The Bulwark Podcast - James Hohmann: Kevin in a Vise

Episode Date: September 12, 2023

McCarthy has caved on an impeachment inquiry so he can hold onto his gavel. Meanwhile, Congress should really be investigating Elon Musk's power as a defense contractor and his potential conflicts of interest. James Hohmann joins Charlie Sykes.

If it's a flat or a squeal, a wobble or peel, your tread's worn down or you need a new wheel, wherever you go, you can get it from our Tread Experts. Ensure each winter trip is a safe one for your family. Enjoy them for years with the Michelin X-Ice Snow Tire. Get a $50 prepaid MasterCard with select Michelin tires. Find a Michelin Tread Experts dealer near you at treadexperts.ca slash locations. From tires to auto repair, we're always there. TreadExperts.ca. Welcome to the Bulwark Podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. It is September 12th,

2023, and we have a lot of things to sort out. We are joined by our good friend James Holman, editorial writer and columnist for the Washington Post. James, welcome back to the podcast. Charlie, great to be with you. Well, first of all, before we get into everything, did you notice that the Packers beat the Bears over the weekend? I just have to mention this again. I did. I'm going to watch the Packers play the Falcons in Atlanta this weekend. Oh, really? I'm jealous. I'm looking forward to it. Post-Aaron Rodgers, new era.

I just wanted to take a moment. The reason I bring this up, I want to take a moment. Thoughts and prayers to all you fans of the New York Jets. That's all I want to say. There's no schadenfreude. Just thoughts and prayers for all you New York Jets fans. OK, so can we move on to the business at hand? Because I had to get that out of the way. Let's talk about something less divisive, which is politics. Yeah. So I'm looking at the headline in the NBC News website. Kevin McCarthy faces a perfect storm of demands as shutdown looms. September 30th deadline, the House Speaker confronts right-wing demands to cut spending, migration, prop up Trump, and impeach Biden with veiled threats to his

gavel. So here we have Mike Kevin once again. It kind of feels like Groundhog Day, doesn't it? Kevin McCarthy in a vice. How bad is this going to be? How about that for a general question? I think it is going to be bad, but I learned to kind of respect McCarthy's political skills during the speaker vote fight. Obviously, he has such a narrow margin for error and who knows what his own agenda is. I think he's just trying to survive, but he was able to hold on for that speaker's fight. Obviously, some of the hardliners say, this time is going to be different. They said that a few months ago.

And the debt limit, the debt limit he pulled out of a hat, kind of, yeah. Exactly, exactly. You know, on paper, it's really difficult. There's a lot they have to do. The base is restive. It feels like they're walking into all the same traps that opposition parties have walked into in the past. Well, is there any way to avoid a shutdown? Because it appears that the hardliners, this is their last card to play, right? I mean, the hardliners are demanding an impeachment inquiry.

And we learned this morning that Kevin McCarthy is going to cave in on that. They're talking about defunding the special counsels. They're talking about defunding the special councils. They're talking about defunding Ukraine. Others have draconian spending cuts that have no chance of actually being passed. But is there any way that he can finesse this without shutting down the government? Or is that a just foregone conclusion? Sure, I think he could. I think that there's a way that you can rest the votes with the right kind of leadership and the right sort of face saving. But a lot of people that I am talking to on Capitol Hill and both parties are very, very pessimistic.

But the leadership has a lot of tools at hand to twist arms and to get the vote. If Kevin McCarthy wants to avoid a shutdown, he can. He might need a little help from the White House. But can he do that? You're right. I mean, obviously, if he wants to avoid a shutdown, he can cut a deal with the White House, he can get Democratic votes. But wouldn't that come at the price of perhaps his speakership? I mean, I can see how he can keep the government open. I can see how he can keep his speakership. I'm not quite clear how he does both. Well, perhaps this playing footsie with impeachment is part of an effort to sort of,

sure, let's avoid a shutdown. Feed the alligator. We'll give you your committee to pursue impeachment, but don't make us look like we're unserious about governing. That could be part of the calculus. Okay, so let's talk about this. Does he have the votes to go ahead with the impeachment inquiry? You know, over the weekend, we have, you know, people like Ken Buck, who's very, very conservative congressman from Colorado, we're saying, look, he doesn't have any reasons to

