The Dispatch Podcast - Voting Against Kamala | Interview: Hugh Hewitt

Episode Date: October 30, 2024

Jamie is joined by nationally syndicated radio host and political commentator Hugh Hewitt to explain why he thinks a Kamala Harris presidency would be disastrous enough to justify a vote for Donald Trump. This is the second part of a double episode. Listen to Jamie talking with David Frum for the case for voting against Trump. The Agenda: —Does Harris believe in anything? —Friends to Israel —The case for Trump —Trump’s foreign policy —The John Kelly remarks —Trump’s staff —J.D. Vance and Tucker Carlson —Against Never Trumpers The Dispatch Podcast is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch’s offerings—including members-only newsletters, bonus podcast episodes, and weekly livestreams—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to The Dispatch podcast. I'm Jamie Weinstein. We are publishing on a different day than usual, and that's because I promised you a case for Trump. We did the case for Harris with David Frum, and I worked assiduously last week to try to find someone to do the case for Trump and came up empty-handed, probably a dozen people, even some didn't respond, some said they didn't want to talk it out because they might change their minds. Others had scheduling issues, or at least so they said. But one the people that had a scheduling issue was able to do it this week. And our guest today is Hugh Hewitt, a nationally syndicated talk show host. Former moderator of a lot of the 2016 Republican debates, he writes columns for the Washington Post and Fox News. And I'm sure most of you know who he is, a very well-known commentator, also someone who show that I used to guest host for back before the Trump era. Something of a friend of mind, I guess. I haven't seen him in many years. I think you're going to find the conversation interesting. I think we both approach it in a friendly manner, but it is, I think, shows a wide economy between those

conservatives supporting Trump and those not. So without further ado, I give you the case for Trump with Hugh Hewitt. Hugh Hewitt, welcome to the Dispatch podcast. Good to be back with you, Jamie. First time on the dispatch, but it's been a couple of years. Good to see you. Great to see you, Hugh, and it's an honor to have you. And, in fact, of my many influences, my interview style, you probably are, if not the most important, close to it.

So it is great to have you on the show to make the case for Trump. We had David Frum about 10 days ago make the conservative case for Kamala Harris, which was basically a negative case against Trump. But I wanted to hear someone make, for our audience, the case for Trump. And I don't think there is as many people out there that can try to make a compelling case as you. So I'm very happy for you to do it. But before we get to that case for Trump, I want to start with the vice president. You have followed her probably longer than most because you lived in California.

What do you make of the vice president? In Central Park, in an event after the 2016 election with Van Jones, I said she was in. a uniquely charismatic figure whom she was then the Attorney General of California and she had risen up quickly through the Bay Area ranks. And I said to Van that I think she had a national future before she was in the Senate. Spontaneous standing ovation. It's a Central Park, New York City crowd. So it's a lefty crowd. And they knew who she was and they liked her. They liked her backstory. She never had a competitive primary. She barely beat Stephen Cooley, who was a very Stollett, not really a Republican. He ran as a Republican in order to get to the finals in the

Attorney General's race. Then she won re-election handily. She beat Loretta Sanchez and a jungle primary Democrat on Democrats. She had all the money in all the San Francisco. So she'd never, ever actually run a competitive race until there's presidential race. And she hasn't won one Democratic vote in one primary. So I think all the flaws, and I do think she is the least skilled presidential nominee of my lifetime from a major party, by a lot, by a lot. And that goes back to 1976. I think it all comes from a lack of being obliged to know your own mind and learn how to express it and not to get stuck in talking points out, stuck in talking points out, which she is right now. So what do I think about her? I thought she was really a talent and I was wrong.

Well, here's a question. Obviously, she hasn't been, hasn't done a lot of interviews. Certainly ones that have pressed her on flip-flops, which you and I both know she has many. But most of them are flip-flops from a zeitgeist of a time where it was a left-wing zeitgeist to a time where she's now trying to appeal to the middle. Mike, my question, does she have an ideological core? Do you believe that there is something deep within her that got her into politics? Or do you think that she is kind of an open vessel to whatever is popular at the moment? I think she's a Bay Area Radical. When you grow up in Berkeley for 10 or 12 years and you move to Montreal and then you go to Howard and then you return to San Francisco to work on the district attorney's office, when you win the San Francisco race and the California Attorney General's race because of the backing of the San Francisco machine, which is different from the L.A. machine. I lived in California from 2000 and from 1989 into 2016. The Bay Area machine is very powerful. It's very left way, very progressive. It's more progressive than New York City.

It's actually kind of crazy. But if you're going to climb those rings, those rungs of that ladder, you're going to say what everyone else says. I don't know that she has an independent thought, but what she thinks is taken 100% from the Bay Area radical left. And it is, if you read Michael Schellenberger's book, San Francisco, it explains what happens in San Francisco to normal people. They go way left. We had Jonathan Martin on the show recently, and he has gotten an interview that I'm sure everybody wants to get, which is Willie Brown.

He's spent a couple lunches with Willie Brown and San Francisco. And he describes Willie Brown, and you follow him much more closer than I have, as kind of a transactional guy, whatever was necessary to be in politics. And there was some insinuation during those lunches that maybe Kamala Harris is just like that, that, you know, show, you know, be what is necessary to get elected. You don't buy it. Well, I, yeah, I've been doing this since 1990, and I did LATV from 1992 to 2002. I interviewed the Ben Speaker of the California Assembly often. I said Willie Brown is among my top five interviews ever.

He's just absolutely fabulous. And the one takeaway line was, we lean for it. Hugh, sometimes I must admit I simply enjoy the raw exercise of power. He is a purely transactional guy who loves the game. That's not the vice president. The vice president comes out of the machine. Willie Brown was the machine. So he picked winners, but then it went left.

