David French: We Are in the Bad Multiverse
01:03:58 Share

Hello and welcome to the Bullard Podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. I'm delighted to have back favorite of the pod, opinion columnist for the New York Times, co-host of the legal podcast, Advisory Opinions. His most recent book is Divided, We Fall, America's Secession Threat.

and how we restore our nation, an uplifting topic. It's David French. How you doing, David? Hey, Tim. It's always great to see you. It's good to see you too, man. You calm me for some reason. And people notice that I don't cuss as much when you're on the podcast. So that's a double victory for you as a guest. Yeah.

Yeah, I'm just I'm glad to have that calming effect, Tim. I don't have it on everybody. I've found out. I've noticed that. I want to start with Pete Hegg, Seth. There's this guy I follow on social media, Max Twain. I really like him because he's a rabid DeSantis supporter, way more conservative than me. But unlike like 99% of MAGA world, he does not

go along with the Trump BS. It's like what you would expect from somebody living on Earth. Here's how he described the DOD nomination. I thought he put it quite well.

Pete Hegseth is the most unqualified cabinet nominee in American history, and that's before accounting for all the rape and alcoholism. And so I wanted to start with you as a veteran, as a conservative, somebody that cares about this. You must feel like you're in a simulation that people are taking this seriously. Yeah, it's nuts, Tim. I mean, and look, I'm not going to denigrate Pete Hegseth's service. He served honorably by all accounts. Sure.

That's not the issue here. I served with a bunch of guys in Iraq who served honorably as well with more distinguished records than Pete Hegseth. They're more qualified to be Secretary of Defense than

than he is. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of veterans are more qualified to be Secretary of Defense than he is. There might be, Tim, 10,000 people in the greater D.C. area more qualified to be Secretary of Defense. I'm not exaggerating. I mean, he's a TV host. For eight years, he's been a TV host. He's been a TV host and an activist, and his activism has

you know, according to the recent news reports was largely a failure because of his own failings. And so he ran small organizations that he's left. He hosts a TV show and his basic qualification is that he served, which good, good for him. Again, we honor that service. He served and he's super MAGA, super. And he wrote a book. He wrote a book. Yeah.

As two authors here, you know, we don't want to denigrate that work. No, no, no. But no, it really is true. And I'm very glad you brought that up because the statement aside from all of the alcoholism and the allegations and all of this.

One of the issues with Trump's, many of Trump's new appointees, putting aside all their scandals, if we can put those aside for the moment. Yeah, sure. A lot of them are just totally not qualified for the positions. Matt Gaetz, before he left, was absolutely not qualified. And I'm sorry, being an anti-vaccine sort of fringe nutrition activist doesn't qualify a person to become the head of HHS. I mean, this is...

What are we doing here? And I think that one of the things he could be doing, or he actually is doing if all of these go through, is he's really planting the seeds of his own political demise. I mean, the majority of the people who voted for him were not voting for the MAGA extended universe. The majority of people who were voting for him were voting out of discontent with the status quo. And if you roll in with a parade of incompetence, you're not going to improve on the status quo.

Yeah, I want to get into the political of it a little bit more as far as what the potential ramifications could be going forward, because I read your column on that on that point. I think it's interesting. I share that view that I think he's playing the seats for his own demise. But I think there's some counter views that are worth discussing in a bit. But I just want to share on this nomination itself, just to kind of put a finer point on the ridiculousness. There was an exchange between Jake Tapper and Rick Scott yesterday. And this was this was on the personal allegations issue.

But I want to play it just to show how wrapped around the axle the defenders of the Hegseth nomination are. Let's listen to Tapper. We have the risk of war. The world's on fire. We've got to change how our Department of Defense is run. He's going to do it. I hear you, but you started this interview and saying you don't like all these anonymous accusations and I should be able to interview these people. I'm saying, okay, shouldn't Pete Hegseth release this woman from her nondisclosure agreement so that I can do what you suggested at the top of the interview you wanted me to do?

Absolutely not. Absolutely not. No equivocation there, Tim. Absolutely not. Yeah. And so this is the situation with these guys, right? Where it's like, on the one hand, if he did have the qualifications...

Then you could go through this whole personal stuff. And it's like, is the fact that his personal life is a complete disaster and that he's a serial cheater and that there are rape allegations, is that enough to disqualify him? Or if the opposite was true, he wasn't really qualified, but he's really shown a lot of – in his personal life, he's been very distinguished and he ran these other organizations and he ran them well against neither. And these guys –

It's just hard to understand. It's not hard to understand, I guess. But can you just believe how these guys are putting themselves in the position to have to defend something this preposterous?

Well, you know, it's deja vu all over again, Tim, that we remember 2017 to 2021 when Trump was president and all of these guys are having to defend the next, the latest tweet. They're having to defend the latest temper tantrum, the latest scandal. And, you know, some of them just duck kind of duck and cover, do the Mike Johnson thing and pretend you're talking on the phone while racing through reporters. Some of them make ridiculous statements like this. I want to interview the person. Okay.

Release her from NDA. Absolutely not. I mean, this is like this is a different category than just avoiding people about the Trump tweets.

Like, at some level, it's like, oh, Trump said this crazy thing. He's the president. Yes, members of Congress should have thoughts about statements made by the president of the United States or the president-elect in this case. That's true. But, like, it also is Trump, right? And that's just the reality that we live in, that he's going to say crazy stuff. And it's at least, you know, you can at least understand the rationale behind, you know, these guys not answering.

answering for that at this point. What is the rationale for excusing this? I mean, there's a way out here. And this is maybe the most serious job in the world, the non-elected position in the entire world, the Secretary of Defense of the United States. They have agency on this, right? It's not just like Trump popping off. Well, not only do they have agency, Tim, they have a responsibility here. They have constitutional responsibility. And so,

This is one of the things that's so frustrating about the moment is at this circumstance, you're exactly right to draw a distinction between responding to tweets or even responding to policy papers or positions or executive orders and things like that.

