a grand jury. Maybe they'll find to get a friend of year. They're putting comies through a lot of expenses and so forth. And they don't get, you know, unless it's considered, I guess, malicious or something,

prosecution, you don't get your expenses back when the government prosecutes you for a while, then you win, you know. So maybe it intimidates people a little bit. this is just, yeah, it just so brings home. Again, I can't believe people like this. At the end of the day, whatever, maybe they think the Biden Justice Department shouldn't have gone after Trump and Jack Smith was doing to over, you know, was overreaching and blah, blah, blah. But can they really think this is the entire Justice Department now is just the, you know, a revenge opportunity for Donald Trump? I don't know. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, obviously there's nothing else. We all know what Jim Comey's doing. He's writing fiction books. He's walking through the woods, taking pictures, reading Ronald Niebuhr, hanging out his grandkids.

Like, we know what he's doing. There's not a plot. But they keep, like, implying that there's other things there. Right? Like, that's what Kristen Welker came to and said, so are you saying it isn't the seashells? This is not central to the case. He's like, no, it's the shells.

I guess maybe they have a, you know, they have a jagged edge. Plus other evidence, you know, maybe, look, I was just making it. Maybe they have an email, which Jim Comey says to Mrs. Comey or to someone else. You know, it would be good if he just, if they, if we could get him out of office somehow or if he left, you know, Vance would be more responsible. I mean, I know, see, that's a kind of incitement. I mean, I don't think Jim Comey was in touch with professional hitmen, though, trying to get them to bump off Trump.

Very clearly not. It's embarrassing, like the degree to which it's just, you know, going back to the Banana Republic, it's like, I keep leaning back towards the mockable is the right way to do this. Because, you know, I'm just kind of what you're saying at the beginning of a pod, putting myself in my brain, from not even after D.O. Like, after Cash Patel got nominated to DOJ, right? Like, one thing that I was really worried about was that they were going to use the surveillance

powers of the government, the investigative powers of the government to go after people. And they could do a lot of damage pre-indictment, right? Like, the government can ruin your life before they have to go to a grand jury, as a matter of fact. And, you know, that they would, you know, use the various powers of the government to really make the lives miserable of some of their foes. And they've tried that. And it's just time and again, it's been the most ham-handed way imaginable. And so, like, there have been other things that the EOJ and the FBI have done. They've been really, you know, terrible and condemnable. A lot of regular people are suffering, people in ICE detention. Or you go through all that. But, like, the revenge part of this is really,

Keystone cops is the nicest thing you could say about it. Yeah, and the only caution, as you sort of hinted at this, that I would have to our friends who were really just into the pure mockery is, you know, and also Renee Good and Alex Freddie were killed. And the SPLC is being prosecuted for nothing, you know, for having used informant self-fight the KKK and so in a perfectly legal way. So, far as one can tell, cooperated with the FBI. And then they're being put through the ringer. And so it's a weird mix, I agree. But the revenge tour part of it is making him weaker. Yeah.

I was talking with David Barry yesterday. I did the podcast on Hungary, and he's written terrific stuff for us. It was really good, just about the way people should get checked. If you're interested in more on Hungary, David Bear is really good. He's great. Yeah, maybe it was off camera that we discussed this. But, you know, Orban was a pretty tough authoritarian and very good at making life miserable for businessmen who didn't work with him, who didn't pay off his people. He put independent media out of business.

But he doesn't seem to have done this kind of petty revenge idiocy. You know what I mean? He didn't let himself be mockable, if you want to think of it that way. Ultimately, it ran out for him after 16 years, too. But there's something about Trump's version of it is, let's hope it back. Well, it is backfiring, isn't it? I guess. All this is going down to the polls.

Something's causing that, you know. Let's turn to the polls. Actually, just one thing on the business, because you mentioned, I wanted to get to this with Assov, and I just didn't have enough time. But because I do think it's kind of lost in all the news. But it's pretty crazy what Trump is doing after the change. of ruling. As far as pressuring businesses, like what,

the Supreme Court ruled that the government illegally took money from businesses or ultimately consumers paid back because business passed on to the consumer. But essentially the government issued an illegal tax under business, took the money,

and then the court ruled that they had to pay the money back. And what the president is doing is pressuring and threatening the businesses. and saying, hey, I'm keeping an eye on who actually applies to get the money back. And if you just be a good patriot and let us keep the money, like, that's going to be something we remember.