pursue this. I'm just reading a quote from Ken Buck. On the one hand, we've got to pass a short term funding bill. And we also have the impeachment issue. We also have members of the House led by my good friend, Chip Roy, who are concerned about policy issues. So you take those three things put together and Kevin McCarthy, the speaker this so far. His political skill has basically been to, you know, throw out promises like Skittles, some of which are like mutually exclusive. Exactly. Yeah. And I mean, the Post did a feature a few months ago and it was the five families of the House Republican Conference. And what's funny is the McCarthy folks loved it. And, you know, they said, this really is actually what it's like.

And I think that it's true, you know, and maybe that's not tenable in the long term. Obviously, this is coming against the backdrop of an election being not much more than a year away. And so if you're Kevin McCarthy, how much are you thinking about your own survival? Which obviously everyone thinks of that first. And so if you're Kevin McCarthy, how much are you thinking about your own survival? Yeah. Which obviously everyone thinks of that first. But how much are you thinking of strengthening your party's hand going into the election?

Biden looks so weak right now in the polls, but a Republican impeachment inquiry could end up playing to his advantage. Even a shutdown fight could end up playing to Biden's advantage. And are they thinking a year ahead or are they thinking three weeks ahead? And that I don't know. This is where it's counterintuitive because normally I think it's a safe bet that nobody wants to be impeached. Impeachment inquiries are bad, sort of like indictments. And yet in this sort of upside down political universe, Joe Biden could use a lifeline right now. And maybe this clown car impeachment inquiry could be exactly what he wants. Because it's interesting, they're backing into this before they have any

real evidence. I mean, and this is kind of the problem when when Republicans are pressed, well, what exactly is the hard evidence that would justify the impeachment of Joe Biden? The answer seems to be, well, that's why we have to have an inquiry to find the evidence that we don't have right now, which is generally not the way things have been done in the past. So how do you think the impeachment plays out? So far, Jim Comer's investigations have not been, I mean, this has not been the Army McCarthy hearing. This has not been really successful, the Watergate hearings. So it depends on whether they have the goods or are going to get the goods. I mean, all indications are that they have a lot of scintillating and embarrassing stuff

about the president's son, but they don't have enough. You know, so when you ask about Ken Buck, yeah, I think that McCarthy can thread this particular needle and buy himself a couple of weeks by saying, look, this is just an inquiry into whether there should be impeachment proceedings and to see if evidence turns up. And that's how you can sort of get the bucks of the conference to go along. But then, you know, you send articles of impeachment to the House Judiciary Committee. I'm not sure what those articles of impeachment would be for. And that is where it gets dicier. And if they don't have the goods, then... Give me an example. What are

the goods for people who haven't been paying attention to all this? Yeah, I mean, I think in this case, it would be evidence that Joe Biden directly benefited financially in more than just like Hunter paid his cell phone bill one time. That he was part of these sleazy deals of Hunter. Exactly. And the deals were sleazy. And I think Democrats should stipulate that. No, I mean, Hunter Biden clearly was trading upon his father's name. He had these sleazy international deals and he made a lot of money, which he blew on cocaine and women. I don't know what he did with it, but so far there is nothing tying his father to that. And so that's what they're desperately in search of, right? They're

in search of that nexus, that transfer of cash from Hunter to dad. And so far, do we see any of that? Is there any evidence? We don't. There is some smoke, but we don't see any fire. And I do think that the Republicans, smart Republicans, of which there are a bunch in leadership and in staff. And once you start going down this road, it's dangerous. It's like building a weapon that you're going to want to use. It's hard to imagine what the off-ramp would be because once you start the impeachment proceeding or the inquiry or whatever you're going to call it, it's impossible to imagine Comer or anyone else saying, oh, well, we didn't find the smoking gun. We're giving up. Yeah. He's innocent. He's exonerated. Yeah.

