The Bulwark Podcast - Will Saletan: In Defense of Kristen Welker

Episode Date: September 18, 2023

Trump threw the pro-life movement under the bus in his NBC interview, and essentially pleaded the Fifth on Jan 6.  Plus, Jack Smith wants a gag order, and Boebert the groper generated some amazing headlines. Will Saletan is back with Charlie Sykes for Charlie and Will Monday.

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 Monday morning and it is good to

see your bright and shining face today, Will. We're actually doing this on video, at least for, you know, internally. So it's good to see you. I don't want to talk about the Packers game, though. Oh, the Packers. Charlie, I have a question about the Packers. So for those of us who are not cheeseheads, I literally saw, in celebration of a touchdown, one Packers fan in like the mascot gear, pouring a bucket of Velveeta and then a bag of tortilla chips over the head of another fan.

Coordinated, the two of them, this is a voluntary act. Is this some kind of ritual I'm not aware of? No, no. Okay. No, this is a ritual that I am not aware of. It seems on the extreme side, even for cheeseheads, because the cheesehead does not literally mean, the cheesehead means you should wear a foam cheese hat. It doesn't mean you pour Velveeta on yourself. Okay. And particularly when you lose this way. Okay. So

we have a lot to talk about on Monday morning. We have the former president of the United States going on Meet the Press and once again, confessing to all of his crimes. This comes after the Friday release of that motion from Jack Smith, which I read the whole motion. It is a banger. This is the one asking for the gag order on Donald Trump. Jack Smith's finally had enough. If you subscribe to my newsletter, Morning Shots, I've excerpted it at some length because even though it's a narrowly crafted motion for a very, very specific kind of gag order, it has all of, I mean, it brings a lot of the receipts. It lays out the pattern and practice of intimidation, bullying, lying from Donald Trump and the way in which they have used and continue to use Donald Trump's social media bleats. If there was any doubt that Jack Smith was watching and listening very, very carefully to what Donald Trump was saying about judges, prosecutors, the jury pool, potential witnesses, it is all laid out there with screenshots of these true social statements. So I don't know about you, Will, I just thought it was interesting,

the kind of granular detail of what Donald Trump has done with a history of his past attempt to insult, intimidate, and obstruct. It is a banger of emotion. So I am not particularly surprised by or alarmed by Trump insulting judges, insulting the prosecutors. He does this all the time. And of course, he claims it's free speech and he can probably get away with it. I would like to see distinctions drawn between that sort of general Trump bombast and directed statements that might affect witness testimony. So for example, in Trump's Meet the Press interview, which we'll talk about,

he denies that he told anyone to delete the tapes, the surveillance tapes of the boxes and so forth. So that could be seen to some extent as him trying to coordinate stories with people who are testifying. And that would be about witness intimidation. To me, that's a different ballpark. This also sends a signal that every time Trump makes a statement at a rally or goes on Meet the Press or anybody else, Jack Smith is taking notes. I mean, he's watching all of this. Okay, so we're going to get to this Meet the Press interview in just a moment. But, you know, we'd have to do a little bit of catching up because it's Monday morning, right? And because we need to satisfy the purian interests of our audience,

at least once this week, we have to talk about the Lauren Boebert groping incident. See, we thought it was the vaping incident. Turns out that, no, it wasn't about the vaping. It's about, so this is an actual headline in the New York Post. Lauren Boebert groped Beetlejuice Date in heavy petting session before getting tossed out. This is real life.

Okay, so is this headline. Lauren Boebert's new man, the one she was groping, and who is groping in return, owns gay-friendly bar which hosts drag shows. I mean, this is chef's kiss perfect, Will. Lauren Boebert out there. I mean, it's just so humiliating. The whole thing is just so humiliating and yet so on brand. Do you know what I mean?

You following me here? Part of what's perfect about this story is the new scandal is that the guy she went to the musical with hosts a gay-friendly bar. So it's the gays and the drag that are the scandal. Meanwhile, quite heterosexually, she and her date are fondling each other in the most gross way, right? Out in front of everyone at a musical. Very aggressively heterosexual though, right? Right, right. So the fact that it's heterosexual is supposed to somehow be, I mean, just to underscore,

you know, the perversion is not your orientation. It is your behavior in public. The other question we had answered over the weekend was, were there some things that were too sleazy for MAGA? I asked this question about Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas, who was overwhelmingly impeached by the Republican-dominated Texas House of Representatives, which raised the question, I mean, are there lines? I mean, this guy had sleeves just jumping off him in terms of the corruption and everything, the whistleblowers. Well, over the weekend, he was acquitted by the Republican-dominated Senate. So apparently he wasn't too sleazy for MAGA. And completely predictably, you know who weighed in on all of this?