And a nomination for which that senator is constitutionally obligated to give advice and consent. And so what we're beginning to see is a morphing in the Republican Party of the idea of the job of the senator in this moment.

They're really seeing themselves, many of them, not all of them, thankfully, but many of them are seeing themselves as my job is to vote for the president's team. You will hear this. The president won. He is entitled to his team. But that's actually the opposite of the truth. When you read the Federalist Papers and you read none other than Alexander Hamilton talking about the advice and consent roll,

The advice and consent role was specifically designed to prevent the nomination of people through favoritism, obsequiousness, to where the president would only get yes men and yes women around him. And so what we're actually talking about here is what is their fundamental job? What is their role as a senator? And the founders were very, very clear about it. And so far as I know, the 2024 election does not abrogate their constitutional responsibilities whatsoever.

they have it they have that responsibility and you know yes they're they're ducking it and it is more far more serious than ducking commenting even on trump policies i think this is the prime example that we are in the bad multiverse i do i do have to say the hegseth thing i just think is too ridiculous it's absurd to be real well you know it's so absurd tim that it's

We've spent five times more time talking about him than Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which is also unbelievably absurd and haven't even raised the name Tulsi Gabbard, which is also ridiculous. And then let's think about this. We're actually if we're in a world where I'm breathing a sigh of relief that Pam Bondi is the attorney general nominee now.

She would have been my worst case scenario a few years ago. And now I'm like, okay, Pam Bondi. Okay. At least it's not Matt Gaetz. People are like, oh, turn to Pam Bondi. That's somebody responsible. I'm like, she was with Rudy. Like when he was at Four Seasons Total Lens.

Right.

As part of his defense of his personal behavior, he's talking about how he's found Jesus and how obviously you have respect for that and somebody finding their faith and turning over a new leaf. It's relatively convenient timing, I would note. Great timing for finding Jesus. Great timing. Spectacular timing. There is the other side of that coin, which you've also written a lot about. I mean, he is at

the mega church in Tennessee, in your home state that has ties to the Doug Wilson church in Idaho, which we've covered here, that has kind of these deeply radical Christian nationalist beliefs. And I do just wonder whether that gives you any pause thinking about maybe he has found Jesus, but maybe he's also found the political Jesus. Yeah. Yeah.

It does give me pause, Tim. There's no question about it. And, you know, look, I've seen some of the defenses of the tattoos that he has. He has a Jerusalem cross tattoo. He has another one that says Deus Volt tattoo.

God wills it, which is a slogan of the Crusaders. Yeah, somebody was trying to say that that was a Catholic slogan. And I was like, hmm, I did 13 years of Catholic school. My mom's a daily churchgoer. I never heard Deus Volt before. Yeah, I don't love this term, you know, the term gaslighting, which everyone uses all the time in this era. But this is actual gaslighting because, you know,

On the one hand, a lot of these Twitter people are like, oh, how dare you take umbrage at a Christian cross or a Christian saying you anti-Christian bigot.

when anyone who spends any time in these spaces knows that those particular symbols, usually, but not always, I have to say it just like flying an appeal to heaven flag or whatever, there is a usually, but not always element to this. But those symbols, especially in this current moment, usually indicate that they are part of a particular strain of Christian nationalism. And if you doubt that,

If you follow any of the major accounts, if you follow any of the people who are deep into this, you see this Deus Volt stuff all the time. You will see it in responses to me online. You'll see it all the time. Deus Volt, God wills it with a crusader swinging a sword. It's an image you see frequently. And when you combine it with the fact that he is part of a church and a denomination that has had ties to not just Christian nationalists, but

Some pretty nasty racial stuff as well. Now, I have no indication that he's into that. A lot of churches in the sea, though. You know, you could choose. Boy, that again, this is the kind of thing where if you understand this world, it's alarming.

But you have to really understand this world and those who don't walk into it and they'll be like, they'll be saying things about tattoos or crosses, et cetera, that have no bearing to what's actually happening in this sort of online subculture. And it's entirely possible to him. One of the reasons why I haven't really raised this and drilled down on this, it's entirely possible that he has those tattoos in this completely sort of innocent coincidental way,

That he belongs to this denomination but has not been part of the sort of move to the Christian nationalist right and elements of the white nationalist right. That's all possible. But the affiliation with a denomination and a movement that is one of the most Christian nationalists in the Protestant world.

is a bit disturbing to me. Same. I'm happy to hear that you said that. Same. And, you know, look, there are no religious tests for public office. That is part of the American Constitution. But if you have a view of the American Constitution that is subordinate to

to religious authority, that absolutely you can take into account. Well, it ties to what we had an interview earlier this week with Thomas Zimmer about Russ Vogt, right? Like there are other, like actually more explicit about that than Hank Seth, right? Just about like his views of kind of being in a post-constitutional moment and what the obligations of the administration are. Right, right. The actual faith itself,

Should not disqualify anybody, Christian, Muslim, Jewish. Of course not. If they have a view that is...

dangerous to the Constitution, you can consider the view that is dangerous to the Constitution regardless of the faith source, if that makes sense. So whether if you are hostile to the American Constitution, you come at that hostility through a dedication to say Sharia law, or if you're hostile to the United States Constitution and you come to that through theonomy, sort of Protestant religious nationalism, either one of those sources, the core issue is are you hostile to the

Not are you Muslim? Are you Christian? And that and but again, I have put that further down the list just because we have so many other things that require no speculation at all. Because there's actually no argument for him. You know, you can't. Exactly. So it's getting through all the arguments against is pretty challenging. All right. Speaking of people that might be hostile to the Constitution, our incoming president.

at least nominee for FBI director, Kash Patel. There's a letter yesterday that was pretty chilling to me that I wanted to get your take on. Olivia Troy, who I should say is a friend of mine, was on MSNBC talking about Kash, particularly about the story, which we've discussed on this podcast in the

how he allegedly lied to the Defense Department about getting approval for airspace over Nigeria as they were doing kind of an exfil operation for somebody out of Niger. I think this was in Mark Esper's book.