So then you end up, you put it on some of your members where, you know, it's like, oh, it's so frustrating that the rhinos won't go along. And again, you know, I mentioned an election in a year. The Democrats' odds of winning the House next year are higher than their odds of holding the Senate. And the presidential election is going to be decided by moderate suburban Republicans in four states. And control of the House is going to be decided by moderate suburban Republicans in California and New York.

And the members who represent those districts are going to have really tough votes. And so, you know, one of the jobs of a speaker is to protect those frontline members, whether they're a Republican or a Democrat. And because McCarthy has such a small majority, he really is caught in this really tough place where he has to protect his frontliners, but also placate the Marjorie Taylor Greene's, you know, who, as you noted in your newsletter today, on September 11th is out there calling for secession. I mean, it's hard. I don't, I'm not sure. I think the speakership in this environment with this party, with this conference, it might be an impossible job. Well, that's why it is kind of, it's compared to a Rubik's cube for McCarthy because you have to to get these Freedom Caucus guys plus Marjorie Taylor Greene, who's been kicked out of the Freedom Caucus, whatever, can't get too deeply into that particular food fight. He's got to get the hardliners in line. But by doing that, he puts the, you know, 10, 12 members in swing districts very much at risk. I mean, there were a number of districts that elected Republicans

but voted for Joe Biden. And many of those moderates are saying, please do not make us walk the plank on these crazy issues. Do not force us as a litmus test vote. But you know, I can certainly conceive the impeachment of Joe Biden vote coming up. And any Republican that votes no is going to be tagged a rhino, is going to be targeted for primary, and may have the same fate as Republicans that voted to impeach Donald Trump. I mean, it will be that much of a test. And for many of those congressmen from the swing districts, I mean, this is like putting a gun to their heads. Yeah, it is. You know, one of the things that makes this Congress different than other Congresses is that traditionally the House passes tons and tons of showbills that they know will never go

anywhere in the Senate. But it's sort of to put points on the board and people can say they voted for this and that. And there have been relatively few sort of showbills. And it is because on some of the conservative policy priorities, McCarthy doesn't want to make the really tentative members walk that plank. Let's move on to something else. I need you to explain to me the Elon Musk, Walter Isaacson story. Now, for people who are just tuning into this particular story, Walter Isaacson is an immensely prestigious author. He's written a biography of Leonardo da Vinci and of Ben Franklin, a former editor of Time magazine. And he's been working on a biography of Elon Musk. And of course, wow, what a tangled web dealing with the mind of Elon Musk is. And there was a back and forth over the last couple of days

played out in the pages of the Washington Post, where Walter Isaacson wrote a story about Elon Musk essentially shutting off Starlink satellite access to Ukrainians who were trying to attack the Russian fleet. Elon has pushed back. Walter Isaacson has corrected that story. I mean, it seems like a terrible mess. We know that everything Trump touches dies. Is this one of these cases of everything Elon touches dies? I mean, where's the Walter Isaacson book on this whole Starling thing? Because I have to admit, it's making my head hurt. It is making my head hurt too. I've been following it closely. The publication date for Walter's book is today. We ran an excerpt obviously last week. And I think in this particular case, Elon does a lot of things. He's very much kind of a shoot first,

ask questions later kind of guy. I don't think he consults his lawyers as much as someone normally would. I think that's apparent, yeah. Or consult anyone at some point. I mean, he strikes me as the kind of guy that wakes up at three o'clock in the morning and like, I am a genius and I have this brilliant idea. I had this dream. I'm just gonna not call it Twitter anymore. I'm gonna call it X. And by four o'clock, it's X, right? I mean-