It left Willie Brown behind. Willie Brown is now conservative by San Francisco standards. So, you know, it sounds like you'll disagree with this. But those of us, and I'm one of them, who is voting for the vice president, We'll make the hopeful argument. It's really a vote against Trump. The hopeful argument is that she didn't have to run in a primary, and therefore she didn't have to pivot left this time.

She had the convention speech with the American flags. They didn't let kind of the Palestinian pro-Hamas or pro-Palestinian voices come to speak, that she's elected on that platform and not the platform she might have been elected if she ran left. And because she comes from this Willie Brown world, she's kind of a transactional. And she didn't really believe maybe what she was saying in 2020. that she will be less left-wing than maybe she would have been

if she was elected in 2020. You say- I'm susceptible to wishcasting too, Jamie. There's absolutely no basis for that. There's no basis for that. She's a radical. She's from the left-wing, and you have to know San Francisco

to understand how bad it is when you come from Berkeley. Berkeley is like even more radical than San Francisco. She is a leftist. And I don't think she's a particular, particularly skilled leftist and the wish casting, if she had half of Willie Brown's talent, I'd be less worried. I don't think she has the minimum skills to be president.

Were you surprised, though, about the convention? I was surprised. It was much different than, I mean, people thought there would be riots in the streets. The guy from the big short was claiming that's why Trump was going to win. There's going to be all these pictures of riots burning the American and Israeli flag in the streets, and there just wasn't. No, because, although I think she will be the most anti-Israel president since the founding of the state in 1948. I did not expect riots in the street because the Democratic machine is very powerful in the area around it. They had the protest areas. They weren't going to have 1968 again. I've never bought into that. You know, in 2016, they thought Cleveland was going to be overwhelmed by leftists and Donald Trump

got the nomination, really one of the most boring outside the arenas ever. So no, I'm not surprised by that, but I think you're wishcasting. If you are a friend of the state of Israel, I do not know how you vote for Kamala Harris. She refuses to say anything beyond Israel has a right to defend itself. Doesn't commit to sending them weapons, doesn't commit to supporting them against Iran, has not said, yay, yay, go. They took out all of the S-300s in Iran last week. She is going to be bad for Israel. So if it matters to you, that she's going to be terrible. Well, I want to get to Trump. But let me just ask you the news report that came out today, because I know that you are a strong friend of Israel and support them in the war they're fighting. Apparently,

the Times of Israel, you have a guest from that paper on many times. Yeah, they're reporting that Donald Trump has told Beebe that he wants the war wrapped up by his inauguration. What do you make of that? I think that's probably what he said tell him. He told me six months. I've interviewed three times in six months. And the former president has said each time, Israel has to win fast. Israel has to win fast. I think Israel has one, in essence. When they blew up the Hezbollah cavern and they've taken out 80% of the missiles, according to the prime minister, they took out. Iran now knows if they take a third shot at Israel, they're going to lose everything because now all their air defenses are gone. So I think Israel is one, they just have to organize the withdrawal. I agree with you.

And I would go further out. I would take out their nuclear program to the extent that they can. But doesn't that mitigate the risk of an anti-Israel democratic administration if Israel is already one? It does. I mean, if people are willing to say she's going to be anti-Israel, but we're over that. We're not at risk. fine, but I don't know that she will be able to deliver Saudi Arabia because the Ben Rhodes worldview that Iran is a superpower in the region that ought to be treated as such remains the dominant ideology in the Biden White House and what I expect will be the Kamala Harris administration should that fell thing come to pass. Let's get to Trump. You moderated several

debates with him. You've interviewed him many times. Have you ever met him outside of that? Yeah. What does he like? What has he been in? on personal level with you. Charming, as everyone else will tell you. First time I sat down with Jake Tap Brown, I don't think it was off the record. We were getting ready for the debate. He had met Trump and had played golf with him, I think. He said, you're going to be charmed by this guy. He's a developer. I spent 27 years working for developers. He's like every other developer who puts their name on billing. Three kind of developers, publicly traded, privately traded without their name on it, and privately held with their name on it. Lusk, the Baldwin brothers, the Trump company.

in that last category, they're all the same. Deal-driven, absolutely fanatical work ethics. They'll do whatever they need to get the deal done. They'll be whomever they need to be in whatever room that they're in in order to get the deal done. And they never stay mad. So they can be screaming and suing you, but tomorrow, if a deal comes along that Hugh and Jamie ought to do together, forget about that. Let's do a deal.

And so he's a fabulously successful developer, too. He's had six bankruptcies, but that's not unusual in that business. It's one of those things that people don't know anything about development. You do limited partnerships. It doesn't work. You go bankrupt. Everyone loses their money. They go home and they don't complain.

He's a very clever, very cunning, very street smart guy who, like the vice president, doesn't, I think, particularly spend a lot of time on ideology. I think he's Nelson Rockefeller, but Nelson Rockefeller collected art and Donald Trump collects golf courses. I wasn't going to go down this direction. But just that I would love your thought process behind it. You say he's a really successful developer. I think Mark Cuban uses this line on TV. Why is he doing World Liberty Financial, this Bitcoin thing while he's running for president?

He's selling Trump Bibles. Why he's running for president? You know, someone who's terribly successful developer would not usually go in to do those kind of quirky and lowbrow things. Every developer right now likes to make money. And if there's low-hanging fruit, you know, truth social has skyrocketed on the market. I don't know if it fell again today. It's one of those meme stocks like GameStop and...

It could be his biggest asset if he sells it. Yeah, and so I just think he likes to make money. And as far as I can tell, it's completely legal. You know what, Jamie, you're telling me something. There is... Never Trumpers fall into two kinds of category. The Liz Cheney, he's a threat to the Constitution, and the people who have an aesthetic objection

that is so deep they cannot overcome it. Yours is the aesthetic objection. Really not the aesthetic. It's probably more than the... ladder, and we'll get to that. It's really not the aesthetic. I kind of like people like that. Interesting why, while running for president, you would, I mean, I don't know if you read about World Liberty Financial. Oh, yeah, I read about all the, and the shoes, right? The tennis shoes. The World Liberty Financial read like a parody, the type of people that he got in business with here.