And that is just totally insane. Like the amount of freak out that the Wall Street Journal and Fox would have, if a Democratic president was like threatening businesses saying, hey, you know, we took more in taxes than we should have. Like, we garnished money from your company and we took it and we put it into public services. and legally you can take us to court to get it back. But if you do, we're going to punish you in other ways. We're going to threaten you.

So it might be better for you just to leave the cash with us. I mean, like what is what is that, if not socialism, authoritarian socialism? Yeah, it is authoritarianism. I mean, you know, what I think happened is I think students of authoritarianism and elsewhere have always said this, that, you know, if you let people's, most people, the huge majority of people's, normal lives chug ahead in a fairly rule of law context. So, you know, you don't get a parking ticket because you're anti-Trump. You don't get your own income taxes are probably treated, you know, anonymously and sort of fairly, et cetera, et cetera.

Then if Trump plays the games with Mark Zuckerberg and with big businesses and with Don Jr. and all, voters are, they don't like it, maybe. They think it's not really a great way to run a country. But it doesn't, their own lives do not feel lawless and unmoored and subject to the whims of every, of the state. now that is obviously that's what kind of local corruption often is like and that's what the south was like for blacks obviously for for a heck of a long forever really until pretty recently and that's what really causes people to say this is this is bad this is really terrible right and that was if you think of east europe is you know the stuff that one read about there it was that was that everyone had to be paid off that you couldn't get anything without a deal with some local petty bureaucrat i don't think we're at that stage yet in the u.s because we have state local governments because Trump hasn't been able to kind of get down to that level and maybe he doesn't personally want it. But I feel like that's where I think gas prices, even Spirit Airlines, I mean, just the stuff that's starting to affect actual consumers, the tariff stuff to some degree. It's like, you know, why is he doing this to us kind of thing, you know?

That takes us back to the polls. So there's approval rating we've got the most recent is at 37% we've been seeing them all over the 30s. But I thought this was interesting, the one you highlighted in morning shots this morning. 23% approval. on cost of living, 27% approval on inflation, 33% on conflict in Iran, 34% on the economy, 40 on immigration. So it starts to affect everything, right? And this is one of those things that's like, let's say, and I, and there is some element to this.

You know, we've seen poll misses recently, and I do think that there is some psychology to, if you're annoyed, you're not answering the polls as much and you don't want to do. Right. So, like, let's just say that there's some, there's some silent MAGA in here. And, and it's off by 6%. You know, like, even still, like, then his number at the economy is still 40, right? And cost of living is still under 30. Like, even if it's off significantly. To me, I think that that is really telling, especially when you consider that, like, it seems like things are going to get worse before they get better economically and that they don't have a plan or an idea or even some spin on how they're going to fix it. thing is interesting because I've been a little bit, I think I've changed our mind a little. I've been sort of thinking people a little overdoing here. They remember Biden's inflation. They're hyper-sensitive to it. It's gone up some under Trump, and that's not good. And some particular goods, obviously gas now. But people, I mean, I don't know. Does Trump deserve to be that low on inflation, really? Is it really hurting people?

But I now wonder whether I've been, that people are actually pretty smart about this in a way. What they're seeing is quite a lot of inflation. And if you look at some of the goods that people buy, most regularly. That is true, not just gasoline, but other things they buy in grocery stores and stuff. Groceries. And then I just talked to a couple of economists about this the last week, and that can be a bit of a leading indicator. I mean, the Fed has these complicated reasons why they don't calculate certain things. They prefer to look at more stable things and all this. But you can make a case that in a way the public is a little ahead of the economists now in seeing that inflation is going back up. And it's not going to, certainly it's not going to come down soon. It doesn't seem like with everything that's happening in the

rate and with $2 trillion deficit. And the Fed's not going to raise rates, I don't think, to reduce inflation. Trump's going to freshen them to cut rates some more. So I kind of agree that that number is terrible for Trump, but it's a little hard to see why it gets better. I think the other thing that this is related to, it's really to Biden, is the degree to which people just have a sense in their own lives for, like, what they were able to afford. And this is really what, like, happened, like, during the, during COVID, right? And it's just like in the normal daily kind of products that you buy.