Who? Donald J. Trump. Congratulations to the great people of Texas and the state Senate for rejecting political persecution, all in caps, and respecting the integrity of our elections. We should choose our elected officials by voting, not by weaponizing government. That is for banana Republican third world countries. Now, Attorney General Ken Paxton can get back to work. He is one of the best, all in caps, exclamation point. But speaking of all the best people, again, one of my kind of my favorite stories of the day. Did you see this one? Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis turns on Donald Trump, the malignant narcissist.

This is Jenna Ellis, who was, you know, part of the releasing the Kraken and all of this. I simply cannot support him for elected office again, Ellis said. Why I have chosen to distance is because of that frankly malignant narcissistic tendency to simply say that he has never done anything wrong. And then she goes on that she's just amazed that there's this kind of cult around him. Let me see if I can find this. You know, that doesn't seem to think that the Constitution is important. Jenna Ellis, I was asked about this on Morning Joe, and I kind of did the, my head exploding that she is shocked, shocked to find out that Donald Trump is who Donald Trump is. But again, Will, they all know this. They all say this in private, right? It's just that Jenna Ellis, I don't know what makes her different.

Maybe that she's under criminal indictment, which focuses the mind that you now might actually go to jail for this guy. And it's like, yeah, this is a bad idea. So I'm shocked that it's Jen Ellis because Jen Ellis is, she's not just an ordinary Republican. She's one of the totally crackers people who peddle all the election lies. And I mean, she's on the extreme. So if she's renouncing this, it's not quite Sidney Powell, but it's along that spectrum. Very much. Of course, it's ridiculous because Trump has been doing this all along.

Nothing has changed, right? Nothing has changed. So it does raise the question in your mind, what happened to Jen Ellis that caused her to suddenly acknowledge? Indicted. Indicted and then suddenly faced with all the legal bills that Donald Trump is not going to be paying for her. This seems to have gotten her attention finally., it was like there was that little,

that little vestige of conscience there. So can we pause on Paxton for a minute, unless we want to come back to him? So the Paxton story. So again, you have your cheesehead stuff. This is my Texas stuff. This is interesting to me for a bunch of reasons. It's nuts. The fact that Trump is celebrating the acquittal is, is just on par. And I think people need to understand who are not Republicans. This is not a Republican versus Democratic thing. This is about within the Republican party. So the Texas state house voted to impeach this guy by the margin. It was 121 to 23. That means a majority of Republicans in the state house voted to impeach the guy. Okay. So it wasn't

partisan like that was the Trump impeachment. Yeah. The committee that recommended the articles of impeachment also unanimous vote, unanimous vote. So Republicans, and then it is a select bunch of Republican state senators who acquitted him. And as you acknowledge, Charlie, the evidence is overwhelming and it's just a multiplicity. And he still faces all of these federal and state charges, right? I don't know about state charges, but he still faces criminal charges. Right. And we should mention here that eight of Paxton's own aides, Republicans, testified to his corruption, all of these incidents, right? So within the Republican party, there are people who tried to tell the truth about this guy and who presented the evidence. And then there to a place of great danger where the plain evidence of

corruption can no longer overcome the majority party's determination to protect its self-interest and its agents. And that is a pretty neat crystallization of what has happened in the republic. It's almost like there's a pattern here. Well, I don't know. It's like they're picking up on this now. Right. So the pathology here is complete imperviousness to evidence, the evidence of corruption for the sake of partisan loyalty. I think it is important for those of us who are not Republicans, people like me, instead of vilifying the entire Republican party, to be mindful of distinctions within the party, even if the majority of the party has gone nuts. And the reason why I want people like me to do

that is this is what has happened in their party. The portrayal of all Democrats as communists, Marxists, insane, so dangerous that we Republicans have to stand behind Donald Trump or Ken Paxton or anyone, no matter what they do. That pathology, the other party is so evil that I must defend whatever evil my guy has done is what is ruining this country right now. Right. It's a spiral effect. Right. So let's not do that. Let's not repeat that. Okay. So last week, I think you and I spent some time talking about the Biden is old aspect. And of course, people love that.

You know that? I mean, we got so much love on one. I'm kidding, actually. I actually comment on that on The Guardian about the nature of that problem. But we'll leave that to the side here. So let's talk about Donald Trump's cognitive health, which was really on display over the weekend. And he gave this speech to a faith group in Washington, D.C. Is that right? Right. Can we play the clip with the music?

Because I have questions about the music. I know everybody else is focusing on that he appeared to think that he beat Obama or that we were going to get into World War II or all that stuff. I have a question about this. And we have a man who is totally corrupt and the worst president in the history of our country, who is cognitively impaired, in no condition to leave, and is now in charge of dealing with Russia and possible nuclear war. Just think of it. We would be in World War II very quickly if we're going to be relying on this man and far more devastating than any war.

There will never be a war. If that happens, there will never be a war like this. It will obliterate everything. There is everybody. It will obliterate every country what okay well leaving aside the whole World War II thing

what is with the music and I've been told several times now Charlie that is the QAnon theme song so that's a signal but I mean it's just bizarre it's like somebody compared it to you know grandpa's doing story hour. The music comes on and grandpa wants to do story hour.