So she talked about that and said that he kind of lied about intelligence or something. Kash Patel's lawyer sent a letter to her saying that litigation will be filed against you if you fail to retract defamatory statements made about Mr. Patel. To me, that's chilling for a lot of reasons, but I'm curious what your thoughts are. Yeah, I mean, this is the kind of intimidation that you've seen recently.

You know, in a number of places, a number of spaces where somebody with superior resources is trying to challenge a critic and drag them into either intimidate them into silence because maybe that person doesn't have a lot of resources. They can't hire a lawyer. They even if they're telling the truth, they just don't have the resources to fight the battle over the truth. So you might be trying to intimidate into silence, bully into silence.

And this is a tactic that you often see. At one point, it became so common to see sort of more powerful, larger entities trying to bully smaller critics into silence that this is a reason why a bunch of states are

have passed what are called anti-SLAPP laws. In other words, a SLAPP lawsuit is Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. It's where you are filing a lawsuit to try to get somebody to shut up. And a lot of states now have these summary proceedings where if you file that defamation lawsuit and it doesn't have merit, you can have a very short summary proceeding where the lawsuit gets dismissed and the person who filed it has to pay your attorney's fees, which is not the normal course of action. So,

She's almost certainly legally safe. I mean, she did not defame him in those statements. She's almost certainly legally safe, but that's not the question, Tim. The question is,

Is she going to be bullied? Is she going to be intimidated? Now we both know her and she's not the kind of person who's going to be bullied or intimidated. She has high quality legal counsel, unlike a lot of people who are in these circumstances. So she's going to be fine, but there's absolutely, there's no question in my mind, this was a shot across the bow. It was a symbol that if you are going to come after him, he will come after you in some way. And, and,

And I think that that, you know, that symbol does really matter. That symbol is,

really important. And look, defamation law has a role to play in American life. I mean, you know, it was a defamation lawsuit that held Fox News accountable, Rudy Giuliani accountable, Gateway Pundit. I mean, we can go down the line. But abuse of defamation law is one way that powerful people try to silence criticism. And so this looks like that textbook abuse, that effort to try to intimidate somebody and silence somebody with legal threats.

In addition to everything you said, the thing that really concerns me the most about this is that it is the person that's the incoming potential FBI director. Right. And and it was an action that to me, I don't know how you can read it any other way than as personal vengeance or grievance, particularly when you consider that this claim against him has been made by lots of people. And it was in the former defense secretary's book. So to pick one person to target them.

To me, that's a signal that I'm going to plan on targeting people. And the FBI has huge leeway to target people before you ever get to legal proceedings, right? Like there are checks eventually, okay? Like eventually you have to prosecute somebody. There are going to be checks and you're going to have to have grand juries or juries or other DOJ, you know, whatever to approve it. There'll be other checks.

But an incoming FBI director, to me, this is signaling that, yeah, I can go. I'm going to go after you. And there's actually going to be a lot you can do about it. There's not an anti-SLAPP lawsuit you can file against the FBI director for investigating it. Yeah, I'm so glad you raised that point, Tim, because I've had a number of people ask me, OK, wait a minute.

How much can the Trump administration really target you? After all, you've got juries, you've got judges, you've got a lot of checks. That's absolutely true. When it comes to can the Trump administration prosecute and convict with emphasis on and convict its critics? Yeah, there are a lot of safeguards against that. No question. But where are the safeguards the weakest? The safeguards are the weakest when it comes to investigations.

So, for example, you could have Pam Bondi appoint a special counsel to, quote, investigate Russiagate. You know, in other words, like go back over all the Durham ground or whatever. Or you could have a special counsel to investigate irregularities in the 2020 election or some mandate along those lines. And then this person then just proceeds to pull into the dragnet.

dozens of Trump critics, dozens of media figures where everyone's got to get a lawyer. You're going to be spending enormous sums of money that often people don't have. All of a sudden, your name gets leaked into the public as a potential target of an investigation. Then the threats come in and maybe you don't have the resources for security in that circumstance. And, you know, so whether it's the FBI, whether it's, you know, larger main justice, whether it's the IRS, you

One of the things that we have seen is that investigation capability, the process is the punishment. And so that's why the investigation powers of the federal government should be used sparingly only when there is probable cause to believe crimes have been committed, because the investigation can be so incredibly burdensome to its targets.

And so, no, you don't have to prosecute and convict people to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. You can extend the investigation dragnet and literally just ruin people financially. Yeah, this is cheery. This is so cheery, Tim. This is cheery. And I'm adding this question now. We've been doing this with some of my colleagues here, but I'm curious your take. So now looking at all these nominations.

What is the thing that alarms you the most? Because of that answer you just gave, I look at these things and I think that cash and Tulsi are the most alarming because of the leeway they will have to act on things before you get to potential change.

checks from other areas of the government. But other folks have different views. People are very concerned about RFK and, you know, whatever polio, the reprisal of polio. I just wonder what your threat assessment is sitting here right now as you kind of look at the potential incoming administration with, you know, a month's worth of data. Yeah. I mean, I think to me, the Kash Patel nomination is

stands out because you're talking about somebody running one of them. And look, there are a lot of good folks at the FBI who would resist him. There's just no question about that. Or resist extra legal demands or whatever. Yes, correct. Resist extra legal demands. Yes. They shouldn't resist him if he's offering, you know, making,

directives that are legal and appropriate, but extra legal demands, there will be people who resist that. There'll be people in the DOJ who would resist extra legal demands for sure. But the amount of power and authority that he has over individuals who have

almost sort of unrivaled ability to dig into your life, unrivaled ability to turn your life inside out and to place you in profound legal jeopardy. Because, you know, one of the things that you've seen and one of the there were critics of the Russia investigation and critics of FBI investigations more broadly have a point about is that often the FBI will dive in and

to an issue and they won't be able to prove the underlying crime that was the instigator for the investigation. But there are crimes that are then committed in the process of the investigation among them, things like lying to the FBI, et cetera. And so, you know, one of the things that you'll see happen is there'll be investigating topic X, but they get very angry at how the target of the investigation behaved during the investigation. And they'll charge, uh,

what are called process crimes, crimes allegedly committed during the course of the investigation. And sometimes that's totally appropriate. Sometimes somebody does in the middle of the investigation, try to obstruct it. They do lie, et cetera. And then sometimes though, it's a reach, it's a stretch. And so it is just a very dangerous thing to get

but the FBI targeted on any given person's life. It is. And so that is very disturbing to me. I'm actually in a weird way, Tim. Hegseth is so unqualified, so profoundly unqualified that in a way he's less dangerous because he'll be surrounded by, if you've ever been in rooms full of generals,

These are not people who are intimidated by a Pete Hegsa. Right. So... Though, can you imagine having to...