But he likes to make money, and he's got a brand. Yeah, he does. Let me, let me ask you, when you started interviewing him, he didn't like you very much. part because you asked him questions that stumped him. He still gets mad at me. He likes you now. What do you think change? No, he gets mad at me sometimes. What do you think is changed?

He won't talk to me for two months at a time if something goes wrong, but then he'll get over. Yeah. What do you think change is in between those? He knows that I'm a fair broker and I'll ask difficult questions and I'm not going to try and trick him. The one time I tried to trick him, I got an earful off the record because I didn't try and trick him, but he thought he was trying to be ambushed. But I asked straightforward questions, should he is real retaliate against?

to run, yes. They have a right to. They have an absolute right to go after them. I asked him about Jimmy Lai the last time he was on. He said, he'll get him out. I listened to that. Do you think he realized that Jimmy Lai was not an American citizen? Do you think it would have made a difference if he realized who Jimmy Lai was? Yes, because I told him exactly what the circumstances were beforehand. If you listen to it, I set it up so that I wouldn't trick him. Because I don't want to trick people. I want to here's a Chinese. But there was not great audio on that. I did wonder if he knew It was bad audio. First time in on 30 exchanges with Trump, we've had bad connection. I thought he was on Air Trump one, but he wasn't. I got a later call from his comm team saying, we're

sorry he was in a part of a state that has bad reception. But I could understand him well enough. And maybe he didn't hear that. But he does get Americans out. But it's pretty hard not to know who Jimmy Lye is. I really think it's pretty hard not to know who Jimmy Lye is. I'll take a bet on that. Next time he comes back, ask him about Jimmy Lye and see if he has Two sentences on it. Let's go to the case for Trump. This episode is brought to you by Squarespace. Squarespace is the platform that helps you create a polished professional home online.

Whether you're building a site for your business, your writing, or a new project, Squarespace brings everything together in one place. With Squarespace's cutting-edge design tools, you can launch a website that looks sharp from day one. Use one of their award-winning templates or try the new Blueprint AI, which tailors a site for you based on your, goals and style. It's quick intuitive and requires zero coding experience. You can also tap into built-in analytics and see who's engaging with your site and email campaigns to stay connected

with subscribers or clients. And Squarespace goes beyond design. You can offer services, book appointments, and receive payments directly through your site. It's a single hub for managing your work and reaching your audience without having to piece together a bunch of different tools. All seamlessly integrated. Go to Squarespace.com slash dispatch for a free trial, and when you're ready to launch, use offer code dispatch to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. If I just said, what is the conservative case for Trump? You probably think this is a slam, a grand slam pitch here, the easy pitch.

What is the conservative case for Trump? There are three parts to it. One is personal. I have family in the Gulf that the Houthis are shooting at every day. They're going to get lucky someday. That will stop when Trump is president. Number two, that's not, number two is not personal. Defense spending in the United States is at 2.9%.

It is scheduled according to the Congressional Budget Office to go to 2.4% by 2034. We've got to reverse that. We have to rebuild our Navy. We have to rebuild our technology advantages. We need the B-21. We need the Columbia class. Comalera doesn't know anything about us. She doesn't care about it.

She's going to cut defense spending. And I am deeply concerned about that. We have her recruitment crisis that she can't solve. In fact, I think it's partly because the military appear as woke as opposed to lethal and that young men are not joining in the same rate that they used to. And then I return to my favorite. His judges are great. Her judges are terrible.

And by that, I mean, we have saved the Constitution because of Donald Trump. And I have yet to meet any. Pete Wainer and I did a, you know, Pete's a never trumper. But he's a good guy. Been a friend of mine forever. We did a CNN bit after Gorsuch. And I said, Pete, you know, if he gets a second appointment, you're going to have. have to admit it was a good idea to vote for him, and Pete wouldn't admit it. Well, now we've got

three, an originalist court, we're back on the rails, and we'll probably get, we'll probably replace Alito and Thomas if Trump wins, and the court will be secure for 15 or 20 years, and that's great. And by the way, it hurt us electorally. It hurt us electorally to do jobs. I'm the first person to say that, but it is the constitutionally correct decision, and now it's up to the states to decide what they want to do. So judges and defense, that's the case for Trump. If I have a minor point, he's the only guy who actually did deregulation since Reagan. And his two-for-one, for every new rule I want to repealed, was a very good thing. But he's got a much better sense of who's a serious person now.

We're not going to get any Rex Tillerson's. God save us that Peter Navarro comes back. We're going to end up with Mike Pompeo's and Doug Bergams with Robert O'Brien's. And justice is a bit of a question mark. not sure he's going to put it justice, but it'll be a very fine administration. We'll get to personal a second. Is there any question Peter Navarro is coming back? He went to jail for Donald Trump.

No, there shouldn't be. There shouldn't be. Peter's a leftist. Do you know Peter? I've known Peter for 30 years. I listened to you, your tales about Peter and his time. But do you have any doubt that Peter Navarro is going to get a high-level position if he wants it? He went to jail.

Trump respects loyalty more than anything else, and this guy went to jail for him. Donald Trump assess his wrists. And like every good developer understands sunk cost. Peter and Steve are sunk costs. You don't double down on a loser. I would like to bet you a steak dinner that Navarro ends up and sets up close. Well, not at the White House, right? I don't know.

They could put him over at the, you give me the most obscure commission. You know, he might be in the occupational safety and health administration. I don't know. I'm not going to focus too much on policy because I saw your interview with Charles Cook from National Review. And, you know, he like me. What do you think about that? Uncertain policy, policy things. I do wonder.