But this grandpa's story hour is obliteration and annihilation and all of this stuff. It's kind of got a Trumpian twist. But when I first heard this, I thought somebody has put a music background to all this. But no, this was playing during his speech. Right. So Trump's been doing this for months. He doesn't do it at every rally, but he did. He started doing it, I think, in Waco a few months ago. Anyway, he plays this music. And by the way, on this occasion, they start the music and he pauses and waits for the music to set it. He loves the feel of this music.

We should have music. You and I should have music. We should have the theme from Dr. Zhivago behind us. Next time we do Ukraine, Will, I want the theme from Dr. Zhivago behind us. If you or I chose this music, the staff of the Bulwark would drag us out and put us away in an institution. Because this music is obviously ludicrous. It's melodramatic strings. I don't know how to describe it. I don't know. It's melodramatic strings. I don't know how to describe it. I don't know. It's part of his melodrama. And he slows down and he does the spiel. And what it conveys is,

number one, his fantastic sense of self-importance, right? He's living in a dramatic moment and he's a heroic figure. And that fits the Q&A story, of course, right? But the other thing is his detachment from sensible advice. Like he's, this is not something anyone who runs a campaign would tell you to do. Right. But he's determined to play this because he's at, he's at the center of his own drama and he's at the center of his own reality, Charlie. And I think this music is a great cue that Trump is sliding into is accentuating this world he lives in, which is not reality, in which he is a dramatic figure saving the United States.

Yeah. So I have a suggestion for the rest of his rallies and everything. If he wants, you know, will be more appropriate when he gets up there and he gets that look in his mind and he starts talking about the judges and everything. How about this one? This will be the new, maybe this should be our theme that we talk about. Okay, now we're going to talk about Donald Trump and then we'll play our Donald Trump theme music. Would that work? No. No? Do you think that's me jumping the shark there? Hey folks, this is Charlie Sykes, host of the Bulwark podcast. We created the Bulwark to provide a platform for pro-democracy voices on the center right

and the center left for people who are tired of tribalism and who value truth and vigorous yet civil debate about politics and a lot more. And every day we remind you, folks, you are not the crazy ones. So why not head over to thebulwark.com and take a look around? Every day we produce newsletters and podcasts that will help you make sense of our politics and keep your sanity intact. To get a daily dose of sanity in your inbox, why not try a Bullwork Plus membership free for the next 30 days? To claim this offer, go to thebullwork.com slash charlie. That's thebullwork.com forward slash charlie.

We're going to get through this together. I promise. 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 Okay, so let's talk about Donald Trump's meet the press interview. Where do you come down on this whole question of platforming Donald Trump? I have, I'm going to say euphemistically mixed views about this because what happens is that, you know, all of the lies get broadcast and the fact checks get put online, which seems like an epitaph for our times. So, first of all, what do you think of the decision to give him that kind of a platform? Okay. I am pro. I'm in favor of it. And a lot of

people on social media have objected to this. They think that Kristen Welker platform Trump did not fact check him adequately. And so they gave him an hour to spew his garbage. I disagree with that. I don't think when Trump speaks the way he spoke in this interview and will speak at length if you interrogate him, persuades more people to support him. He's already got a lot of people. And right now, Trump is about even with Biden in polls. Latest CBS poll has Trump up one on Biden. Okay.

The problem is already here. Be alarmed. The problem is here. Why is Trump up? He's up because people are unhappy with the economy. Never mind whether they should be. I know there's dispute about that. They are.

And when Trump speaks, particularly when he responds to questions about basic facts that he won't accept that are obvious to everyone, I think that hurts him much more than it helps him. And that's what happened in this interview. People who said that Kristen Welker did not fact check Trump and that they put all the fact checks on the website clearly did not watch the whole interview. It's an 80 minute interview. It's a 78 minute interview. She's constantly, constantly coming back at him with facts, with evidence, with Republicans rebutting him. And he just bats it all away.

And what you see is a man who is impervious to evidence and impervious to evidence that the American public didn't want him to be president again. To me, it underscores the danger of Trump. Half of me agrees with you. Half of me thinks that 2016 called and wants its talking points back. You know, the rationalization of the CNN, you know, NBC, Fox News folks was, let's just air his rallies live because once people see how crazy he is, they'll turn against him. Right. This is not a rally. This is not a rally. Here's the problem is that his craziness has been on display. His cruelty, his craziness, his corruption has been on display for seven years.

And right now we have a CBS poll showing that he is beating Joe Biden by one point. I am just not sure that the media has figured out how do you cover someone who is this fundamentally dishonest, this fundamentally corrupt, who has tried to overthrow the government. He's clearly an abnormal figure. And yet it's as if the muscle memory of the media is let's try to treat him like any other candidate. And let's be honest about it. There is this thinking on the part of people in the media that getting Donald Trump to come on the air and lie is a good get, because this is how you get attention in the attention economy. And this is how you get ratings. And this is the game that Donald Trump wants them to play. Okay.