Like there was a sense of this, that when we hit that big inflation spike in 2022, you know, they used to go out to dinner once a week. And I was like, it's getting tight, you know. Or I have to go. When I'm going to dinner, I'm not going to get the wine tonight because I know it costs too much. Right. And it's not that long ago. I mean, people, you know, now it's five years ago.

But people remember like a sense that they could do this or that without worrying, you know, about the family budget. And like that did change. I get, you know, we're about to get to a JVL compliment here in a second, but JVL underestimated. We was talking about,

you know, the reaction to the Biden economy in 20 to 24, it's talking about how, well, you know, employment was still up, you know, like there are all these other indicators.

It wasn't as bad as a great recession, but the poll numbers were. I was like, yeah, it wasn't as bad as a great recession in macro, but in every individual's life, like something, there was something had changed that was annoying,

that made them, have to tighten their belt in a various way. I'm not like everybody can see that. And people don't like that. Well, they feel like they're getting punished. Like, I have the same job or the same, you know, I have the same kind of aspirations for what I wanted to do. And I can't do it anymore, you know, because the cost went up.

And then Trump ran against that economy. And now he's exacerbated that, right? And it's not as if it's even stayed the same. It's gotten a little worse. Now it hasn't hit hyperinflation. We're not in whatever. But like the same complaint exists. And now we're layering big gas prices on top of that.

And so to me that, if you think about it like that, it's totally understandable why his numbers would be that low. Yeah. And it's no reason for it except Trump's foolish policies. I mean, that's to say it's one thing if you have a pandemic, Trump, in a way, didn't pay as much for price. J.V.O. was very annoyed about this too. And, you know, for his mismanager of the pandemic. But I do think voters there thought, who knows, that's such a nightmare that no, who knows how to handle it well. and Trump's popping off a little more than he should,

but he's probably not handling it that much worse in other countries. And you know, so you get a little bit of a, and if there's a huge, you know, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, actually in Europe, politicians who were in power then didn't pay as much of a price for a rough six, nine months of gas prices and stuff. This is totally caused by Trump. There's no exogenous reason why this should be happening, right? I mean, you know.

And they're not even offering one. It's like even they've taken up the 47 years. Iran's coming at us for 47 years. So they're not even saying that there was some acute threat. And you know, if I get at, well, just because we mentioned the 5,000 soldiers in Germany, this is relevant to this. And trust proposing, I'm a hawk.

I've always argued the defense budget. We took down, defense down too much in the 90s, and it used to go back up, go up a little faster than it was going up. Trust proposing a $1.5 trillion defense budget, which is, I don't know, 40% increase, some insane increase. Just the number they made up and is totally unmoored from reality.

I suppose they're not going to get it. They'll get something, though. But I do think that's also hurting. it's like, wait a second. Like if Trump said, look, you know what? We'll have to tighten our belts. It's a bit rough out there for various reasons. I can kind of explain to you a little bit.

And therefore, 5,000 troops out of Germany and therefore cutting back into some other things. We're increasing defense by massive amounts and pulling the troops out of Germany. So where's this money going? What's going to Don Jr. and Eric and all this. I just think it all becomes a bit of an error. At their drone companies.

Has now, I think, could gel together, not due to any great genius, honestly, on the parts of probably of any of the Democratic, small D or capital D, opposition to Trump, but just because it is true, I mean, the whole, you know what I mean? The corruption and the kleptocracy is happening at the same time, the prices are going up and at the same time that they're irresponsibly want to spend a huge amount of money on defense without being any more, without being competent. However, without any sense of competency, competency and how they would use these troops

and how they'd use this money. Anyway, I think it's all kind of come together in that respect. Any updated thoughts on how Trump's Terrible numbers match up with the House, Senate, state of play coming up. And obviously, I should mention, I did mention the ruling last week, gutting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. I went very deep on us with Mark Elias over the weekend. If you can see that on the board takes feet or on the YouTube if they missed it. We talked about, you know, what's happening here in Louisiana, where Jeff Landry's literally nullifying some votes. People had sent in an absentee ballot votes already.