Every policy. Every policy. But two of the ones you mentioned in your three, I just want to touch on because I didn't know those were going to be the three. The defense spending, you were always big on building the Navy. Did Trump do that in its first term to the extent that you thought you should? Not to the extent. He said 335.

He got up to 292. O'Brien got there late. He was very bad at defense. Mattis turned out. to be, unfortunately, not as effective. What General Mattis did was restocked the cupboards. If you saw the Wall Street Journal two days ago, the coverage are bare again. We're down to almost no air defense missiles. We've given them to Israel. We've given them to Ukraine. They take a while to produce. We're going to have to restock the cupboard. It's going to cost money.

We talked about shipbuilding in my most recent interview. We used to produce on the Kennebec River in Maine 17 destroyers a year in World War II. We do one and a half a year now. We need Arlie Burke destroyers, but mostly we need the Columbia class, and we need Joe Lonsdale to make up lethal submersibles. We need to break contracting at the Pentagon. She'll never do it. He might. Joe Lonsdale or Lerick Palmer Lucky? Who does the submersibles? There are a bunch of both of those guys. Chris Lucky does. Lucky does. Lucky Palmer does drones. Joe Lonsdale does submersibles. And the other one, the judges, obviously the judges was an issue that many people used to say, I would have voted for Trump other than that I have to

from for the judges, the Supreme Court. Isn't that the judge is now no longer as relevant with the Supreme Court? No, I mean, Sean Roberts is older than me. I worked with John in the Lighthouse. But you have six. They have six. There are six of them. Clarence Thomas is 74, 76. Sam Alito is 74, 72. Those are kids on the Supreme Court. No, but they don't want to be. That's a, that's a Ginsburg thing. We don't, if there's one constitutional amendment I will support, doesn't apply to current justices, you've got to leave at age 75. We don't want 75-year-old judges. We don't. Do you have any, I mean, I'm sure your concerns about tariffs and what they will do with the economy, what he might do at the Fed to, you know, there was an article on how the uncertainty

of what he might do and that might do to markets. Is that concern you at all? I'm Jekyll Hyde on tariffs. Throw them all on China. China is a moral threat to the United States way of living. I also would punish the EU for punishing Apple. and Google and Elon Musk, I would punish the UK for trying to put Elon Musk out of business, which they're trying to do. Tariffs are a weapon of national security. As a matter of economics, I hate them. I know he loves them.

We disagree. NATO, John Bolton, obviously, someone who used to have on your show a lot. I don't know if he's still a regular guest on the show. No. And you supported when he went into the administration. He's pretty convinced Trump will pull out of NATO. Why is that not a concern to you? Because Robert O'Brien has told me he won't.

And just to the listeners know, Robert O'Brien is one of your long time and maybe your best. One of my closest friends, my former law partner and the last national security advisor for the former president and Mike Pompeo is a close friend. These guys are hawks. They believe in their national alliance. But why do you hang your hat so much on person? You know Trump gets rid of personnel all of the time? Is that you think that O'Brien is able to like navigate Trump's ego?

I mean, why do you think that he is, he will not end up like a Bolton? And he will not end up like. Well, I don't know that you're coming back in. But I know that the model, in fact, the person very close to Trump, not named O'Brien or Pompeo told me, we did not know what we were doing when we got here when it came to personnel. Now we know what we're doing. And I do believe they know what they're doing. And the kind of model you want, Robert O'Brien was the managing partner of the Los Angeles arm

of Aaron Fox. That's where we became partners together. To be a managing partner of a big law firm means you have to manage clients and colleagues. and that's what the National Security Advisor has to do. I hope Pompeo comes back. I expect Tom Cotton to be back. I think Michael Waltz will be in there. I believe we will have Reaganots throughout that administration. Well, let's delve into where I think you're smart enough to know where the real concerns of many never-trumpers are. And you wrote a column kind of discussing it in January, which is entitled, 2024 is an election about 10-7, not 1-6. You write, if anyone genuinely believes

that Donald Trump is a threat to democracy, they've either drunk the Kool-Aid or spilled it on their copies of the Constitution. It is a silly alarm, one that should be laughed at, not indulged, but it isn't news that the never-Trump or banned has gotten back together because they never broke up. I'll let you laugh at me, but then please indulge me why that is a silly concern. Because the Constitution is very strong. I've been teaching constitutional law for 27 years. It has gotten us through crisis after crisis. The court is an originalist court. I don't know what you think what if Mike Pence had actually refused to count the votes, what do you think would have happened, Jamie? The answer is, you know, I think likely the institutions would stand.

Because before it would have ordered him to count the vote. I think. I think. But, you know, when I wrote my first column, say I'm going to vote for Hillary, I thought it was alarmist when I said, you know, there's a 5% percent percent chance that Trump will try to remain in power. And people did say it was alarmist at the time. I'm like, yeah, I mean, maybe it's 5 percent, not 10. He tried to stay in power. So, you know, institutions crumble sometimes. And so far we've been very strong because of our strong institutions. It does seem to be a risk on someone who doesn't really care much for them. The institution that is crumbling right now is legacy media. The institution that has fallen apart is one that would cover Kamala Harris in depth and tell us exactly what she believes and they've

abdicated. They won't even ask her tough question, Jamie. And here's the problem that never Trumpers have to confront. The consequences of her presidency would be far worse because they could go eight years than anything you can imagine with Donald Trump, unless you're telling me he's going to stay beyond his second term, which I think is a fool's argument. You're dismark. Can I ask you a theoretical question? If Donald Trump had a red button, he has a red, you remember he told, my red button's bigger than yours. Yeah, yeah. But let's say it a red button and that button would allow him to stay in power in 2020, even though he knew he lost the votes. Do you think you'd hit that button? I don't generally don't understand what you're asking. Do you think if he could

stay in power? He thinks the election was stolen. Richard Nixon thought the election was stolen. How sure are you that? I mean, there are people that told Kellyanne Conway, can you believe I lost to this guy? I mean, how sure of you that he believes he lost that he stole the election? Only to the extent that any observer can be. I just think he believes it because of the way he acted it afterwards and a confidential conversation that I can't discuss with you. I don't think he won. I wrote in the Washington Post the next day it was over, but I do believe he believes he thought he won.