So I disagree. And here are my reasons. I agree with you about rallies. The 2016 mistake was showing rallies, right? The guys just lying. A lot of people were hearing these lies for the first time, right? They weren't immunized at that point. And there wasn't an effective rebuttal during it. Then we have like the model of the CNN town hall from a couple of months ago, right? That is Trump being interviewed and Caitlin Collins is trying to fact check him, but there's a crowd of people there who are cheering him on. So it's still kind of a rally effect. This, what Kristen Welker did is none of that, right? He doesn't have the rally. He doesn't have the crowd. It's just her and him. And she's constantly

interjecting facts, constantly rebutting him. So I think it's a very different environment from those. He doesn't have the affirmation. Let's go through some of this. Here's Donald Trump, essentially, not essentially, at one point he confesses that the election denialism was his choice. It was all about him and brags about his instincts, how he follows his instincts because his instincts have got him where he is today. You called some of your outside lawyers. You said they had crazy theories. Why were you listening to them? Were you listening to them because they were telling you what you wanted to hear?

You know who I listened to myself? I saw what happened. I watched that election and I thought the election was over at 10 o'clock in the evening. You were listening to your instincts. My instincts are a big part of it. That's been the thing that's gotten me to where I am. Yeah. Indicted four times, impeached twice, credibly accused of sexual assault. A federal judge said you committed rape. Yeah, your instincts have gotten you exactly where you are today. But here you have Donald Trump essentially saying, yeah, my whole defense about relying on counsel. No, no, no,

that was all me. I made those decisions. That was, I was raising my hand and say, no, it wasn't the lawyers. It was me. I imagine there were defense lawyers putting their heads in buckets of water over the weekend. Right. And that's part of why I like this interview. So one of the things you get when you quote platform Donald Trump in the form of an interrogation is what you would get if you put Donald Trump on the stand, which is very useful in this case, as you point out, Charlie, an acknowledgement that setting aside advice of counsel, Trump made the decisions. He was the boss and you could see Kristen Welker trying to get him to say that, and he did say it. So that's legally significant. The other thing he says in that clip is that the election was over at 10

o'clock. He says, I knew at 10 o'clock the election was over. Now, this is interesting for a couple of reasons. Everything that happened after 10 o'clock, which a lot of other Republicans claim is reason to believe that there was a basis to believe the election was fraudulent. Right. He's saying he didn't pay attention to any of that. He decided at 10 o'clock when partial returns were in. So it's nothing subtle about this guy. He sees that he's ahead.

So all that evidence is out the window. But the other thing, Charlie, is he was told and there will will be evidence presented as there was to the January 6th committee, about the so-called red mirage. His own people told him, here's how the election will go. Which we talked about endlessly beforehand. Right. Yeah. This is not ex post facto. Everyone knew there would be the red mirage. Everyone knew this. We talked about this for weeks, that the early votes would be Republican, would be pro-Trump, and then there would be a wave of blue votes. And again, they try to pretend, they put this into the memory hole

that nobody knew this, nobody understood how this was going to happen. Everybody knew this was going to happen. Right. And there will be an argument here legally and politically that Trump therefore was lying. He was told about the red mirage, and then he just goes out and says, based on the red mirage, I declared the election over. But there is another scenario and I am, if I were a juror, I would come to this conclusion. Trump doesn't lie the way other people lie. Trump simply deflects all contrary information, all unwelcome information. To me, this is much more pathological than lying, right? And it's certainly a much bigger problem than Joe Biden's age. Joe Biden is a normal person who is aging. Donald Trump is a psychopath who has always been a psychopath. He may be a little

bit more of one than he was before, but only because he's less filtered. And to me, that is the fundamental question of this election. Do you want the old guy, the old normal guy, or do you want the psychopath? Every interview that is done with Trump. I'm sorry. You know, this is going to be a very long year. I mean, if this is the choice, you know, and this is our optimist. This is our staff optimist. We're all going, hey, it's senility versus psychopathy.

I agree with you, by the way. I'm going to go with the senility. I'm not saying he's senile. I'm just saying that this is what you get when you have the battle of the octogenarians. Speaking of other revealing moments, let's play the clip where Kristen Welker is asking him about January 6th, what he was doing on January 6th. I'm not going to play the extended cuts where he's lying about this or lying. I mean, that's part of the problem is like when he's talking about the courts and everything, it's just, there's an expression that I don't really understand about the Gish Gallop or something like that, where you just put out so much bullshit so fast, nobody can catch up with you. But let's play his discussion of what

he did and did not do on january 6th tell me how you watched this all unfold were you in the dining room watching i'm not going to tell you i'll tell people later at an appropriate time just so you understand however what did you do when the capital was under attack though let me just tell you in the moment that the capital did you see the statements i made in the Oval Office and just outside of the Oval Office? Absolutely. I was there that day. Our police are great.