And he only surrounds himself with people who will kind of allow him to do that. And the people who don't validate those kinds of crazy ideas or tell him that they're genius, he quickly pushes out of his orbit. And I think it's a cautionary tale for those of us who don't have a billion dollars, that it's good to have people

who are willing to tell you when your ideas are stupid. That, by the way, in and of itself is valuable. Okay, let's go back to this. So did Elon Musk fuck over the Ukrainians in order to appease Vladimir Putin, or because he was genuinely afraid that if the Ukrainians used the drones to attack the Russian fleet, that it would lead to some nuclear holocaust. Did that actually happen? Because now Walter Isaacson is walking that story back, and so there's a version 1.0, and now there's a version 2.0. Can you explain that to me? Yeah, so the version 1.0 is Elon Musk found out that the Ukrainians were going to attack the Russian fleet in Crimea and shut down access to his internet platform that they're

depending on for targeting and a lot of other things. And that thwarted what could have been a major coup in the war and really turned the tide in favor of the ukrainians the version 2.0 is starlink was equipped to cover basically the the wartime boundaries of ukraine and that it wasn't covering crimea and so they would have musk would have had to extend the service to allow the ukrainians to invade turn on something that was not done. Exactly. I mean, I think that this is like where I don't have any insight into it, you know, reported insight, but Musk clearly does have a coterie of public relations advisors and lawyers who are, I think, in his ear saying, you know, this explanation protects you from congressional investigations and other problems. I mean, he ultimately is, it's insane to believe, but Musk is a huge government contractor.

Which raises all kinds of questions, doesn't it? It does, which are legitimate and should still be asked. Yes, exactly. And I do think, you know, this should be bipartisan. Congress should look into this and get to the bottom of it. And also, the Ukrainians shouldn't be depending on the whims of this boy genius, you know, who wakes up at 3 a.m. with these silly ideas,

as you know correctly, for their national defense when they're facing an existential attack. I do think that there are lots and lots of questions we don't know the answers to, but it does seem like Musk basically did undercut the Ukrainians.

On the other hand, to be fair, Musk gave the Ukrainians Starlink in the first place when he didn't have to. But that's the thing about the largesse of billionaires, what they give it, they can take it away. I mean, you're calling Eugene Robinson, I'm just looking at the headline here, you know, raises the really large fundamental question that Elon Musk should not be calling the shots on how Ukraine fights or any other ally of the United States. It's one thing to say, okay, Elon Musk is screwing up Twitter and he's created this cesspool of anti-Semitism and hate speech and all that. That is bad enough. But here we have a major government contractor who feels somehow entitled to make major decisions of life and death, foreign policy,

war and peace. And wow, that just doesn't seem like a good idea. It doesn't. And let me add, you know, when we're talking about Russia and Musk has had conversations with senior Russian officials and all that, I mean, the thing that actually should alarm us more than Russia, in addition to, is China, where Musk really has played nice with the Chinese Communist Party and, you know, is knee deep in construction in China and trying to do business in China and is totally very much caught up in the CCP. And I think that that should be really alarming that this guy has such business interests. If you are a United States senator right now or a member of Congress, I mean, wouldn't this be like the most urgent thing to

have a public hearing about is, is Elon Musk in the position to do anything to kneecap U.S. defenses against, say, China because of his conflict of interest? Why have we given him this kind of access or how much power does he have to do that? I would just like the answer to that. Maybe the answer is no, no, he can't shut off our satellites because the Chinese called him up and say, you can't build Teslas here anymore unless you shut off the satellites that are protecting the United States. Maybe that doesn't happen, but maybe it does. Also, I think the question I would ask is how can we, whatever dependency we have, however bad it is as a country on Elon Musk, like, how do peel, your tread's worn down or you need a new wheel, wherever you go, you can get a pro at Tread Experts.

Ensure each winter trip is a safe one for your family. Enjoy them for years with a Michelin X-Ice snow tire. Get a $50 prepaid MasterCard with select Michelin tires. Find a Michelin Tread Experts dealer near you at treadexperts.ca slash locations. From tires to auto repair, we're always there at treadexperts.ca. Okay, totally switching gears now. I want to get your take on this controversy involving the Democratic governor of New Mexico, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, who just issued an edict temporarily banning the