Yes, sir, Pete Eggstaff, if you are, you know, like the commanding general of Europe, you know, you're a West Point grad and, you know, I've been 40 years on the job going up the ranks. Ridiculous. But yes, I concur with that, with your point. Yeah, I mean, it's not that he's harmless. I just think the institution of the Pentagon is not easy to hijack. Let me put it that way. But I will say this. I mean, I do think

There are real security risks here. I mean, Tulsi, for example, her past is a past that would, let me put it like this, Tim. There are a number of things about her past that would make it difficult for her to get a security clearance.

Right.

Just raise concerns and raise alarms. And then when it comes to Hegseth, let's just presume for the sake of argument, Tim. Let's just presume for the sake of argument that he is...

Had a genuine religious conversion that he was a philanderer before, but now, by golly, he is faithful to his third wife. There's just no question about it. Well, he's still his third wife now. We do know that he cheated on her once already because he was with her when the woman who alleged him of rape.

reported that to the police and he says it was a consensual affair. So, so now he's belatedly, belatedly faithful. Now, that's what I'm saying. Now he's faithful. It's he's faithful now, but the problem you have is he's got this long trail of

of of alleged womanizing i mean it was it's it's so concrete that his mother's letter i mean that letter is chilling on the one hand i have i feel very uncomfortable reading a mother's letter to a son on the other hand how bad does it have to be before a mother writes a son a letter like that a grown son a grown son yeah this is not a high schooler yeah but here's the issue tim

how many scandals are just embedded in his past and so how vulnerable is he to blackmail over scandals embedded in his past even assuming he's all faithful and good now how much vulnerability is there to scandal in the past which is you know again one of these issues adultery for example is against the uniform code of military justice and he's going to be running the pentagon i mean

There's just so many layers to this that are absurd, but in a weird way, because the Pentagon is an actually really difficult beast to sort of wrestle to the ground. I worry about him less than I might worry about an RFK or certainly a Kash Patel. Hey, y'all, clothing trends change. And, you know, I like to try to keep up with them, but some of them pass me by. I was at a concert recently with a bunch of Gen Z kids and

I don't even know some of the shit they're wearing, y'all. But here's something that never changes. You always need the essentials. This time of year, a good hoodie, good long-sleeve tee. They're essential, but it's tough to find one that'll last through the season. The American Giant Classic...

Full zip hoodie is made to last a lifetime. You can count on it to bring your comfort and warmth year after year. Slate Magazine called it the greatest hoodie ever made from cotton to zipper, and it's made right here in the USA. I was thrilled that American Giant decided to sponsor this podcast because my husband's had an American Giant hoodie for a while now, and I'd steal it from him sometimes. One of the nice things about being gay, you know, wardrobe sharings.

And so I was thrilled to get a new hoodie, got a new long sleeve American giant tee. We're on the road to some of the Bulwark bus tour stops. If you saw it, it's high quality. It's comfy. It looks good. It's classic. Full recommend.

American Giant makes staples that are anything but basic, like the premium Slub Crew T, No BS High Rise Pant, and Slim Roughneck Pant that's born from a commitment to support the communities that create its products. Every American Giant piece is made in America and designed to last, no exceptions.

This season, snag the hoodie that will bring you comfort for life, the American Giant Classic Full Zip, and save 20% off your first order at American-Giant.com when you use the code BULWORK at checkout. That's 20% off your first order at American-Giant.com, code BULWORK.

I want to move on to what the Biden administration can do here in the last month of the lame duck or interregnum. There's a story yesterday in Politico about a discussion happening about preemptive pardons.

And I want to say, before I get your opinion about this, I have kind of an emotional guttural reaction in favor of this, especially after the Hunter pardon. And the more I think about it and the more I hear, and I've heard from several people that might be on that list, for example,

I'm sort of backing off that opinion. And I like to be I like to be candid when I change my views here, you know, full. We're all working through all this stuff in real time. We are in unprecedented times. But I'm wondering how you kind of assess that kind of discussion happening in the Biden administration. Yeah, I think it's a bad idea, Tim. I really do.

Let me put it this way. Here would be a good way of thinking through it. We and I are both occasional Trump critics. Yeah. We've had beef with MAGA. We both believe the 2020 election was free and fair. We both debunked election, stolen election theories. If Joe Biden offered you a pardon, would you take it? Because my answer is no, because I would not want any implication at all that I had done anything wrong.

illegal, improper, immoral. And my view would be to Trump, you're just going to have to come after me. You're going to have to prove it. I would not accept a pardon because I wouldn't want the implication at all that I'd done anything.

And can I just add to this? Just because for people think like I hear from people, and I think this is kind of true in the Hunter thing where they're like, well, you're not considering how dangerous cash could be. And I'm like, I'm considering it. No, yeah. Yeah, but my point is I think I would come down on no to. My initial instinct would have been, yeah, let's do it. Let's roll. But I come down on no to for this reason, which is like if...

They're going to go so far outside the bounds of the law. If you think the worst about this administration, if you think that the worst authoritarian nightmares of the person that spends all day doing resistance media, like on resistance social media, you take their worst nightmares, right? And then I put myself in that situation. Then they decided to target me.