We love our police. We love everybody. Go home. This was a beautiful statement. Well, that statement was made more than three hours after the attack started. But there were tweets that were put out before that. I want to know who you caught on that day. By the way, Nancy Pelosi.

Why would I tell you that? Listen, Nancy Pelosi was in charge of security. She turned down 10,000 soldiers. If she didn't turn down the soldiers, you wouldn't have had January 6th. Did you call military or law enforcement? What? Did you call military or law enforcement at the moment the Capitol was under attack? I'm not going to tell you anything.

I'm not going to tell you anything. This guy is going to plead the Fifth Amendment at some point, isn't he? On all this stuff. Well, he has in the past, right? Well, right. Okay. This is another reason why I'm a fan of this interview. Okay. So she gets to this topic, the 187 minutes that he sat there and watched the Capitol under attack. Right. And he has no answers. And he says, I won't tell you folks, just step back for a minute. Any normal human being, any normal president, the United States Capitol was under attack. People were coming in and telling him he's literally watching it on TV, would be able to answer this question about what he did. He would at least make up something. Trump is like, I'm not going to answer. He's like pleading the fifth. I'm not going to tell you what I was doing. What would I tell you? That's an amazing, an amazing statement of his pathology. Well, no, no.

Think about this. This actually really is. This is really good. When you think about it, here you have the guy who's the president of the United States during a national crisis. What did you do, Mr. President, during the national crisis? I'm not going to tell you. Why would I tell you that sort of thing?

It's super secret, double secret what I was doing. I had a plan. Well, you know, most presidents want to tell you, this is what I did during the crisis. I made this phone call. I did this, right? Right. Kind of a tell. Right. A little bit of a tell. Again, I commend Welker for being well prepared for this. She asks very specific questions. Did you call military or law enforcement? I won't answer. I think if he had an answer, he would have given it. I did call, but he didn't. He didn't. And so the interview lays that out. It'll be interesting if he does get to trial and has to testify about this. I don't think he'll testify. I agree with

you. He will never testify. But Charlie, to the extent that he doesn't testify, it's good that we can get reporters to get him to at least face the question on camera. Now, I was very interested in getting your take on all of this on an actual public policy question where he's asked about abortion. Now, he's in the past. Trump has distanced himself from some elements of the pro-life movement by suggesting that maybe they'd gone too far. But this was, I think, the most definitive statement that he'd made so far. So let's play the clip where he talks about whether he would sign a 15-week ban and his comments on his allies who have passed six-week bans, including in the state of Florida.

If a federal ban landed on your desk, if you were reelected, would you sign it at 15? Are you talking about a complete ban? A ban at 15 weeks? Well, people, people are starting to think of 15 weeks. That seems to be a number that people are talking about right now. Would you sign that? I would, I would sit down with both sides and I'd negotiate something and we'll end up with peace in that issue for the first time in 52 years. I'm not going to say I would or I wouldn't. Easy, easy, easy. I mean, DeSantis is willing to sign a five-week and six-week ban.

Would you support that? I think what he did is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake. Whoa, Will. Terrible thing, terrible mistake. Half the pro-life movement wakes up today realizing he's just thrown them under the bus. I saw some people on social media saying this is a big test now for the pro-life movement. How will they react? I'm sorry, spoiler alert.

They're just going to roll over on this. But give me your thoughts on all of this. I have some contrarian thoughts coming up, just so you know. Okay, so you and I come from opposite positions on abortion. I am not a pro-lifer, but my understanding of pro-lifers is that they are sincerely concerned about unborn life. And this is a values issue to them. This isn't, it's not like money. Okay. It's not like, well, you can have a little of this and all. So Trump literally says there, 15 weeks seems to be a number people are talking about. I mean, that's the way he thinks. He thinks this issue is like some economic negotiation, right? And he doesn't understand the

seriousness of the people who believe that it's murder. And he volunteers that line about DeSantis. He wants to run against the pro-life movement using the six-week versus the 15-week ban, which is interesting. Right. And this is the first time I've seen him do that. But it's not just DeSantis, who's on the other side of that question. Mike Pence is on the other side of that question. Mike Pence is saying abortion is an issue that we Reagan conservatives are very serious about. And even if it's politically costly, we're going to do the right thing and try to bring America along with us. Donald Trump is saying, you walk out on that branch and I'm going to saw you off.