And they're stopping the election in order to try to. to jam through or redraw of the map to get rid of one of the majority minority districts here in the state. And so I do think that that will conceivably make some difference on the margins. And they're looking at Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, it can maybe squeeze one seat at all those. Obviously, that's condemnable and bad, but in the macro, I don't think it changes the house picture all that much. But what's your sense of the state of play? I agree with that. The generic ballot, which had been trailing Trump's disapproval, if you know what I mean, the gap wasn't moving as fast. And I get the good thing it never does move quite as fast,

because there can be some disapprovers who still want to vote Republican, right? Yeah, right. Has moved now. I mean, that post ABC poll is like plus five on the generic, but then with those who are most sure they're going to vote, it's plus nine Democratic, that's a real number.

I mean, I think it was plus eight in 2018. So that would get you to a real big move. 2006 does seem to be the model when whatever fell apart. Not enough for the Senate, though. Plus nine isn't enough. I mean, maybe. You need to get it to double digits. But I think that's doable.

Well, these things do tend to pick up a little bit in the last six months, the four or five months of the campaign once you get the momentum going a little bit. The one thing I've registered that I think people haven't talked about much. I have no idea if the numbers are big enough to make this happen. I mean, I do think, I mean, black voters are literally going to lose. There's not going to be a black congressman it looks like if they succeed in their registering plans from Louisiana, from Alabama, maybe from Mississippi, or I'm not sure about that. Yeah, Louisiana would still have one conceivably with the new map,

but, you know, they could redraw it again because right now we have two. But Alabama would lose that. Yeah, Tennessee could lose all the, you know. And I've got to think black voters, but also other voters who think, really? I mean, that's now, we're not just like basically, let's have Lily White congressional delegations from southern states that have 25, 30 percent black population. We're not talking about Lily White congressional delegations from Utah, you know. So I wonder if it does, if blacks go out to vote more, A, to try to save one or two of those seats

and B, at least they can vote in the Senate race. And I actually wonder, someone, I haven't looked at this closely enough to have an intelligent opinion about it. But Mississippi already, people were talking, Lauren, right about this for us, was sort of thought to be in play. Alabama is a good candidate on the Democratic side, who's a former never Trump Republican, a Republican voter against Trump. I know slightly from that world. I don't know quite Louisiana. I defer to you on that, but there's a messy. Louisiana is not happening. You don't think. But no, unfortunately, we haven't recruited anybody good. But there's a good, the people that have been recruited are all good humans. I don't mean to impugn them. It's just

not on the electability side. So I just think Black turnout could go up. in these states and maybe tip one of them into the column. And then the farm economy, I do think in Kansas and Iowa, where there are good Democratic candidates, they're primaries in both cases. But I think whoever would win would be good, actually, at least would be more interesting and more plausible than a typical Democrat in those states.

I think they're in place. So I do think the map has widened a lot on the Senate. I'm interested in Mississippi. Scott Cullen is the candidate there by guy who's won in the state. You know, the Brandon Presley, that race. was not so far off a couple years ago when he ran. And you'd have to really get a diminished turnout from MAGA. And that would require, obviously, swing voters.

It requires everything. To win in Mississippi, you need to, you know, you need a perfect straight. Because you're going to need to juice turnout, particularly among black voters, and then have, you know, depressed, white, let's just be honest, older white Republican base, deciding that they're pissed at Trump over the war, prices, or farm, economy, et cetera, and not voting at all. So TBD, I do have to give one finger wag because Sarah interviewed Kyle Sweetser, who is the candidate you mentioned, ruling in Alabama. And there was some pushback in the comments about how there were some people in Alabama and the Democratic groups who are

who don't trust him and are upset about him because he gave an opinion about transports and young youth that they don't like. And she's like, guys, it's Alabama. Please. Please. I mean, You know, like, please. I do think that if Democrats are going to be able to win, I don't even know what his position was on it. I guess my point is it kind of doesn't matter. Like, please. If you want to win a race in Alabama,

there has to be some grace extended about maybe some differing views on cultural issues. Just encourage everybody to take kind of a deep breath when it comes to that kind of thing. Because these are the states in Alabama is going to be a real stretch. And that's a good guy. But, you know, Iowa, there's an interesting candidate that just jumped in the Kansas race, who's a pastor. There are a couple of good, interesting candidates in the Kansas race. Then you have Montana.

You have this independent running who was a college administrator. So I don't know. I mean, all of that stuff seems more in play now than it could have been. And that is important for this reason. JVL, I told you a compliment him, wrote at the end of last week in his newsletter about the disaster scenario, which is that the Democrats win four Senate seats, but don't take the Senate because Federman flips. And if you have any worries that JVL is a catastrophizer, oh, JVL is always so negative.