I don't think he was like. Can I just, I mean, you agree that they were, he might not have been spearheading it, but Bannon and others were trying to delay the groundwork beforehand for claiming that he won the election, even if he didn't. Yes. And guess what? It wouldn't have worked. It will never work.

The Constitution is very strong. But it leads to the question of whether he knew that they were doing that, and therefore he knew that he might have lost the election, because he was engaged. If he knew, he would have been charged with that by Jack Smith, and he was not. All right, Jack Smith is a fanatic, a Javert of our time. And I asked him, will you fire Jack Smith? He said within two seconds, if there was any evidence for Russia, Russia, Russia, Mueller and Weissman would have gotten him. If there was any evidence for he knew about this and orchestrated a conspiracy, Jack Smith would have charged it. He did not charge it.

All right? He did not charge it. Do you think, though, that he was trying to stay in power? I think he would have done any legal thing, and he had been advised that it was legal to try and send alternative electors. I do not think it would sufficiently stand up to court scrutiny. But, but Jamie, everything he did, the objections, all that different stuff, have been done before. I'm not worrying about that. It's not going to happen again.

It's the second term. How do you know that? I'm worried about the country. I'm worried about my family in the Gulf. I'm worried about Israel. I'm worried about the fact that 50,000 military-aged Chinese males have crossed the border. Are you worried, James, about a minimum 10.5 million people who come into the country? Are you worried that a man in Chicago, a Jewish man with a Kippa on, was shot by an Al-Aqbar

yelling illegal immigrant on Saturday and wasn't charged with a hate crime? Hugh, as you might have heard before, this is an interview, not a debate. Tush. Well played, Mr. I've listened to many of your interviews, Hugh. So let me ask you this. I think you may be putting a lot of faith and hope, and you might be right, but I didn't think he would try to overturn the election. I thought it was a small chance last time, and he did.

My question is, even in the best case scenario, which I do think there is one. I think it's not always, you know, if he wins, I hope people don't catastrophize it because there is a decent chance that there is a good outcome here. But I think even in the best case scenario, there's a real risk that people like General Millie and Liz Cheney wake up to find that they have legal problems or an IRS audit. Do you think that is crazy? You know what? Again, go back to a developer.

There is no upside in that for him. He told me in my last interview, I could have prosecuted Hillary and I didn't. That's bad for the country. I think he genuinely cares about stuff like that and that he will be pursuing a legacy in a presidential library. It just wants to win, and nobody wants to be president at 82. You see Joe Biden at 81. Nobody wants to be president 82.

The best argument against Trump is his age, and they haven't prosecuted that argument. But don't, so I remember being at a party in D.C., and I won't say the person's name because, I mean, it was off the record. I'm not going to say it's a super senior Trump official, but it was not a minor Trump official who believed that the president if he had the power to tell someone to audit somebody. the IRS to audit somebody. We know that Donald Trump wanted Zelensky to open an investigation into Hunter Biden, and we know that he tried to get the DOJ to do that as well.

Do you believe that Trump believes he has the power to go after his enemies in that way? I don't know, but if he does think that he wouldn't use it because he was friends with Richard Nixon. Do you know that, Jamie? He was pretty good friends with Richard Nixon. They got to know each other in New York. They had dinner a few times. He knows the Nixon story very well, though he's wrong about a few parts. of it. His wife wrote a letter saying that you'll be a fine president. And they got together.

They saw each other. You think they're talking details of the Constitution and what you can and cannot do? Do you think Trump's read the Constitution? Nixon with Trump on three occasions. He knows what went wrong with Nixon, which was an enemy's list. There will be no enemies list. There will be only achievement-driven agenda. No vengeance, no looking backwards. If you ask him about people he doesn't like, he'll tell you what he thinks. But if we simply talk policy, he will talk policy. He wants to be remembered as a great president. That's what he wants. You don't get there by going after enemies. Let me, let me end kind of the January 6th. On one incident, Hugh, which I do think encapsulates why I think is why Trump is kind of disqualifying. And it really

doesn't have any, I don't think you need to know that he believed what he was saying was right or wrong, because it's really independent of that. It's at moments after he leaves his speech where he goes to the dining room off the Oval Office, and for three hours, he's watching on his television screen what's going on at the Capitol. He is repeatedly told by members near him that he needs to do something, put out a video. He issues some subpar tweets over time. He gets a call from Kevin McCarthy, who say the rioters are trying to eff and kill him. And he responds, well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are. He's told about Mike Pence being potentially rushed out.

He says, so what? The Capitol is under attack. His VP is under attack. And Trump basically sits on his hands for three hours. I don't know how to get around that. It's a derelution of duty so immense that it's, it's a dereliction of duty so immense that it, kind of spans partisan divide. How, how should I get around that? How does one get around that? Thank you. You have a binary choice. It's your going to be Donald Trump or Kamala Harris.

Kamala Harris will be a disaster for this country. A freaking disaster. If you've been to San Francisco, where are you in, are you in San Francisco now? You know up in L.A. L.A., have you been down to what used to be called Skid Row, but it's now two square miles of homeless encampments? I have not, not been there. there with Judge Carter. I've been there for the hearings on that. The domestic policies of the Democrats will cause a dependency that is extraordinary. The border will be left open. We will be hit by terrorists. We will not support Israel. We will draw down our defense stockpiles to the point where all of our allies will be endangered that we might be saying verbally, we're with you, NATO.