And that's exactly what he's doing to DeSantis and to Pence and to the pro-life movement. So it's going to be very interesting to see what the response from the hardcore pro-life movement to people who do see this as a moral absolute. Let me give you my slightly contrarian take on all this. But of course, we also need to understand where Donald Trump comes from, that he is a man without any fixed principle whatsoever, who had, before he ran for president, not given really five seconds worth of thought to this. Do you remember early on, I think it was right here in my hometown of Milwaukee, he was being

interviewed by, I think it was Chris Matthews, who asked him, you know, well, under your abortion ban, would you put women in jail? And he said, well, yeah, I would. Because he had never thought about it before. He was thinking, what do pro-lifers think? And I'm going to say what I think they think. And of course, then he had to walk back. No, we're not going to put women in jail, or at least that's not his position. So he comes from this position of having no real principle at stake. He's pandered to the pro-life movement, but he does not share their moral

understanding of what abortion is. But having said all that, he settled on the 15-life movement, but he does not share their moral understanding of what abortion is. But having said all that, he settled on the 15-week issue because, and you and I have discussed this in the past, in terms of the polling and the politics, that is kind of a sweet spot, or it's a much sweeter spot than a six-week man. If you ask most Americans, and you have written about these polls more than I have, if you ask people, well, what do you think of, you know, abortions in the first 15 weeks? Most Americans say they should be allowed. After 15 weeks, most Americans are much more skeptical about it, right? I mean, people do think in trimesters.

There is a nuanced approach. And so he's coming down in a much more politically palatable position than, say, Ron DeSantis. And so this is going to be a fight about who is the most extreme on abortion. He is going to try to portray Democrats as being for abortion up until the moment of birth and after birth, which is a lot of that is bullshit. But he's trying to say that we're not extreme because we are going to allow abortions for the first trimester or so. And then our bands will only kick in later. So this is not a politically stupid move unless the pro-life movement were to revolt against him. And there's zero chance that will happen. So give me your thoughts. Yeah. Okay. So this is in the

big picture, a fight that is going on in the Republican party that Mike Pence articulated a week or so ago about populists versus conservatives, by which Pence means Reagan conservatives. And the three issues that Pence cites to say that he's different from Trump, Ukraine, America's role in the world, social security and Medicare entitlements, reforming entitlements, Trump saying, I won't touch it. And Pence says, that's the Biden position. And abortion. Pence says, I'm pro-life. I'm going to try to save as many babies as possible.

And Trump's like, I'm not, and I'm going to run against. So Trump is positioning himself to the left on all of those issues. And he's right politically. He's making the smart call. There's isolationism in the Republican Party to such an extent that the Ukraine position is about even right now. But on abortion, Trump is definitely taking a more politically palatable position than Pence is and DeSantis. And Charlie, on this 15-week question, you can draw a line at 15 weeks. You can draw a line at 20. That's

where they were before. Or at 24. As you go along in pregnancy, obviously more and more people say, ah, we should restrict abortion at that point. Six weeks versus 15 weeks is an enormous, enormous difference. Okay. That's where the abortions happen. There's so many women who don't even know at five weeks, six weeks that they're pregnant, right? Right.

A six week ban is effectively in a lot of ways, a ban on all abortions. A 15 week ban allows lots of women to get abortions. And Trump is choosing the politically safe position. And I don't know if it'll work for him in the primary. But if the pro-life movement doesn't care, it definitely will work for him in the primary. I do think that he's now thinking about the general election, because that's not something you would say in a Republican primary right now. You would not say how terrible that is unless he is feeling that this is something that he can use, you know, in a general election. But obviously it's also, I think it's going to be

worth watching what the reaction of the pro-life movement is because he didn't just say, I prefer a 15 week ban to a six week ban, right? He didn't just say, I am inclined to go with that as a compromise. He said the six week ban was a terrible thing, right? Now you have a lot of people that spend a lot of political capital and feel very, very deeply about all this. You may disagree with them. These are Trump supporters. These are part of the Trump base. These are the people who believe that they're willing to swallow anything because he was the guy that got Roe versus Wade overturned. And he is saying that what you did was terrible. Whoa, that's complicated.

Now, speaking of Ukraine, let's switch gears to that. Because if I'm following the back and forth on these budget negotiations carefully, which I'm not actually because. But it appears that they've come up, the Republicans have come up with a deal to get something passed. This is part of this kabuki dance. They know it's not going to go anywhere with the Senate, but the main street Republicans, the moderate Republicans have apparently signed on to a budget deal, which includes no funds for Ukraine. Our good friend, Adam Kinzinger had a scathing tweet about this, said these guys have caved in. They are not moderates. Political action committees,

business contributors take note of all of this. Vladimir Zelensky is coming to this country in the Senate. All 100 senators have been invited to meet with him, apparently. And again, these are early reports. Kevin McCarthy does not plan even a one-on-one meeting with him, apparently. And again, these are early reports. Kevin McCarthy does not plan even a one-on-one meeting with him. So here's another massive divide in the Republican Party over Ukraine. And we know which side Donald Trump comes down. Where do you think this goes? This issue is kind of amazing to me. I don't remember if it was in that speech about populism versus conservatism, but quite recently, within the last couple of weeks, Mike Pence has been saying, we don't need to be against funding Ukraine, we Republicans, because there's already a party of appeasement. Now, Charlie, you and I know, if you look at the votes in Congress on this, the party of appeasement today is the Republican Party.

