A Truly Unhinged Trump Interview — Morning Shots LIVE

[0:02] All right, I think we are live. Hi, everybody. I am Andrew Egger with The Bulwark. This is Bill [0:07] Crystal with The Bulwark. We write the Morning Shots newsletter every weekday morning coming [0:11] to you free in your inbox. And on Tuesdays, we go live for... Now, this is interesting. People [0:17] were calling it Morning Chaser. I've noticed people have stopped saying that. Now people [0:20] are starting to say Morning Shots Live. I mean, people like my coworkers, my colleagues. So I'm [0:24] actually not sure whether this is Morning Chaser anymore, whether this is just Morning Shots Live. [0:28] Maybe if you have consumer preferences, you can tell us which we should use from now on. [0:32] Anyway, it's Tuesday morning. We're here to talk. And we are here to talk with some fresh, [0:37] real hot-off-the-presses content for you because Donald Trump, our president, whom you have [0:43] probably heard of, just wrapped up a long, a rambling, a very strange and rich interview [0:51] on CNBC's Squawk Box this morning. They talked for a very long time. Donald Trump these days, [0:57] he's become very kind of fragmented in his communication. Obviously, he's always there [1:01] on Truth Social. He's always picking up the phone and calling random reporters for 90-second [1:06] chit-chats. But he has not done a lot of these real big sit-down interviews recently. He talked [1:11] to Maria Bartiromo on Fox the other day. And then this is kind of the other major one he's [1:17] done recently. Like I said, rich text. So we're going to talk a lot about it. Bill, just maybe [1:23] right off the dome, was there anything in particular that stood out to you from the president this [1:30] morning? Maybe as far as Iran is concerned or anything else, was there a major highlight [1:34] moment for you or should we just go through it? I guess I'd just like to register at the beginning [1:38] of my complaint that he does these 8.30 a.m. interviews live. We put morning shots to bed [1:43] around 9 and then it gets proofread and layout stuff happens and you guys get it in your inbox [1:48] around 9.30. So we did, I think, put the topper in based on something he said on his interview this [1:55] morning at 8.30. Obviously can't write the whole thing based on an 8.30 interview or what he's [2:00] saying stuff at 8.45 and 9 o'clock. So a little annoying that he's doing 8.30 a.m. interviews. [2:05] And you're our White House correspondent, Andrew. That's one of your titles. So you should weigh in [2:10] there with Caroline and tell her, you know, look, 6 a.m. is fine. We can write off at 6.30, 7.30 [2:14] or 10 p.m. the night before. That would be our preference, frankly. Yes, yes. Can you make that [2:19] happen? I will start throwing my weight around at the White House. Look, I don't know. I mean, [2:23] I think almost any given day, I totally agree with you. On Tuesdays, it's kind of nice because [2:27] it gives us something fresh to chew over here. Okay, so tell him Tuesday, that's good. Tuesday's [2:30] okay. That's right. So anyway, so let's chew over. You lead off. You looked at more closely what he [2:34] said. He went long, right? He was supposed to be his guy, his team, whatever he put it. My guys only [2:40] gave me 20 minutes, but then he wanted to go longer and he did go longer, I guess. Yeah, yeah, [2:43] yeah. I mean, this happens when Trump builds up a head of steam sometimes with an interviewer that he [2:48] likes. And obviously Joe Kernan over there at CNBC, very Trumpy guy, very sort of solicitous [2:53] interviewer. Not a bad interviewer. You got asked him some interesting questions and got some [2:57] interesting answers. So let's start going through them because obviously top of mind for everybody [3:01] right now is the war in Iran, the ongoing war in Iran. We have this ceasefire that at first didn't [3:06] really resemble a ceasefire in any way. Now it has, you know, there was a very brief window in there [3:12] where both sides were actually honoring the ceasefire. The Strait of Hormuz was open for like 15 minutes [3:16] on Friday into Saturday. Now we are back to, you know, the ceasefire having basically [3:22] broken down in every respect except for the United States resuming its sort of aerial bombardment [3:28] campaign. But, but, you know, there are talks that are slated to happen that Iran has finally [3:33] agreed to participate in that are going to be going forward in Islamabad just in, in the next day or so [3:38] in Pakistan. And then the ceasefire will in theory expire if they can't, if they can't come to an [3:44] agreement. And so let's, let's just hear Trump talking about that a little bit about what we should [3:48] expect to see next in Iran. To be clear, you're, you're saying that you need a, at least the [3:55] prospects for a signed deal today and tomorrow, or else you would resume bombing Iran? Well, [4:06] I expect to be bombing because I think that's a better attitude to go in with, but we're ready [4:11] to go. I mean, the military is raring to go. They are absolutely incredible. You're not. Yeah. So there [4:19] you go. I mean, does that, does that sound like a