Well, a pardon's not going to protect me from that. You know what I mean? Like even the Joe Biden pardon of Hunter, right? It expires on New Year's of this year, right? So you don't think that they are going to, that if they really wanted to target Hunter, they couldn't, couldn't target him and investigate him, do all the things you were just talking about earlier about the Kash Patel could do, investigate your life and find other future crimes or past crimes that go past, past 11 years.

I kind of don't know what good it does, because if they're going to act within the normal checks and balances, like you are going to be protected, not from investigation. That's going to happen. But eventually, when these things get to juries, etc.,

And if they're going to go around, if you like, you really are in dystopian world and think that they're going to go around all that, well, then what the hell is a pardon going to do for you? So, yeah, I don't know. I just kind of as a practical matter. And the other one other point I'll say is one of the people I spoke to about this said they don't want to be on the list because they think that they would that would worry them, that it would make them targeted more by swatting. Yes. Crazy people targeting them. And they're like they're in this person said they're more afraid of that than they are of the Justice Department.

Well, that's why I raised that very point when I talked about investigations before, because when names leak out that are being investigated or it becomes known that someone's being investigated, then that sort of worst element of MAGA that, you know, that sewer MAGA happens.

comes out in intimidation and threats. And so, no, that's absolutely right. Here's what I think is a lot more productive response to this Trump challenge. It's not preemptive pardons. I think that that is something that there's a rule of law implications there. There are implications that if you accept the pardon, a lot of people view that as sort of accepting a level of or degree of guilt that is not appropriate. Here's what would be far more preferable. Remember how I said the process is the punishment?

What would be far more preferable is if you took a slice of sort of political slash cultural philanthropy and you created a defense fund. You created a sort of a mutual defense fund where people, regular ordinary people who, you know, that the list, the cash Patel list that you put online, Tim.

Most of those folks are not rich people. They do not have infinite resources. And so creating a sort of a defense fund or that capacity for people who get in the crosshairs to have attorney's fees taken care of, to have security maybe deployed to their homes, you know, these kinds of things I think would make people feel far better than a pardon, which implies that

Even though the whole purpose of it is to foreclose the possibility of innocent people being targeted, the pardon implies a measure of guilt. It will be interpreted by an awful lot of people as an acceptance of guilt. And again, there are rule of law implications. I think it's a lot better to create more of a defense fund security assistance for people who are targeted than it is to do preemptive pardons.

Yeah, I'm deeply torn about this. I don't know. I'd like to think about it more. And like Fauci is a kind of a strange example, right? Because they already are planning on investigating him. Maybe there's an argument for that in his case versus like the Liz Cheney. Like they're throwing out some names. It's like Liz Cheney. I'm like, what Liz Cheney? What are they going to investigate her for? Like she didn't do anything. She was on the January 6th committee. Right. But, you know, the COVID stuff. I don't know. I think it's a tough question. Do you have other thoughts about...

productive things that the president could do in the last month here, you know, to either safeguarding against Trump or anything. I think you wrote about potentially some actions around Ukraine. Yeah. You know, it's, what's unfortunate is that when the Biden administration was trying to Trump proof American democracy, it focused on elections, right?

appropriately so, because we've just been through January 6th, right? So I'm not, the Electoral Count Act reform is a tremendous Biden administration accomplishment. It was important for our country. It's going to be good for us for next 100 years that we won't have the same kind of vulnerabilities that we had in 2020. But what did not happen in the Biden administration was reform of the powers of the presidency itself, very specifically around the Insurrection Act.

The Insurrection Act is ridiculously broadly drafted to grant the president the ability to deploy troops in American cities on his own initiative when he wants to. And it's just a very scary law.

But sadly, you know, I could say, hey, you know, in the remaining period, try to push through an Insurrection Act reform. I don't think Mike Johnson's going to go for that. You don't think so? I don't think so. But I do think that there's still... People tell me he's a straight shooter. You know, earnest, earnest man. So it's very hard to sort of come up with what can Joe Biden do domestically in these next, you know, couple of months, aside from these pardons, which I'm against, to really sort of Trump-proof...

America. But there is something overseas, I think, where he could deploy his influence. And that is, and I wrote about this, there are more than $200 billion in Russian assets that are frozen right now. Most of it held, interestingly enough, in Belgian institutions. And that money has been frozen since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. What I urged was Biden tried to seize it, to get our NATO allies to just seize that money

Why? Because, one, it would deal a tremendous economic blow to Russia. And two, if you seize that money and transfer it to the Ukrainian war effort, you can at least try to mitigate some of the effects of lost American support.

If we do pull out our support from Ukraine, there's elements of that that are irreplaceable. We just have more stuff than any of our Western allies. We have more shells, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, missiles that we can send to Ukraine. But if Ukraine at least has resources it can purchase from foreign sources, at least some arms to make up for that shortfall. Not entirely, but some.

So I think that that would be a very concrete thing he could do to at least improve Ukraine's bargaining position if there are armistice talks or ceasefire talks in any way. But Tim, we're just at this point where there's just not a lot of options. There's just not much that Biden can do. I don't know. People on Twitter are telling me that he's got to play hardball. This is the moment.

Get rid of the norms. No more norms. Hardball time right now, the last month. You don't have any hardball suggestions? I mean, not that are consistent with the, you know, civic reality of the American Constitution. No, I do not. Got it. Okay.

Any other thoughts on incoming administration on the Ukraine side of things? There was a Reuters story about the different kind of options that are being floated by Kellogg and Vance and some of these types as far as negotiating. I'm less confident that Putin is going to

want to play ball with this administration's deal-making than I think the administration and others are. Maybe that's wrong. Maybe they have a handshake deal and those secret phone calls that Woodward reported on. But I don't know. Do you have any sense for where things are going? Yeah. You know, it

We're in a grim place, Tim, but not hopeless. So here's what's grim. And then I'll say why not hopeless. The grim reality is that Russia has seen an opportunity and is expending enormous resources on the battlefield to try to push Ukraine back. And it is pushing Ukraine back. Ukraine has lost everything.