We're not going to be able to help them in anything. China will take Taiwan. We won't do anything. The world will be upside down. And we will never catch up to the lead that China establishes in the next four years. That is why, in your binary choice, you have to choose not between Trump and Harris, but between Harris and Xi Jinping. Because he, Xi Jinping's going to win if you elect Harris. He's not going to win if you elect Trump. But that essentially says that Trump is right about Fifth Avenue. He could take like a machine gun down Fifth Avenue and shoot him. No, no, he's still a binary choice. No, he wouldn't be nominated if he had done that. Most people, including me, do not on the primary

if he did that? I don't think he would have. But the counterfactuals, what we're dealing with is what he did. I do not approve of the conduct. I tweeted at the time I wrote the next day. It was a failure. All presidents fail. He did not take in the enormity or the immensity of what was happening. He did say in his speech, march peacefully to the Capitol. That's why Jack Smith did not charge him. There were people who were going to attack the Capitol. It is true that Nancy Pelosi turned down the troops. It is true. It was an application on everybody's side. This example is independent of that, whether he said March 14th. I know. It's a failure. It's not a disqualifying failure. I would not vote to impeach on that. Moreover, he wasn't impeached. Yeah. And, you know,

I think McConnell made a mistake there. And I think if he'd been impeached, it would have been a disaster for every notion we have of due process. I'll argue this all day with any lawyer like David French or anyone who knows about the fundamentals of our due process law. If he had been impeached, it would have been without a fair trial and hearing on the evidence. And therefore, that three hours show a character of someone who cares way more about his feelings. Well, it shows a failure in my, in my estimate, it shows a failure is his to act at a crucial moment. But when it came time to kill Soleimani, when Soleimani landed in Iran to kill Americans, he took him out. When it was time to hit Assad when he was using gas on his people, he took

care of that problem. He acts when he has to. People are afraid of him. He is his own deterrent. I'm interested in the national interest of the United States, not a failure of five years ago. But when he heard his vice president was under attack, he says, so what, and sits on his hands? I mean, it seems like he cares more about his feelings. I mean, if maybe his feelings are in play in Soleimani, it would be a different story. Jamie, there are facts and evidence that you are proposing that are facts in the record. And I do not believe that there's a record because Liz Cheney cooperate. This is my only knock on Liz, is that when they put the committee together,

Jim Banks was named the ranking member. Nancy Pelosi did not want a fair inquiry into what happened. So I reject everything that happened there as every appeals court in the United States rejects any proceeding that does not allow for the accused to be represented fully in the court. And therefore, all of the January 6th stuff is out the window with me because I'm a constitutionalist. And I hope you are, too. But even if he did do that, let's say hypothetically, the record is right. It's not disqualified.

I don't do counterfactual. I'm dealing with a binary choice. We have to make, I already voted for Trump, so I already made mine. I want people to vote for Trump because I want the United States to be protected. All presidents are imperfect. Lincoln picked McClellan, then he picked Meade, then he picked. Who was the drunk guy in the saddle at Chancellorsville? I can't remember.

I mean, he picked Burnside. Lincoln was terrible at something, but he knew the most important thing was keeping the United States of America together. Trump gets that too. John Kelly, I remember first hearing John Kelly's name with a podcast with Tom Conn. I'm going to demur because he's a gold star father, and I will not criticize him. Do you think he's lying about what? I'm not going to discuss John Kay. He's a gold star father.

So, I mean, it's interesting. So, so, but I mean, that's kind of his case here, that he's probably telling the truth given. Try a third time, and I'm going to say a third time, I do not discuss John Kelly. He's a gold star father. We owe him nothing but admiration for the sacrifice of his son in the defense of the country. If someone close to the president who worked with him called, it worked him every day, called him the most flawed human being in the history that he's ever met. Hypothetical.

The people I know who has worked close with him think he has got moments of genius mixed up with ordinary days like everyone else. And I know people who know him very, very, very well. Yeah. You got have a great second team. Yeah. Well, let me talk about his team a little bit. You read probably as much as anybody. I know when you want to learn something, you put the Chinese leaders up on your wall, so you learn all the Chinese leaders. I listen to your show with you. I listen to your interviews. So I'm asking, is there any parallel that you know of in U.S. history?

We're such a large number of high-level people that work for Trump outside of General Kelly, turn against them. I just put a list here. This is a small. but significant, I think. His vice president, Mike Pence, one of his chiefest Japs, John Kelly. Two of his national security advisors, John Bolton and General McMaster. Two confirmed Secretary of Defense's, General Mattis and Mark Esper, and one of his directors of national intelligence, Dan Coates. Is there any parallel in U.S. history where that many significant people that work so closely with Trump, with the president, said, we can't support him? Not that I'm aware, But is it meaningful?

Doesn't seem to people. Why? Because Kamala Harris has gone through more staff than he did, both in the Senate and the vice president. She will be a disaster on her staff. She's a terrible boss. Did those staff come out and say that she should not be? They haven't been asked because our media is an extension of the DNC

communications department. But they don't have to. They can write op eds. They can, I mean, these people came out often. You don't understand how the Democratic Party works, Jamie. It's Omerta. We don't do that. Let me frame it in one slightly different.

You try again, but all I'm going to say is you're down to Harris. I mean, this is the fundamental thing. It's what I went through with Charles C.W. Cook. If you care about the Constitution, if you care about the national security, if you care about our allies, you can't vote for her. But the people I picked, Hugh, were somewhat intentional, both their national security because you care about national security. And there are people that I know that you have had enormous respect for over the years. Mike Pence. John Kelly, you said. You don't want to talk about him, but I'm still very close with the former vice president. Yeah. John Bolton used to be a regular on your show. I think Mark Esper was

someone that you respected a lot, Dan Coates. No, no, no. Which one? Esper. No. We've been like this forever. Well, so, but I mean, I know the others, and I found one tweet. I was looking just for sub-tweets. You said the late Reagan era, this is 2018, National Security Team, BP, H. H.W. Bush, Schultz, Carlucci, Powell, James Baker, Howard Baker, Robert Gates, William Webster at CIA, A. G. Meese, year two of Donald Trump, VP Pence, Pompeo, General Mattis, John Bolton, Gina Haspel, D&I, Dan Coach, General Kelly, two talented teams. That team. That's what was there at the end, Pompeo was there at the end. Some people wear out. I can tell you that a number of people in the Reagan years did not work out, like John Poindexter, like Robert McFarlane, like Edmy, had a special counsel. But

But what matters most is the president and what their final decision. They only make all the George W. Bush, my favorite president who has said nothing, you ought to bring him up. Why isn't George W. Bush endorsed him? I don't think, I think it's an aesthetic objection. His father left the presidency and didn't do anything. I think George W. Bush would prefer anyone else. But I think George W. Bush knows that Kamala Harris is a disaster for this country.