Well, two days later, here's Politico. Jonathan Martin talks about how the full court press is on to get Federman to flip in this scenario. Trump, I guess, passed a message on to Hannity when Federman was on Hannity. And Hannity relayed this saying that Trump told him that his job was to tell Federman, he's got to run as a Republican, he's going to have our full support, more money than he's ever dreamed of. and he's going to win big. So, you know, that could conceivably mean that the Democrats have to win five states, which takes you out of.

I've kind of settled the big four on North Carolina, Maine, Ohio, and Alaska. I think it's the most likely. But so now if you've got to win a fifth, now you're really into this Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Alabama, territory. I think J.V. Hill was right. And, I mean, I don't know that federal will switch, but he could. It's happened before. It's pretty worrisome. But, look, if you get a big enough wave, you could get, you know,

know, maybe it's just likely to get six is four at that point. You know, I mean, things start to topple over. Yeah, Texas. You throw a Talarika in there. Yeah. Yeah, no, I do think that that is getable. The Federman thing is he keeps falling back on why I voted most with the Democrats, and it's true. But the degree to which you is poking people in the eye.

It's like in this moment where Trump's approval rating is in the tank, Federman was out this weekend on Fox again, talking about how the Democrats have TDM. and we should just be supporting Trump's foreign policy. Marco Rubio's done a good job. It's just like, what? I mean, honestly, how are you even getting that? I mean, Federman is more enthusiastic on Trump's foreign policy moves than some Republican,

some actual Republican senators. But to the degree, it's not just being whatever exasperated or, you know, a troublemaker and so forth. And Billy wants to run again. He is, you know, laying the groundwork for switching parties, I think regardless of what happens in November, whether he's the 49th or 50th or 51st or 52nd, senator, and laying the groundwork for having Trump be grateful enough to him

that he tries to clear the field. I'm not sure he could actually, but in the Republican primary in 2028 in Pennsylvania, assuming that the veteran wants to run again. So I do think that's the only kind of rational explanation for what he's doing. It's not the normal, what we mentioned earlier, jostling from the left because they don't like centrist Democrats and the centrists don't like left-wing Democrats.

Your phrase was so good there. Was it extending grace to people? I mean, the people need to calm down. It's, you know what? I'm all for fighting all kinds of fights on issues and on personalities, if you want, in 27, 28 and left to result, they'll have presidential candidates, so they'll have he or she will resolve things, but there has to be a somewhat coherent democratic position on some key issues.

Now they can tolerate a pretty big tent here. And the degree to which, are you finding this? I'm getting, like, people want to have meetings to say, to litigate various issues within the Democratic Party and the Democratic tent and the Democratic tent. I'm glad you brought this up. With a small deal. I've been a little bit of a state about it, honestly.

I mean, I've sort of wrote some slightly terse email back to someone who wanted me to come to some meeting about this and how we have to. It's like, no, I don't really. I have no interesting coming to this meeting, you know. Yeah. No, the burn the witch culture. And it is happening on the aggressive partisans on, I was going to say both wings, but there's kind of like three wings. There's like the moderate democratic group that want to just make condemning Graham Platner and Hassan Piker are the most important thing right now. And then there's kind of like the woe.

Democratic groups that's going to go after people who like Sweet Sir who have the wrong position on transports and there's like the lefty populist group that like wants to go after Alyssa Slotkin like she's the devil and it's just like I have preferences in all this case but if you can sit here right now in May of 2026 and look at the field right now and look at what is happening in our politics and you're like the thing that makes me the most mad right now is Alyssa Slotkin or Graham Platner like I don't relate to you at all. Like I think that is a total misjudgment about what is happening. I think that Alyssa Slocke and Graham Platner,

if they were both in the Senate together, would both cast votes I disagreed with. But I don't think either of them are in any way, a threat to the Republic or a threat to, you know, the future of our country and our children. And like right now we have this like disastrous presidency that is happening where he is, you know, trying to grab power for himself,

go around the law, jail as enemies, kill protesters, put immigrants in horrible condition prisons, get us into a stupid war that has no rationale that's going to wreck the global economy. I was like, that's the thing to be mad about. Like, that is the thing to be mad about. If you are mad about the other faction of the Democratic Party right now and you're trying to, you know, gain a little bit more power for your faction between now and 2028, I think that is a total waste of time. and it shows a horrific judgment about what the real threat is to the country.