strong hope that a, that a peace deal is about [4:24] to be struck in Islamabad in the next 48 hours, Bill? I actually think it's more likely than not, [4:30] because I just think this is Trump's idea of the art of the deal. And you've got to sound super tough [4:34] to get yourself a quote, good deal. He desperately wants to get out. He wouldn't mind perhaps one last [4:39] spasm of bombing to look tough, sort of like Nixon and, you know, the Christmas bombing of North [4:44] Vietnam in 72 or something. But I don't know that he has the stomach for really starting this up [4:49] again and, and dealing with Iran's countermeasures, which would be real. And I think also, I really [4:54] hate it when he uses the military. The military is not, people I know in the military in general, [5:00] I haven't talked to anyone about this particular, like today, whether they were, of course they [5:04] obey orders. And of course they join because they believe they're, they want to be good at fighting. [5:08] And there's a certain amount of relishing with this real conflict, but they're not raring to go to [5:13] bomb a bunch of civilian targets. If anything, I would imagine there's a lot of reluctance and there has [5:18] been resistance. We know this in the Pentagon to the original list of targets, Hegseth wanted and [5:23] so forth, but it just makes our military sound horrible that I think that they're kind of, [5:27] you know, just trigger happy and bloodthirsty guys who Trump's holding them back. It's quite the [5:32] contrary in this case, I think. Yeah. Yeah. I don't think we have a clip of, of this, [5:36] but there was another moment in this interview. It was just very sort of strange to watch where you [5:41] have a current and the interviewer basically trying to kind of lead Trump toward talking about, [5:48] you know, the, the importance of the Iranian people and how much we love the Iranian people [5:51] and how we, how we got into this conflict to help them out. And, and wouldn't he agree that if we were [5:57] to, you know, really start bombing some of this, you know, mixed use infrastructure, this civilian [6:01] infrastructure that, that the military also benefits from, that, that would be extremely damaging [6:06] to the sort of prosperity and just everyday lives of these Iranian people. Uh, and, and Trump didn't, [6:12] didn't give him an inch on that stuff. You know, he basically said, well, look, you know, we're going [6:15] to have to, we're going to have to hit these, these energy, uh, production centers. We're gonna have [6:19] to hit these bridges and, you know, the, the military uses them too. So, uh, so that was, I mean, [6:23] we, we've talked so much about Iran. Um, we're, there's going to be developments one way or another [6:28] and all this stuff in the next 48 hours. So, so probably it's better to just kind of keep powder dry [6:32] here. It's just strange that like, we're still doing this. We're still talking about this. Um, the, [6:36] the one other thing that we will say about Iran is this, is this next clip of the president, [6:40] which is just him kind of complaining that people are complaining that it's not over yet. [6:45] This, this, uh, this conflict that he never solicited, uh, the, you know, the, the, the [6:50] will of Congress to get into in the first place that he just, you know, the first day he started [6:54] the bombing, he himself was saying, but you don't need to worry. We're going to be in, we're going [6:57] to be out. It's going to be this little disruption, you know, little, little military excursion. [7:01] Um, and now, now he has kind of moved on to, to these comparisons of basically saying, [7:06] uh, you think an eight week war is bad. Uh, what about world war one? That lasted quite a bit [7:10] longer. So let's listen to it. Let's listen to Trump on this topic over and it will end when [7:15] it's over. You know, they want it to be over immediately. And I just looked at a little [7:19] chart, world war one, four years and three months, world war two, six years, Korean war, three years, [7:25] Vietnam, 19 years, Iraq, eight years. I'm five months. Okay. Five months. I would have won [7:33] Vietnam very quickly. I would have, if I were president, I would have won Iraq in the same [7:39] amount of time that we won. Cause essentially we've won here. Okay. I mean, people can play [7:45] games. The Democrats could say, well, let's cut it there. Cause it's already such a, such a rich [7:49] text. I mean, do you have a favorite moment in that bill? Cause there's like six different [7:53] things that, that, that we got to pull out. [7:56] I mean, they give him some chart. That's the length of the war. It's not, it's really not [8:00] to be pedantic. It's not the length of our involvement in the wars. You know, if you look [8:04] at the numbers he has in world war one, right? He has four years and three months or something [8:07] in world war two, six years, I guess he's dating from September 39 or something. Um, anyway, [8:12] so, uh, which, so that's just one pedantic point. Well, those were all wars were all authorized [8:17] with the, uh, by Congress. There were wars. Yeah. Yeah. With a slight exception of