carrying of firearms in Albuquerque. Let me just read you this story. I think this is from CNN. New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed an emergency order banning both open and concealed firearms in Albuquerque and the surrounding county on Friday, setting off a stream of backlash and legal challenges. The ban is part of a public health emergency declaration over gun violence and drug abuse. The Democratic governor cited the killings of a 13-year-old girl and an 11-year-old boy, as well as two mass shootings in the state in May in her declaration. So this is a 30-day suspension of open and concealed carry laws. So your take on that, I mean, you kind of understand where she's coming from on all this, but it is kind of breathtaking to issue an edict wiping out all Second Amendment rights. And of

course, the backlash is national and local, local sheriffs saying they're not going to enforce it. A lot of gun rights advocates saying, see, we told you they were going to suspend the Second Amendment, and she just freaking did it. It is breathtakingly unconstitutional. It is a gimmick that will be struck down in court, should be struck down in court. And it is exactly the wrong approach for lots of reasons. Again, you can be sympathetic to gun violence, horrifying cases, but we're seeing this rollback of public health emergency powers in lots of places because there was overreach during COVID and there were too many restrictions. And if we could do it over again, I think even a lot of Democrats would say, maybe we shouldn't have forced churches to close and

that kind of thing. But now these emergency powers are being rolled back because they're being abused in this way. And, you know, I think for all of us who spoke out against Donald Trump using emergency powers to divert money that Congress wouldn't appropriate to build the wall, this is a similar illustration of a politician, mostly for show, kind of invoking these executive authorities that she doesn't have to do something that is extra constitutional. I mean, I was heartened to see Ted Lieu, the Democratic congressman from California, speak out against it. I was going to mention that. Very liberal. Yeah, very liberal member. And even David Hogg, who was at Parkland and I think runs the group

March for Our Lives, big liberal gun control group, he also said this isn't the way to go about it, which I was heartened to see because I just don't want us to get to a place where governors are trying to one-up each other in ignoring the Constitution to pursue their agenda, whatever that is, whether that's going after undocumented immigrants or guns or climate change. Or, I mean, there's so many ways you can say, oh, there's a, there's an emergency. I'm going to claim all these powers that I don't have. And it is just so is an American kind of repulsive to our, the whole system of government. You cannot just do what governor Grisham did. And the thing is like, she clearly knows better. But this is just to try to raise her profile. Remember, she wanted to be vice president to Biden, didn't hold up in vetting, wanted to be HHS secretary, got passed over for Javier Becerra. And I think this is an example

of the Peter principle of someone who, you know, probably belongs in the House, not as governor. Well, I mean, to your point about, you know, the outrage about Donald Trump calling for terminating the Constitution, and then you have a governor who basically says, yes, I'm going to be terminating these constitutional rights because I think I have the power. You're right. She's going to get slapped down. I'm really surprised by things on social media. But when Ted Lieu, who's a very liberal Democrat, came out and said, hey, really, you can't do this, I thought that was kind of an interesting tell. All right, I want to get to presidential politics in just a moment, but something else that hasn't been on my radar screen that is really immensely important, and you've been watching closely,

these upcoming legislative elections in Virginia. There's been a lot of buzz. Is Glenn Youngkin possibly going to be a late entry into the presidential race? And he's made it clear that he's going to focus now on trying to flip the Virginia legislature. And again, I understand people going, wait, this is one state, the legislature in one state. Why is it so important? Well, tell me why it is so important, because it certainly is going to give you an indication of what the mood of the electorate is, which is kind of a leading indicator going into next year, isn't it? Yeah, it is. And there's a lot of things that will tell us, you know, Glenn Youngkin wins in Virginia by two points a year after Biden wins by 10 points. And if you'll recall,

you know, the potency of parents' rights, parents' matter, the backlash to critical race theory, everything that was happening in Loudoun County related to transgender issues and sexual assault. And Terry McAuliffe screwing up by saying parents shouldn't get to say what is done in the classroom. And there's a bunch of swing districts that are genuine swing districts, which is increasingly rare in federal house races. But here, where there's a ton of districts with competitive state Senate and state House races, where Joe Biden carried it, Glenn Youngkin carried it, and then a Democrat carried it for Congress in 2022. And so it really is a great proxy and window, for one, on whether the parties will be motivated. Will voters be motivated to come out?