I'm not going to say a lot of territory relative to the size of the country. It's a big country in Europe, but a lot of territory relevant to the last two years. They've lost like the Dakotas. We wouldn't be thrilled about that. Yeah, yeah. Not that big, but they have, and they've taken serious losses in equipment and personnel. So Russia has been pushing its advantage on the battlefield. And so what I'm very worried about is that what you would have is a situation where essentially Russia,

Trump pushes the situation to where there is a ceasefire agreement that is a clear win for Putin, but is broadcast to the American people as I brought peace. And here's how you'll know if Trump has given Putin a win, that he will then turn around and try to talk about like, I'm the guy who brought peace. And the clear indication would be if you had some sort of ceasefire agreement,

roughly along the current lines of battle. I don't think Russia will ever agree to a ceasefire while Ukrainian troops are on its soil because there are still Ukrainian troops in the Kursk region. You'll have a ceasefire somewhere along the line of battle, which means Russia is going to hold a significant portion of Ukrainian territory.

I think that's generally a foregone conclusion in most people's minds. No matter how this thing ends, Russia is going to have some more territory than it started with in February of 2022. But what are the other conditions? It's a win for Ukraine and a loss for Russia if the ceasefire occurs and Ukraine joins the EU and NATO. That's a loss for Vladimir Putin. He lost that war. Even if he got a few more chunks of Ukraine, he lost the war because he lost influence over Ukraine.

If he gets a ceasefire with the pledge of neutrality, with a pledge that Ukraine won't join NATO, that it won't be part of the EU, and heaven forbid, deposing Zelensky as leader, then Putin won. He not only got Ukrainian territory that becomes part of Russia, he also essentially got exactly what he wanted by turning Ukraine into a satellite of Russia and not a true free and independent country. That's the outcome that would be a big win for Putin.

And then Trump would turn around to the American people and say, I ended the war. Look at my negotiating skills. I ended the war. But you quote, ended the war. That would be ending the war through what is effectively a surrender to Putin. Yeah.

That's what they're proposing. I mean, that's literally the J.D. Vance and Kellogg. I mean, not the deposing of Zelensky, but who knows what would happen there. But the rest, that's what they're proposing. Well, it'd be hard to see Zelensky surviving a settlement agreement like that, a peace settlement like that. But here's where... It's not hard for me to see any of the players going along with that except for J.D. Vance. J.D. Vance seems to be the only person in this engagement that would really like that engagement. But who knows? Yeah.

Well, but here's where things, I said grim, but not hopeless. So here's the not hopeless part. At the very beginning of my answer, I said Russia is taking enormous losses. It really is. The casualty figures out of eastern Ukraine right now are just mind-blowing. And it's not just the casualties, it is the loss in equipment. And a lot of folks are saying Putin's got until somewhere in 2025,

before the equipment losses reach such a critical level, not the manpower losses. In theory, he can replace those.

But he's digging through his Cold War era stocks. And you just can't wave a magic wand and create a lot more main battle tanks or cruise missiles. And so he's using up these resources faster than he can replace them. And the clock is ticking on that. And so there's sort of two ticking clocks. One is the pressure on Ukraine, outnumbered.

insufficient resources. And the other one is the pressure on Russia. It's expending its superior resources at a terrifying rate from the Russian perspective to try to achieve these battlefield gains. And they can't keep doing this forever. They're going to hit a critical stage.

I just want to go briefly into some Democratic Party autopsy stuff. Ah, fun. I wasn't going to do this, actually, but I was talking to somebody yesterday about how we were doing this pod today. And I was like, what would you ask them? And they brought up something that I don't think anybody's mentioned that you are maybe the perfect person in all of America to weigh in on. Something when you look at what the Dems are doing. And that is that there's a lot of talk about how Democrats have lost working class voters and hemorrhage working class voters.

Also, just to hemorrhage these huge swaths of America, this is a long time coming. Steve Shaley wrote about this for the Bulwark earlier this week about the Florida experience, which I really highly recommend. I'll put it in the show notes. He's a Democratic strategist, a very smart guy. There's a word that doesn't really ever come up in all this, which is Christianity, which is a religion. And that the Democrats...

you know, it's always like, well, maybe we should be more economically populist, you know, is the answer. Or maybe it is. Or maybe we should be tougher on immigration and crime. And maybe so. Like, the other thing is, you know, Joe Biden was a, is a faithful Catholic. It was believable that he was, that he's church-going Christian. Besides that, you know, I mean, Kamala and President Obama are Christian. I'm not saying they're not Christian, but like,

Not in the cultural sense. They didn't enter public life. Yeah. And I don't mean, it's not race. And it's not race-based. Raphael Warnock is culturally Christian, right? Talks about it as comfortable talking about his faith. He's a pastor. He's a pastor. There are plenty of people. I'm Catholic. I'm not culturally. I couldn't run for office and people would be like, he's a Christian. I mean, in a gay marriage, I don't go to church anymore. So this is what I'm talking about. People that are Christian, that are genuine believers, that go to church and that talk about it.

Would the Democrats benefit from recruiting more candidates like that? Do you think? Or the other side of this is like the kind of people they've lost that are evangelical or more like they're more culturally evangelical than faithfully evangelical anyway. And so there's not actually not a lot of ground to gain there.

Yeah, I'm going to take the darker view of this, that right now what you're dealing with is the product of decades of acculturation in white evangelical spaces. So I'm somebody, I'm pro-life, I'm socially conservative, I'm evangelical, I go to church every Sunday.

And I've been expelled, Tim. Like people call me a heretic. People call me a wolf. Even though I have not changed my views on the confessions of faith. Hey, they have beards like the Theo bros. They all have beards. They have those big beards, though. You have kind of a wolfian, narrow beard. So it has become so acculturated within sort of white evangelical spaces that to be an evangelical in that culture is to also be Republican.

It is very difficult, even for somebody who's pro-life, even for somebody who agrees with the confessions of the faith, who believes in the divine inspiration of scripture. But if you're not with Donald Trump,

Then people question whether you're even a Christian. And Tim, that sounds absurd. Makes sense. It is totally absurd. It's utterly absurd. But unless you live in these evangelicals... Jesus loved the whoremongers and the... Oh, gosh.