So there you go. That's my rant about that. Thank you for getting me fired up, Bill. That was excellent. That was excellent that people should need to hop to it and listen to you on this. No, I totally agree. And winning the House would help would be the single most important thing to slow down and give us a chance to minimize the damage Trump could do in his last two years.

And winning the House and the Senate would really make a huge difference. This is where I come back to the Senate. The Senate confirms, I mean, both cabinet, obviously, nominees and sub-cabit, but also just as Supreme Court justices and also lower court judges. So if you think what Trump's going to do in those last few years, if he has 51 Republicans in the Senate, he's going to jam through every judge he can who will uphold his policies and also uphold his attempt to steal the election in 2028 and uphold every Republican redistricting plan like the kind of we've seen that are going to create no black members of Congress from southern states to 25% black population. I mean, that's kind of important to stop that or to stop more of it from happening. And that means winning the House and say even more, not even more, but in addition, but importantly in addition, winning the Senate if possible. So let's just see. Maybe an ex-attorney general.

And who knows? If Blanche is still acting, like that night, the Senate could confirm that and look at what, you know, what that could possibly mean. Yeah. Just one thing on Federman. I do. The one hopeful thing I have about Federman is he's such a baby. I think that he would maybe get more joy. out of being the 51st Democratic senator and forcing Chuck Schumer to come to him for everything

that they wanted to do, then he would be to switch sides and just and be a Republican that gets one nice news cycle from his friends at Fox. That's true. But then after that it becomes irrelevant. Anyway, just a thought. The mansion, Kristen Sinema, precedent is in that respect very bad because his kids talk people how much power you have. How much power you are.

If you're the 50 or the 51st vote. I should just mention while we're ranting about it. inter-coilition issues. Lauren Egan, our colleague, had an interesting story over the weekend about how some DNC members have been privately discussing trying to move out Ken Martin as DNC chair. Kim Martin gave like an incomprehensible interview to John Favreau for a Pod Save America that I did a live watch of on the stream last week. A few want to go see that. But like, I thought it was an interesting story by Lauren.

And I think that it is important to understand the degree of anxiety inside the Democratic coalition right now about ensuring. maximum success this year. I just don't think the chair of the party is really as important as other people do. Having worked at the Republican National Committee, Republicans won some years with bad chairs, lost some years with good chairs. You can only do so much. And those committees have gotten less and less powerful over time. That said, I don't know, if you have any observations about the kid Martin. I have the same. I've had the same experience in Washington. The quality of the party chair is very little correlation with anything, basically.

I do want to give one shout out, because I think a lot of people miss this. Are you aware that the shutdown is over? Yeah, it's a good point. It doesn't even get covered. It's crazy. The DHS shutdown is officially over. The House voted via voice vote to advance the plan that, frankly, the Bill Crystal is pushing for many months ago, which is just fund the rest of DHS, but not ICE and CBP.

The Senate had passed that a couple weeks ago now. The House was holding out. the House Republicans are saying this is unacceptable, and they eventually folded, and as they've done so many times, and Mike Johnson basically gives the Democrats a win. It's an interesting matter commentary on the media that, like, there's not a lot of desire to give Hakeem Jeffries or Chuck Schumer credit for things, because the right-wing media hates them. The mainstream media wants to call it both ways, the left-wing media, which is, wishes they were stronger for good reason. And so there's nobody out there pointing out that, you know, they did the shutdown. They didn't have to do. political risk to it, and it worked.

And now CBP and ICE didn't get additional funding. And if they want to fund them, they got to fund them through reconciliation, which is a pretty meaningful concession because our reconciliation bill is the only way that they're going to be able to do anything this year. And, you know, this makes that even harder. I mean, I feel like Jeffries and Schumer have done, I mean, there say things occasionally that annoy me, like, you know, and they aren't quite who I would if I get magic, especially with Schumer, if I could just pick someone and I probably wouldn't pick him.

but they haven't done a bad job. I mean, given, they were really off, you know, the first six months rattled them. As we were saying before about us, they rattled everyone really. They've kind of adapted, and I feel like they're doing okay. And Chuck Schumer, foolishly tried to get Janet Mills and retrospect foolishly to run for the Senate in Maine. So he tried to get her to do so. She tried. She's failed.