The biggest issue, certainly as far as Democrats are concerned, is abortion. And right now there's divided government. The Democrats narrowly control the state Senate. The Republicans narrowly control the state House. And then you have a Republican governor. And Glenn Youngkin says that if Republicans win control of the House and Senate, and both really up for grabs, then he will sign a 15-week abortion ban with exceptions for rape and life of the mother and incest. But what he has declined to say is if the Republican legislature passes a six-week ban, would he sign it? And he's kept the door open to that. And he said, look, 15 weeks is what we're going to get. But so you have Democrats who are going around saying, this guy, he's going to sign a six-week ban if he can. He will be able

to sign a 15-week ban if Republicans just pick up a couple seats. So it is a test of whether Democrats can still use the Dobbs decision and the abortion issue to rally their voters. So is that the dominant issue? Republicans are trying to make the kind of education, parents' rights, the dominant issue. Youngkin's popular. He's in the 50s, approval rating-wise. There was a big state surplus, thanks in part to federal money, but the state's doing pretty well. Youngkin has done a bunch of good stuff with trying to raise educational standards. He has tried to invest in behavioral health. He has cut taxes. I mean, there's kind of a record that he can run on of actually doing a bunch of stuff

in divided government. Youngkin is going around the state doing these town halls in the swing districts because he is popular. And the big sign behind him at these town halls says Parents Matter. And he's still sort of he pardoned the Loudoun County father over the weekend. So certainly in northern Virginia swing districts, Republicans aren't running on. We're going to restrict abortion after 15 weeks. Right.

But I do think if Republicans win control of the statehouse and Senate, I think it will say something about the flagging galvanizing power of Dobbs, you know, going into 2024. What are Democrats saying about this parental rights issue? They're saying, yeah, we want parental rights. You know, you have a lot of Democrats in competitive races saying it was a mistake to keep the schools closed for so long. That was wrong. We shouldn't have mask mandates again. Parents should have a say over their schools. And so they have moved to

a reasonable place on these issues. And I guess what Democrats are saying is now like Republicans have gone too far, that this isn't just about like school closures, that this is about book bans and culture war stuff. And in one of these swing districts in Loudoun County, in an open state Senate race, the Democrat is talking a lot about whatever the education stuff comes up, she responds by talking about school shootings and the need to deal with guns. So I guess that's part of their messaging, too. Okay. Well, speaking of culture wars, you had an item that was kind of eye-popping. I don't know who originally reported this, but at the Iowa game where, of course, Trump was there and got loudly booed and Ron DeSantis

was there as well. I'm sure he got cheered and booed. But there was this initial report, DeSantis' campaign is geo-targeting an ad directly to people's phones in the stadium that hammers Trump for allowing transgender women to compete in Miss Universe. Wow. And as you point out, you know, imagine this being your case for why you should be the leader of the free world, small, narrow-minded, and unserious. As it turns out, it wasn't DeSantis' actual campaign. It was DeSantis' super PAC, never back down. But still, James, is this the issue? Is this the issue? Okay, you're sitting around the room and you're going, okay, Iowa football game. What can we do? We can geo-target these messages. What should we looking for a way to peel off evangelicals in Iowa who voted for Ted Cruz

over Donald Trump in the 2016 caucuses. And they see this as a wedge to be able to do that. And so they're running that play. But I do think it shows a fundamental unseriousness. That's your rationale for being the leader of the free world. You shouldn't be the leader of the free world. You know, it is the super PAC, not the campaign, but it's embarrassing. It's embarrassing that that's your message. I'd forgotten that Donald Trump controls Miss Universe. I mean, we're used to controlling Miss Universe. So is this a thing really that

does he still control Miss Universe? He still own it? No, I think he sold it. He sold it a couple of years ago. So did he allow transgender? I mean, what? This is like so weird. It's like, you know, I'm embarrassed to ask.