And unless you live in the sort of heart, the cradle of evangelical culture, you don't realize how much it's just part of the air you breathe, the water you drink. You meet a group of people who come, let's say they're at Sunday brunch after church and there's 15 people at a table.

The assumption would be that all 15 are Republicans. Ryan Burge wrote this really interesting thing. He's probably one of the best statisticians of religion out there. And he said, look, white evangelicals are Republicans. Republicans are white evangelicals.

He showed a graph of where does every religious subgroup line up with the ideology of their party? And so what he found was that black Democrats are to the right of the Democratic Party. White atheists are to the left of the Democratic Party. Mormons are to the left of the Republican Party. Catholics go right down the middle.

Between the two, but white evangelicals were the only group that exactly matched the party. Exactly. And so there's this just melt this union between white evangelical culture and the Republican Party.

that is extremely powerful and extremely difficult to crack. I do think the Democrats can carve off people on the margins, but if you're saying like, here's our electoral strategy is we're going to pry white evangelicals from the Republican party, that's really hard because they have become so culturally combined that especially in regions like where I live, that it is extremely difficult. Right.

So if you could use your dark magic as a former person in good standing and help the Democrats, since that's what evangelicals think about you, use your nefarious powers to help the Democrats, what would you tell them to do? If there's just one thing, what would be the thing that you would say would be the most helpful? Run your cities better.

I mean, I'll just be honest. Now, there are things that I agree with. It kind of annoys me living in Louisiana, which is run like shit. And nobody's like, well, we can't give Republicans power because because the Democrats. No, no, I know. I know. Republicans aren't exactly knocking it out of the park here running. I agree. But I just do that.

And look, I think people are over reading the results of the election quite a bit. I think that, you know, at the end of the day, this was a very close election, both on the Electoral College and the popular vote. A couple hundred thousand switched votes and this thing goes a different way. So historically, this is a very close election. And I firmly believe that the but for inflation and the border, Harris would have won this thing.

And if Trump botches it the next four years, if there's higher inflation or if the economy is struggling, the Democrats could win again without changing anything. I mean, this is a very closely divided country. But I will say that, look, it's just a simple fact that elements of blue run America are

are not working well, and they're not working well in the most public of ways. And so unlike, say, rural Louisiana or rural Kentucky or rural Tennessee, you know, close to where I live, the dysfunctions in rural America are not front and center in American faces in the way that dysfunctions in America's crown jewel cities are. And so including, by the way, the inability to get affordable housing for crying out loud. I mean, so if you look at who

who voted for whom, the high information voters voted for Kamala Harris. The people who sort of like are like you, Tim, that they know immediately, well, San Francisco is struggling, but have you seen Louisiana? Louisiana has some issues, right? But the people who are- I know the gleaming downtown in Shreveport, let me tell you. You know, there are lots of parts of red run America that are struggling and there's just no question about it. But

you know, people who are not paying attention to politics are not, it's not front and center. They have economic concerns. And then also it's quite telling that a lot of America's urban areas had a big red shift, uh,

in 2024. So my colleague Ezra Klein has been saying this, I'm not, you know, I'm not saying anything brand new, but embracing an abundance agenda, a growth agenda that says we're the party of optimism. We're the party that wants to get things actually done in this country. I think that, you know, is, and expresses like optimism and hope for the country. But, but Tim, I

everybody overreads these elections. I mean, you alluded to at the top and you wrote about this, but like you're like the main Tim theory at this point is that, I mean, I think that there are things Democrats should do and we'll spend a lot of time talking about that. Like Trump bail link is the main thing that could help rejuvenate the Democrats, as you mentioned. And there's certainly some, some pretty good signs that he's on, on that trajectory, but. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, and, and look, if you go back and you read,

after 04. It will be Republicans crack the code. They're going to have the enduring majority after 06. Oh, look, Democrats crack the code. 08, Obama. It's the new era. Then 2010, Tea Party. It just does this constantly. I remember the 2012 front page of BuzzFeed is just like burned in my mind. Liberal America. You know, and it's just like, it's here. Yeah, exactly. You know, the phrase coalition of the ascendant, you know, so every party overreads its victories. And

And there are a lot of people who are sort of saying about the Democrats, well, you're engaging in too much self-loathing that the MAGA, you know, MAGA didn't question itself after 2020. It just charged on believing it had won. But I actually think some of this reflection and angst is healthy, right?

You know, look. No, I do too. Yeah. You can't give up 40% of the country. This is going to happen when you give up 40% of the country. That's my one thing to the Democrats is like, you can't just count out. If Ohio and Iowa and Florida, you just won 10 years ago. You can't just count them out now and like not come up with the strategy and expect to be a majority governing party. Yeah, exactly.

So Blue Sky versus Twitter. You laughed. You had a long thread on why you're sticking with Blue Sky. I'm going to make the counter case to you really quick, and we'll see. My case for staying on Twitter is essentially twofold. One, that it's kind of my job, and so this is not a recommendation really for listeners, but I like knowing what...

the crazy mega people are saying. I think it's useful to know what they're saying. I think it's useful to engage with that, with some of them, not many people it's not useful to engage with, but there's some that it's useful to engage with. But two, all bubbles are bad.

And democratic bubbles might have different kinds of badness, or you might want to say they're not quite as bad or not quite as cruel or what is quite as whatever. But it will make me hate my new allies to go into a democratic bubble and be just bombarded with.

Anytime I issue any wrong speak, you know, by people who are trying to get me in line or have to go through, as we saw yesterday, a list of people who are purportedly the good hearted angelic ones that are cheering the murder of a CEO and cold blood on the streets because he's a health care executive. So I just bubbles are bad. Liberal bubbles are bad. Right.

Magga bubbles might be worse. That's true. But I would rather try to engage in a space where there is a variety of views. So that's my pitch for staying on awful Twitter, which is awful. And Elon is awful. So it's a modest case, but that's my modest case. Look, I monitor it. I left for a while. I came back right before the election season just because it was the election season. And it was worse than when I left it. And here's the other thing about it, Tim. It was more boring. So...