And now Chuck Schumer's having a cultural conversation with your man platter there. Not my man. I know. I'm teasing. I'm teasing you. Fine. He didn't do a great job in Maine. we will say that was a fuck up

it's not going to matter it's not going to matter they're going to put money in if I had to help him beef Collins and so yeah and some of his Iran war rhetoric hasn't been great but like tactically speaking shut downs have worked so kudos all right final topic

the triumphal arch the triumphal arch we have some renderings now some 3D renderings of this monstrosity apparently it's going to be four times larger than the initial proposal It will be over between Arlington Cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial. I don't know.

There's part of me that's like the more time Trump is spending on the arch, the last time he's doing more damaging things. But it's pretty depressing. So I don't know. What do you make of a triumphal arch? I mean, it's really, it's grotesque in any case, but it's really grotesquely large in addition to being just grotesquely. in theory and in principle.

I mean, if people don't know Washington, they wouldn't maybe quite appreciate it, but that's a very nice vista when you come across the Royal Bridge. You've got the Lincoln Memorial at one side of the wall, and then Arlington Cemetery on the other. And it's very moving when you see Arlington. It's spread out there. And this massive thing is going to be right in that middle, the area where you go around

that little traffic circle to get from Virginia to D.C. So, no, it's really grotesque. And everything's great. The grotesque, I wonder how much, I hope that's turning people off. He wants to build. And it's a nice municipal golf course.

I don't play golf, so I've never been there, which people use. I mean, it's quite well-used municipal golf course. He wants to rip that up so he can have a PGA-level golf course for his vanity and probably make money off it, too, and also have built his garden of heroes. Think about that for a minute. He's going to designate who the 250 heroes of America are, I guess without any input, really, from anyone else. You know, these other Lincoln Memorial, I believe, is like Congress had something to say about

whether that was going to be built anyway, that was not a close call. He is going to decide with these heroes and build this giant garden for them. The whole thing is just so kind of Stalinist and Kim Jong-un-like and Mussolini-like and stuff.

But the arch is maybe the most infuriating of them, I guess, of all those things because it's because of the Arlington side of it. I mean, it's such a lovely, and Arlington is such a wonderful place. I mean, the gravestones are pretty much all the same, right? There's none of this kind of grandiose. You know, you don't get bigger one because you were, you know, a general, as opposed to a private, at least, I don't,

I don't think there really any. Maybe there's one or two that are so old a days. They got kind of the nicer, you know, bigger things, but certainly, that's not the case today, obviously. And if you go to Section 60, where the recent vets are recent people who died in Iraq and Afghanistan and so are buried, it looks just like the sections were World War II vets are buried. So it's a very moving vista, which is arch is going to destroy. Troy, which is why I think the veterans groups are suing to stop it. I hope the courts do step up and stop a lot of this stuff. And I hope maybe Congress, another thing Congress could do if the Democrats controlled it.

Sure, Trump might veto their attempts to stop it, but let him veto it and then pass it again and again and again and try to put him on this, why exactly you're doing this? And I do think it brings home to people he's spending money on his vanity projects. He doesn't care about you. That was Trump's always his strength, right? You know, he cares about you, allegedly, and the Democrats don't. And so I think that's, he's really given that away. Don't you think?

That really is a... Maybe the Democrats come with a gimmick. Like the Triumphal Arch check. You know, you take all the money that he's supposed to spend on the golf course, the Triumphal Arch and the ballroom, add it all up together, divide it out. You know, everybody under the age of 35 gets a check for 50 bucks instead of the Triumphal Arch. I don't know. That's not the best idea.

We'll keep brainstorming on that. We'll keep working on it. All right. That's Bill Crystal. We appreciate you very much. Lots of happening. We're going to San Diego in L.A. Remember, get your tickets May 20th and May 21st.

Looking forward to being out there. And we'll be back tomorrow with another edition of the podcast. See you all then. Say what this means to me. I'll do what I can. Impossible black of Japan. The Borg podcast is brought to you thanks to the work of lead producer Katie Cooper, Associate producer Ansley Skipper,

and with video editing by Katie Lutz and audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.