I honestly, I don't know the facts here. So I don't want to say anything wrong, but yeah. I mean, I think this was something that happened like a decade ago and it was like one person or a guy. I don't really, I don't know. So I don't want to speak out of school. But if the debate is over who has done more for trans rights or whatever, you know, Trump

did a lot during his presidency to undo stuff that the Obama administration had done. And, but the conversation should be bigger. If you're trying to stop Republicans from nominating Donald Trump, trying to out Trump Trump is not the way to do it. You have to offer something different. This, I think, it reflects sort of a strategy that clearly is not working. And it increasingly feels like, barring some actuarial issue, Trump's going to be the nominee. And so these are sort of gasps to try and stop that.

But it just feels like if this is what you're throwing against the wall and hoping it sticks, it's like you're not in a very good place. However many days out we are from the Iowa caucuses. We've talked before about this, the kind of the rocky marriage between Ron DeSantis and this super PAC run by Jeff Rowe for people who aren't, you know, this is getting inside baseball here, but you have the campaign and then you have the super PAC and the super PAC has all the money, but it's run by somebody differently. And under the law, they're not supposed to coordinate. They're not supposed to talk. So that's why they leaked that pre-debate memo that blew up in everybody's face. And there are multiple reports that Rhonda Sandis is like, you know, what the F is going on with these guys. Jeff

Rowe is basically buying multiple summer houses off this campaign while the thing is just going up in flames. I mean, this is part of the massive mega grift of American political consultant politics, isn't it? Rowe was Glenn Youngkin's strategist in 2021. We did a better job there. Yeah, exactly. We were talking about embarrassing and trivial things. There are actually, we need to remind people, there are actually really, really important things that could get screwed up with all of this, you know, performative politics, including in Washington, D.C. I mean, you know, Kevin McCarthy's trying to figure out how not to shut the government down. But we have FEMA money for disaster aid. And as you've pointed out in the Washington Post, Congress is going to have to decide whether or not to reauthorize the FISA

authorization that was passed after 9-11. So talk to me about that, because I know you've done a deep dive into that issue. I have, yeah. So the Section 702 was passed in 2008 on a bipartisan basis. And the idea was essentially to allow the government to conduct foreign surveillance, even if hypothetically, like two Iranians are communicating over Gmail. In the old days, pre-2008, you can make an argument that because it was on American soil and it was going through American routers that they reduced some protections. And so this basically created a legal framework to allow the NSA to collect on foreign intelligence targets. The challenge is that inevitably, of course, Americans are communicating with foreigners

who are under surveillance. And so there's sort of incidental collection of American communications, phone calls, and emails when they're talking to people who are targets of foreign surveillance. And so the big question is, you know, who should have access to that material? Should they need a warrant to have access to it? And the government, so it's been reauthorized twice. It expires every five or six years. It's expiring again at the end of this year. And the government is quite persuasive that this has become the most important tool for combating terrorism, espionage, that they've stopped assassination attempts, cyber hacks. They broke up a Chinese spy ring in the United States. What happened to Carter Page is very different. It's a totally different section and a different part of the law than what's expiring. But there are a lot of people on Matter protesters and January 6th rioters to see if they were involved with any foreign intelligence

agencies out of fear that maybe there was some government behind what happened on January 6th. There was not. And so there's a lot of oversight and it's sort of like that shouldn't have happened. And so we wrote an editorial in the Washington Post last week outlining some reforms that can be made to the program. For example, it shouldn't be used for non-national security-related criminal investigations, but the tool is so essential. 59% of the items in Joe Biden's presidential daily brief last year cited intelligence gathered under Section 702 of FISA. So that would all be closed off if this program isn't extended by the end of the year. And right now it looks like it may not be. So I think it's essential to extend it.

And Congress, in a bipartisan way, needs to get its act together. I think this is going to be the most important national security thing this Congress does. But you can do it in a smart way with reforms, and both sides can sort of get what they want. And there's some trading space, and the administration's willing to negotiate. But that's one of those issues that is on the back burner, but really does matter, especially, you know, here we are 22 years after September 11th. And this system was created to prevent sort of the high wall of separation between foreign intelligence gathering and domestic law enforcement. This was supposed to fix that. And so if you re-erect that barrier, we're just asking for another attack. So will this be up to Tommy Tuberville?