It's this kind of weird combination of super toxic and super boring in the same way that like a sewer is, you know, it's, you don't open the sewer and go, Oh gross. Let me keep watching this. It's no like yuck. Let me close the manhole cover. And that's sort of how my feeling is about Twitter. And look, I agree with you. That's one of the reasons why monitors, I do want to see what sort of like, what are the,

weirdo Christian nationalist tweeting about today or what. There is some value in that, but I have to say, as far as my job, Twitter or social media is, it's not primary, it's not secondary, it's not even tertiary. It is just an occasional outlet for me. And that's that. And so for me, it's a low priority. And so if I have a low priority engagement, I'm going to engage where

Quite frankly, I enjoy it more. And also I realized that, you know, for some people on Twitter, they, they, they,

Right.

when we don't post, because that's how they build their own platform. And so in a real way, like some of these people need you, Tim, more than a lot, a lot more than you need them. That's a good point. This is a good pitch. What about the side of it about growing resentment to the progressive bubble that you've ensconced yourself in? You're at the New York Times now, you're on Blue Sky. Are you worried about growing resentments?

I dislike the bubble. I mean, it's so funny. You know, you post something on threads or on blue sky that's critical of a Democrat and they come at you. And it's hilarious that after all that we've been through over these last nine years that

some sort of like snarky pile on on social media. What's that going to do? Oh, no. You're a Republican is showing, David. Oh, yeah, really. We're a decade into this. I don't know how much more evidence you need. But no, I...

because social media is so below tertiary for me, I'm not as worried about the bubble because I just don't live in it much. I kind of dip in and out. And that raises, I think, a point I think is important. And I'd love your thoughts on this. Like how important is this engagement? I think there was a point in time in which people thought that Twitter really did drive the national conversation. I don't think that's the case anymore. I think that

Twitter is in particular is one of the least relevant social media platforms towards for right ordinary people's lives. And so I'm not sure what you're actually getting out of it by engaging deeply. I think engaging to a shallow to moderate level. I agree with that. And I will say this, the thing that people on the left or even people like us, people in the middle, people like you have the center, right? Who, who are not, um,

MAGA, there is value in getting outside of liberal spaces and engaging, but that doesn't need to be Twitter, and Twitter might be the least valuable place out of all that. And I'm talking about the streamers and TikTok and the brand. TikTok has its own problems, but the bro podcast world and YouTube, absolutely, I do not think of it. I'm totally against hermetically sealed bubbles, and I think that it would be good for our

the public sphere as well as Democrats' political interests to engage in broader places. But I don't know that it has to be on Twitter. My main MAGA engagement is in real life. I mean, my- Yeah, right. So yeah, you don't have to actually do that. You're out of your bubble. You go out, you go to the store. Yeah, my neighborhood is 85% Republican. So it's your job to get that down to 82% by 2028. That's Steve Shale. Steve Shale has deputized you. All right, last thing. Mick gave his farewell address yesterday.

Yeah. And I want to play a clip from it. Then I'm going to have a question for you that's going to sound snarky, but is actually serious. So I want to listen to it. A country's character is a reflection not just of its elected officials, but also of its people. I leave Washington to return to be one among them and hope to be a voice of unity and virtue. For it is only if the American people merit his benevolence that God will continue to bless America.

I thought that was interesting. Only if Americans deserve it, merit God's love. He seemed to leave it as a question. And I want to leave that question for you. Are we meriting God's love right now? Well, no.

Now we're going to get a little gospel, Tim. So let's do it. The bottom line is God loves us whether we merit it or not. And God's grace has been poured out upon us whether we merit it or not. And in fact, that's the entire point of the cross. The cross is Jesus taking upon himself the punishment of our sin. He loved us so much that he took upon himself the punishment for our sin. But that's not really what Mitt is talking about here. I don't think he's talking about

Does God love Tim Miller or David French? And do we merit his blessing? I don't think he's talking about that. I think he's talking about something that's actually, you know, a quite biblical concept, which is, you know, if you read the Old Testament, God does judge nations, right?

for their wickedness. You know, there are times when God, you know, in the Old Testament accounts is very displeased with the Babylonians or the Assyrians or the, you know, the Israelites at different points in time. And so I think that what he's saying is,

look, you know, a lot of people have viewed the United States as sort of this shining city on a hill that we're a country that's not only great as in powerful, but it's also a country that is good as in virtuous. And that's not something that we can take for granted. And I think that adding in that sort of element of meriting God's favor sort of as a message, you know, to theologically conservative people who've read scripture and realize that God does judge nations and

And in fact, you know, Tim, it's fascinating. That would be a very uncontroversial message in Christian circles. It would have been.

In 1998, the Southern Baptist Convention wrote a statement on character and politicians. This was when Clinton was in trouble, not Trump, in 98, that said this, that tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, leads to unrestrained lawlessness, and will surely result in God's judgment.

So this was a sort of a conventional statement of Christian theology for a long time that, yeah, in fact, a country can go awry and God can judge a country. So I think in that sense, I don't think he's talking at all about does God love Tim Miller or David French, depending on how good or bad we are. It's much more, wait a minute, you know, we have a responsibility as a country to be good as well as great, right?

And if you are a believer in a holy and righteous and just God, that if a country is evil and

or, you know, wicked in some ways that, you know, there are consequences. David French, thank you for your judgment, for hanging out with me. And we'll be talking in the new year. Tim, it is always a pleasure to talk to you, even when the topics are grim. Have a wonderful holiday season. Merry Christmas to you and the family. Merry Christmas. And we'll see you soon. Everybody else, I'll be back here tomorrow for another edition of the Bullard Podcast. Come hang out with me then. Peace.

I can taste your fear It's gonna lift you up and take you out of here And the bone shall never heal I cannot let you kneel We can't find you now But they're gonna get their money back somehow And when you finally disappear Would you say you were never here? You've fallen short while your life has been singing half-response

The Bulwark Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.