If you look at the percentage of House Democrats or Senate Democrats who have voted that way. So the Republicans are the party of appeasement in Ukraine. This attempt to exclude funding for Ukraine from the budget deal is part of that. And the contrast that we're going to see when Zelensky arrives is this guy who Tucker Carlson has described as what some scumbag in a tracksuit, right? Somebody who's actually under fire and leading a country in wartime versus Kevin McCarthy, a man who doesn't have the courage to confront, you know, Marjorie Taylor Greene, right? So we're going to see a contrast between the courage of Zelensky and the cowardice of the man who won't

meet with him. That's good, Will. You got to write something about that. That is kind of inspired. So let's go back to the topic that so many of our listeners hate to have us talk about, which is these new polls would show that Donald Trump is running even with Biden or perhaps ahead of him. And the reason I say ahead of him, there's that one CBS poll showing him at 50 to 49. That's within the margin of error, right? But we know that with the electoral college being the way it is, if you're a Democrat,

you need to be ahead by, what do you, what would you say? Four points, five points to be able to win the presidency. So even is basically advantage Trump. Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 by 2% and beat Hillary. So you take that as a benchmark, you know, at least 3%. I look at that number and say, okay, given all of the

negatives for Donald Trump, that does show some weakness on the part of Joe Biden. And Joe Biden is having a pretty bad month right now. He's having a challenging month. You have the UAW strike. You have continued concerns over inflation. You have the indictment of Hunter Biden. You have the impeachment inquiry. You have this kind of media drumbeat narrative about the age, which has really come up. You have people like David Ignatius in the Washington Post saying he should step aside. I mean, there does seem to be a very compressed moment where it's Biden agonisties. So how much trouble is Joe Biden in right now? Would you say? You're asking the pony guy. So I'm going to tell you, I am asking this will pass. This will pay. I mean, it's Monday morning. That's why I want to ask the

pony guy. So people don't want to hear what I want to say. They want to hear what you want to say on this. The thing that's going to get worse is that Biden will continue to age for the next year and a half, right? And that's going to be a problem. But I think a lot of other things are going to go in a positive direction. Again, everyone just discount what I'm saying because I'm always wrong in an optimistic direction. But the economic numbers have been moving in a better direction in terms of wage growth beginning, just beginning to outpace price growth. So perceptions of the economy may begin to improve. But the other thing is, people are not seeing the pathology of Donald Trump enough. First of all, they're not seeing

the Liz Cheney ad or whatever it's going to be that's at the end where some sane Republicans are out there exhorting their own suburban supporters not to vote for this guy, which I think can make a difference at the end. But one of the reasons why I am in favor of these interviews of Trump, these interrogations of Trump is to underscore, to highlight the insanity of the man, not just the insanity, but you and I have discussed this, Charlie, Donald Trump has been found liable by a jury to have committed a sexual assault, to have digitally penetrated a woman. Which by the way is pretty amazing. I mean, could we just like note how remarkable that is? Right. And the testimony from E. Jean Carroll was that she told him, no, she pushed him away.

She signaled very clearly she didn't want him. He doesn't listen. And he doesn't listen in such a way that he preys on you. He attacks you. He did it to at least that woman. We have testimony of that. He's done it to other women. That's why he talked about grab them by the right. And he did it to our country. And he continues to not accept negative feedback. No, we don't want you. No, we didn't elect you. And he uses force. He uses coercion to try to get his way. That is the story of this upcoming election. In my opinion, that is the most important thing facing us. Any interview, any airing that centralizes that, that shows people that I believe will cause enough Americans to overcome their distaste with Joe Biden's age or whatever it is to make sure that Donald Trump doesn't

become president again. Well, as you know, I agree with you about what 2024 is about. I hope you are right about all of this. What I'm seeing though is a reminder of something that we've seen over the last eight years is the incredible power of whataboutism. And right now, you cannot have a discussion with any American voter without having Biden's age come up. But when you point out that Donald Trump is the most corrupt man ever to become president, the Republicans have now put into their holster the Biden crime family. They have come up with a whataboutism answer for almost everything. Now, no, it's bullshit. OK, there's no equivalency.

I certainly understand this. But in terms of the way it plays out politically, in terms of the way the human mind rationalizes embracing something as sleazy and evil as Donald Trump, people need to have a reason, a justification for doing something. And I won't say that it's politically smart, but there is that reptilian instinct. Make sure you accuse the other person of what I have been accused of. And even if you were to say, and I think the most serious allegation you could make, I mean, among them, there's so many, I mean, the danger of Trump 2.0, the fact that he is promising retribution, that he is

promising to weaponize the federal government. The average Republican voter now is going to say, well, what do you mean? Isn't that what Biden has done? Now, you and I know that's not true, but cutting through this incredible cloud of bullshit, this has been the challenge of our time. This has been the challenge going back to 2015. How do you cut through this? And again, the whataboutism, whatever you can come up with, they will be able to, and this worries me. And so this is the challenge, that there's a certain asymmetric warfare. And going back to my question, I wonder, I'm concerned whether the media has learned its lesson from 2016. I also wonder whether the Democrats understand exactly what they are up against and how the