Unfortunately, I mean, they can bring it to the floor. I mean, there's a lot of people that are never going to vote. This just brings up this strange story that I'm going to admit, I completely do not understand why the United States Senate is allowing Tommy Tuberville, one guy, to hold up all of these military nominations and promotions. You know, why Mitch McConnell is allowing this to happen? Why Chuck Schumer is allowing this to happen? Why the United States Senate continues to have this weird tradition of one member being able to put a hold on nominations? That's not in the Constitution,

is it, James? I mean, that's not something that the founders thought was a good idea. I mean, isn't this a good moment to say, this is just crazy? I agree. It's shameful what Tuberville is doing. I know a lot of really great guys who are in the military who are affected by this directly. There are reasons why, you know, this is not in the Constitution. The framers, you know, we had an Articles of Confederation that gave every state veto power over everything, and that didn't work. So we came back nine years later and wrote the Constitution. You know, so the kind of the heckler's veto is not a good way to govern. I'm a supporter of the filibuster. I think that it prevents craziness on both sides and prevents kind of erratic movements and lowers the stakes of our elections.

But I do think that McConnell and Schumer both have levers at their power to sort of jam through these promotions. And these are all deserving people who, you know, it's not just the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It's lieutenant colonels and colonels. Now, I think this is a good not just the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it's Lieutenant Colonels and Colonels. You know, I think this is a good moment to revisit some of the whole policy. You mentioned the anniversary of 9-11. Of course, we all remember what happened that day.

We had a really powerful piece, I thought, in the bulwark yesterday by veteran Will Selbru said, we also need to remember what came after 9-11, all of the wars we fought, all of the casualties, the men and women who went to Iraq and went to Afghanistan, all the fallout from all of that. And this is a good moment to look back. And we had two anniversaries. We, of course, have the 9-11 anniversary and we have the anniversary of the pullout from Afghanistan. And you've been looking at the question of, okay, let's remember what happened in Afghanistan, including the state of women in Afghanistan, because that continues to haunt us, doesn't it? It does, and it should. And it's hard because it's much harder to report from Afghanistan now

because the Taliban took over two years ago. And what happened at Abigate was terrible and sad. And I spoke out against pulling out of Afghanistan. I thought it was a bad idea. I think that's been vindicated. And the women who are left behind, it is like worse than the worst case scenario. They have done so much to suppress them, to keep them from learning. The Taliban, I never believed them. I don't think any serious person did, but the Taliban claimed this time was going to be different. It wasn't going to be like before. They were going to let women learn and work, and they have not. They've banned contraception. They've forced women out of

schools. They've banned women most recently from visiting national parks. You know, some Dubai billionaire offered a bunch of 100 Afghan girls scholarships to come study in the UAE. And the girls boarded a private plane and the Taliban, the Ministry of Virtue and Vice came and dragged the girls off the plane. I mean, they're treating half their population like, you know, animals and it's unconscionable. And this is a reminder. And I understand the problems with Afghanistan and Iraq and all that, but the essential nature of American leadership,

and there is a vacuum, the jungle does grow back when America is not there. There were 4 million girls who were getting education because of a relatively small number of US troops who were keeping the peace in Afghanistan. You know, we had virtually no casualties the last few years up until the pullout. So it is a reminder, 22 years after 9-11, after the bad taste in our mouth from Iraq, American leadership still matters and that it's essential. And this idea that the world will be okay without us is just plain wrong, especially as there are so many people

like the Russians and the Chinese who are now making inroads into Afghanistan. And China's getting mineral rights and various things. It is a tragedy on so many levels. Just because it's not in the newspapers or on the front pages doesn't mean we shouldn't be remembering those women left behind. Yeah, the jungle does grow back. James Holman, editorial writer and columnist for The Washington Post, thank you so much for joining us on The Bulwark Podcast today. Always a pleasure, Charlie. Great to be with you. Thank you. And thank you all for listening to today's Bulwark Podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. We will be back tomorrow, and we'll do this all over again. The Bulwark Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper and engineered and edited by Jason Brown.