But the others you don't think are aesthetic, right? I mean, the other, they did not like his style of president. I know General Matt is pretty well, and he won't tell me anything, so I don't know what he thinks. And I read his memoir very closely, and he hasn't said much. I don't know. He's going to vote. General McChrystal said he's going to vote for Kamala Harris. I'm somewhat surprised.

I know the general has been in the studio. We spent a lot of time together interviewing him about his books. I'm kind of surprised by that because it is a national security disaster. Jamie, can I say it again? The world will be a nightmare with Kamala Harris. They will sit there and do nothing. Taiwan will go to the communist. We will have a world depression when they invade Taiwan.

I mean, are we over, don't you think we're overstating, perhaps, what one term of a Democratic president? They will take Taiwan with Kamala Harris because she will not do anything. One of the themes of what you're saying here, basically, is you believe that you have, you know people that will be in his ear that will help guide him to make the decisions. The most influential person that I've seen in the last several months in his ear, helping to guide some of the most significant decisions, his pick of J.D. Vance, the RFK, Donald Trump Union, is my former boss, Tucker Carlson. Why are you so certain that Robert C. O'Brien

will be more influential in his ear than Tucker Carlson, who has a very different worldview? I don't know Tucker. I don't agree with Tucker's worldview. I know Senator Cotton pretty well. I believe Senator Cotton will be a part of the administration. I hope that either he or Michael Waltz or a similarly situated person, maybe Mike Pompeo is at defense. I care about the chain of command, which is President, Secretary of Defense, combatant commanders. We cannot continue to have politicized generals. We cannot continue to have our recruitment goals missed by 20%. We have to fix the Department of Defense.

It is 1937, and we are asleep. Are you concerned, though, that the Tucker Carlson's of the world do seem to have great influence? Well, yes, I am. And I would hope to argue the case for supporting Ukraine with everything we've got. I think Cotton supports Ukraine. J.D. Vance may not. I don't know. Senator Vance has been ambiguous about this. I think we've got to stay in NATO and Poland is our friend. You know, he gave three major speeches in his presidency. Two of them were abroad. One was in Saudi Arabia and one was in Poland. In Poland, he stood up for what Rumsfeld called the New Europe. The New Europe is on our side. I have no opinion on Orban. The former president started talking to Orban to me about Orban in the last interview. I don't know anything about Orban. I've heard both sides of Orban.

and Seb Gorka hates him, other people love him. What do you think about Orban? I don't think it's a great issue of concern to me. I mean, I probably don't agree with Orban, but I don't lose safety. I just don't know. I don't think about it. I like Budapest. I think after four years, look, there is a danger that some of his appointments will be very, very bad, like Rex Tillerson, who was very, very bad.

He didn't know what he was doing. But some of his appointments were very, very good, and they were still there at the end, Gina Haspel, Mike Pompeo, Robert C. O'Brien. I think he's learned. He's a learning machine. Developers are. He knows what works and what doesn't. I expect good things out of term, too. I am certain Kamala Harris will be a disaster. And I don't mean a small disaster. I don't mean a Jimmy Carter disaster. I mean a hard left, San Francisco radical, the judges that she will appoint. And it's quite possible she'd get three appointments to the Supreme Court. And Justice Jackson Brown will be a conservative compared to who she will put on the court,

take a look at the California Supreme Court sometime. You accused me a little bit of wishcasting with Kamala Harris earlier. Yeah. Seems like you're hope casting a little bit. You're hoping... I'm doom casting Kamala more than I'm hope casting Trump. But you are hoping that he listens to Robert C. O'Brien.

You're hoping he doesn't do something like January 6 again. But I'm basing my hope on... He did do the Abraham Accords, right? Yes. He did launch Operation Warp Speed, right? Well, to the consternation of a lot of his base. But it got done. And he rebuilt the Department of Defense budget. So it was, I believe, 3.5% GDP, although I want 5% GDP. He organized the frigate, even though the frigate's behind schedule now because Joe Biden can't organize his shoes in his closet. So it's a not even a close call for me. Kamala Harris will be a disaster for the United States. I hope you rethink your choice, James, Jamie. What happens to the GOP if Trump wins? What happens to the GOP if Trump loses?

I asked Matt Continenti this this morning, or I asked Mary Catherine, or I asked somebody, Smug. I asked Smug. Do you listen to Ruthless? I listen to You on Ruthless. No, I don't listen. I listen to Ruthless. And Smug was my triple. I finally hit for the cycle. I've had all four them on. I said, what's going to happen? I asked the same question. He said, whoever takes over has got to have a coalition and a program different from Trump's. And it's interesting to me, I think the Trump phase will be over. Most populous phases in America the last eight to 12 years. And I think we will revert to the mean, somewhere between Trump

and Mitt. Someone like the combative nature of Newt, but young, my generation is gone. We can't hang on. The cottons, the vances, the Mike Gallagher's, the Mike Walts's, the Joni Ernst. Tim Scott is part of that, although he did not impress in the debates at all. I mean, he got no traction. But the Republican Party of 2029 will be very different from the Republican Party of 2024. Let me just close with a couple more general questions. I always tell people the best interview Hillary Clinton's ever done was the one that you did with her.