rules of politics that existed in the before times will exist next year. So again, I agree with you about the stakes. I certainly hope you are correct in the case. But we've seen enough over the last eight years to be alarmed. And you look at these poll numbers. And the fact is that in a rational universe, Will, there's no way that Donald Trump would be a plausible candidate for reelection. Even Republicans, you know, who have been, you know, wish casting and telling themselves, well, don't worry, he can't win the nomination. Okay, right, on some gun charges, filing false forms for his gun. What is the Republican response to Hunter Biden being

indicted? Remember, their previous position was the Justice Department is biased. The complaint from every Republican who has commented is, oh yeah, they indicted Hunter, but only on the stuff that doesn't affect Joe Biden. In other words, they've been presented with facts that Hunter Biden is a sleaze. That's my position. Okay. But Joe Biden is not. And they're upset that the legal process didn't serve their political end. So they talk about weaponization of the law, but they're the ones who want the law to be weaponized to get their political target. And if it's not Joe Biden, they're not happy about it.

But to your larger point about rationality, no, I'm not an optimist about the American public. And I think one of the dangers of our country is we tell ourselves- I was telling you to be the optimist. We tell ourselves a story, is it, that we're an exceptional people, right? And that we have these values that other people don't have. All of these polls are showing us, Charlie, that's not true. There are way too many Americans who will vote for an authoritarian who don't care about facts, who don't care about a guy refusing to accept the peaceful transfer of power. So there isn't some indictment that's going to solve the problem for us. There isn't some impeachment. It's us. It's us. We're going to have to get out and get enough of our fellow

Americans. And I say 55%, whatever you need to do to get 55% of everybody behind Joe Biden. And that includes no Cornel West, no third party stuff. Everybody get behind and make Donald Trump lose this election and make the Republican Party begin to rethink whether Trumpism is a winning political strategy. I think that it's a two-step strategy. Number one, I think we have to persuade longtime Republican voters or Republicans who have, you know, been on the fence that party loyalty only goes so far, the binary choice only goes so far, your tribal loyalties only go so far, and you do not have to vote for Donald Trump. That's number one, to peel off those votes.

I think it is a taller mountain to right now make the case, and you must vote for Joe Biden. I think that the people who argue, you must vote for Joe Biden right now, lose a lot of those folks. I think what you need to do is say, is this who you are? Is this who you want to be? Is this who you stand for? Do you want to be complicit in all of this? And I understand that it would be better politically for them to move over. But right now, I do think that there's a value in just saying, I'm sorry, I'm just not going to vote for the guy. I'm not going to cast my votes. In a state like Wisconsin, if you have 20,000 Republicans, people who have voted for Republicans, for governor, for Senate, for congressman, for state representative, decide, yeah, I will vote Republican, but I'm not going to vote for Donald Trump.

That could swing the state. That could determine the election. So I'm more interested right now in saying, you do not have to support this guy. For a lot of conservatives, I think people need to understand, even in the anti-Trump movement, that the sale of you must vote for Joe Biden is a tougher sell. Maybe in the fall of 2024, we're going to have to make that case. But right now, step number one, don't go along with this shit. I think actually both of us, if're going to have to make that case. But right now, step number one, don't go along with this shit. I think actually both of us, if we just put our two proposals together, we have

a good answer, which is my advice for the left and your advice for the right, right? My advice is if you're on the left, don't splinter your vote and go off and vote for Cornel West or somebody else. Stand behind Joe Biden, even if you're unhappy with him about the UAW or whatever it is, right? Because we need to stop Trump. And your advice is much better for folks on the right, because everybody who follows your advice, Charlie, is one less vote for Trump. And that will help swing some of those states. Yeah. So what are you going to keep your eye on for the rest of this week? What are you looking at this week? Well, I've been trying to write about Nikki Haley and abortion for a couple of weeks. So I'm going to get back to that a little bit. Nikki Haley is articulating some

very sensible ideas about abortion, that we shouldn't judge others, that you can be pro-life and not punish other people. It makes a lot of sense to me. And these are all arguments why you should be pro-choice. So that is the case that I'm making. It'll be interesting to see that as I, going back to the debate on abortion, whether or not the argument will be that, well, so Donald Trump turns out to be pro-choice for the first 15 weeks. I would be interested to know whether they're willing to use that rhetorical tool because that's going to get messy. Will Salatan, it has been great talking with you today and great seeing you. To actually, you know, see you on screen, which, you know, it is kind of a treat sitting here in my office actually seeing another human being. I'm going to have to upgrade my tie collection. I'm looking at you. You look good.

Okay. See, I just finished doing a thing, you know, and I didn't want to change, you know, and so never change, Charlie, never change, never change. All right. 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.