Had she done it before the election, I think things might have been different. He would have won. But would you have done it in the same? I mean, when you get in an election mode, there is a different mode for you. Is that fair to say election mode and post-election mode? would you have been as gracious and generous in absolutely you only get one shot to be fair once you're not fair to a candidate you're finished right so I've done five debates and I keep getting asked to do more debate I've done that five presidential GOP I've done governor debates

Senate debates if you're ever not fair and you go in and you screw someone you're done and I might retire in four years that's what I'm planning on doing I'll be 72 and it's about time to get out of the way. But I will never not be fair, especially to a secretary of state. And, you know, the most important alliance we have in the world, Jamie, and I'm playing on your turf here, I know you're a strong supporter of Israel, is Israel. Hillary Clinton is very good on Israel. She has not put up with this crap from the Democratic Party. And that's why I do think there's a kind of anti-Hillary because she's too strong on Israel. She's very smart. So I would have been easier on her. I had John Kerry on, too. I was polite to him.

And they should, I said to Smug today, I think the Democrats, when they line up, I think Trump's going to win, the Democrats are going to line up to run in 2028, and they ought to start with me, with you, with Smug, with Mary Catherine Ham, they ought to start with the Republicans because, my God, she was not ready for this race. She's awful at this. Do you think it's a mistake that she doesn't go on Joe Rogan, that she doesn't flag? Absolutely. But it's, although, did you see Club Shea, Shea? I have it. I lined up to listen to, but I haven't listened. When you're done with that, you'll be a broken man. That's why she won't do Rogan. Even someone who tries to help her can't help her. He ended up saying, do you mean to tell me Donald Trump doesn't want to pay people anything

for overtime? And she said, yes. It's that bad, Jamie. I'm not making it up. Let me close you just your thoughts on. Second close. Yeah, well, no, it was close with a couple questions. Those clothes, okay.

Yeah, you followed the conservative movement for very, long time. Very long. I'm 68, yeah. Are you concerned at all about, you know, Buckley, obviously forced the birchers out. A version of the birchers are now in conservative media in many ways and have prominent. I mean, I saw, I thought it was a parody account. Rick Scott said he's sitting down with Laura Lumer.

He's excited to do an interview with Laura Lumer. I checked to see if this was a Rick Scott parody account, not a parody account. Doing an interview with Laura Lumer, people like Jack Prasobi, all these people are people that have influence and are very big in the conservative movement. Are you worried about where the conservative movement is nine years? I am worried more about never Trumpers than I am extreme Trumpers. The never Trumpers that left and have exiled themselves and have left, I'm great, you're very gracious to me. Some of the people at the dispatch have not been very gracious to me because I'm very fixed in my opinion on judges in national defense. And they're

mad at me, and I've lost a lot of friends over being for Trump. The Never Trumpers concerned me a lot more than the hard, hard Trumpists who are divorced from reality. I think Laura Lumer is divorced from reality, and I don't know why. I'm intrigued by the, in what way do they concern you, the Never Trumpers? I mean, they should be in the party helping to staff the Department of Defense. They should be, Bill Crystal was one of our absolute best minds, but he allowed sunk cost to overwhelm. I don't know what Bill thinks. Bill probably thinks it's a threat to the Constitution. I haven't talked to him about it. But I talked to you. David French is a great constitutional lawyer. I think he should have been on the bench, could have been on the bench.

But sunk costs are a real thing. And I think the most important book is Megan McCartle's the upside of down about when to cut sunk costs and move on. You guys should move on from hating Trump. David Frum, one of the great inelics of our time. Yeah, I mean, we just lost a lot of capacity. But let me just one pushback here and get your response. I mean, we just went through this interview. I do think there was a moment when I was talking about those three hours where you wanted to go right to the issue of the binary China. But those things matter. And, you know, things matter that change a person's perception and view that make a candidate unelectable. Can I answer you with an example from history? Lincoln went to see McClellan

with Seward, when McClellan would not attack the Confederacy. McClellan made him wait for three hours, and then he went to bed and did not see Abraham Lincoln, the president, and the Secretary of State. And Lincoln said, get over it, William Seward. We've got to win the war. My view is we accept the failures and we deal with patience with people that we wish did better all the time. And I guess I would just close it again. to debate that this is different than not seeing somebody. It's not acting when the country is getting attacked. This is a lawyer acting. There is such a gulf between an action and an omission that it would take me two semesters with you to teach you the constitutional law between the

different between action and omission. You wanted him to do X. He did not do X. You object to that. I objected to that. I wish he had done the video earlier. But I heard the speech. and I heard him say peacefully, and I believe that everyone needed to go. I texted with a member of the- Is what he said. He said, my vice president under attack, so what? I'm going back to his speech. I don't know. I don't, I don't, there's, you're, you're citing things that are not in evidence, right?

They're coming out of the, of the one-sixth committee, which is fatally flawed, is fruit of the poison tree. And so I dismiss it all. I dismiss it all, Jamie, because it's fruit of the poison tree. I dismiss Woodward books. I dismiss everything that I do not see, read, or hear from a credible source, and January 6th committee was not credible. That might be wishcasting, I think, a little bit, Hugh.

No, it's not because it's never happened in the history of our Congress. Never. It was unconstitutional. Hughitt, thank you for joining the dispatch podcast. Jamie, good to be with you. Good luck in choosing to decide who to vote for, because you'll regret, Kamala. Well, I think my regret would be less than potentially the regret I could have for Trump. May I add one more thing?

I think you're voting for her because, you know, she can't win and you won't be responsible for Trump. I'm willing to take the burden. I think that it's a toss-up race, to be honest. I have no idea. Either side can win by a blowout or it could be very close. No, Trump could win with a blowout. Otherwise, he'll be very close. But she could win.

All right, Jamie, do well. You know,