Vietnam, [8:21] which was de facto, you might say authorized by repeated appropriations for it. [8:25] Uh, here we had neither an authorization or an appropriation. It is kind of astonishing. [8:29] Just, you made this point just in passing a second ago, but I mean, here we're six, seven [8:34] in the seventh week and Republicans in Congress still have the position that that nothing to [8:38] authorize here, nothing to debate. We shouldn't have an actual discussion about whether this [8:42] is wise to be doing it as he's talking about. I don't think he's going to, if I had to bet, [8:46] but still he's talking about reopening yet another pretty massive, I suppose, bombing campaign [8:51] and a rather morally problematic one, uh, against the nation of Iran. Maybe that's [8:55] something that Congress could discuss, but nope, the Republicans have no interest in it. [9:00] Yeah. Yeah. And, and I mean, there's just so many little things when you hear him talk, [9:03] like, like the, the, the things that sort of flash by and you're like, wait, uh, what was that? [9:07] Like, like for instance, the five months bit, he's like, uh, you know, Korean war, three years, [9:10] Vietnam, 19 years, Iraq, eight years. I'm five months. Okay. Five months. What's five months. [9:15] We've been, we've been attacking, uh, Iran for eight weeks. So that is, that is just sort of in [9:20] passing somewhat strange. Uh, maybe, maybe there's some oblique way in which that makes sense, [9:24] or maybe he's just saying a number who knows. And then immediately from that into, I would have won [9:28] Vietnam very quickly. I would have, if I were president, I would have won Iraq in the same [9:32] amount of time that we want because essentially we've won here. So basically he's saying, you know, [9:36] if he had only been in charge for Iraq, for Vietnam, uh, these would have been, you know, [9:40] we would have won in, in two or three days, eight weeks at the most. I mean, it's just, [9:43] it's, it's a struggle because like we, we do this show, we pull out clips, you know, [9:48] we have to zero in on specific moments, but you listen to these interviews and it's like a 40 [9:52] minute barrage of that kind of thing. Right. So we're going to get to a few more moments, [9:55] but just like the, the genuine, like insanity that's on display. I mean, is that, is that too [10:00] harsh, Bill? I mean, it really is astonishing listening to this guy try to string thoughts [10:04] together. Yeah. It's a kind of amazing to also say he would have won Vietnam easily or whatever [10:09] award that he of course avoided serving in, but, um, whatever one thinks of Vietnam and the [10:13] debates that happened during Vietnam and gradual escalation versus a bigger attack. [10:18] I mean, I don't believe that anyone seriously thinks that was just a piece of cake. And [10:22] I guess what is he probably has the kind of Curtis LeMay position. We would have just [10:25] bombed the back to the stone age right away. And then one, I don't know that that's his general [10:29] attitude, big talk, but you know, when it comes to actually, well, I don't know, it's not even [10:34] worth getting into, but it's just ridiculous. Yeah. Yeah. A lot of people have, have kind of made a [10:38] lot of hay over the years about, about Donald Trump's, you know, draft dodging in Vietnam and sort of [10:42] the, the, the cowardice on display and all of that. And his gross comments about, you know, [10:46] avoiding venereal disease being his own personal Vietnam and all that stuff. But I don't think [10:50] we've given enough time to, to the fact that he really, you know, he deprived the world of, [10:55] of Donald Trump's presence in Vietnam that would have ended up winning that conflict very quickly. [10:59] Um, you know, we could have, we could have had a, had a whole different turn to history. [11:02] Um, and I think that's a shame that we didn't get that. Um, um, you know, the, the, the Trump in [11:06] Vietnam that, that, that would have, that would have, uh, won it, won it for us real fast. Um, [11:10] okay. That's enough about all that. Um, let's move on, uh, because this was not just a war [11:14] interview. And like I said, there's going to be, God knows, plenty of war stuff to talk [11:17] about, uh, over the next few days. Um, but, uh, but there are a number of other controversies, [11:21] uh, that the president dipped into in this interview. And one of them, which we've written [11:25] about in, uh, in, in recent days is the, the weird boondoggle about the chair of the federal [11:32] reserve, Jay Powell, Jerome Powell, um, whose term is up next month, but who may not end up leaving [11:38] right at the end of his term, like he's supposed to, because his would be successor, Trump's nominee [11:44] to succeed him as chair of the fed, Kevin Warsh, uh, has, has yet to be confirmed. And the reason [11:50] that Warsh has yet to be confirmed is because Trump has been trying to hustle Powell out faster, [11:55] uh, with all of these ludicrous authoritarian strong arm tactics, like opening a criminal [12:00] investigation into him and into the fed, um, which was, which was all designed to get Powell to [12:06] either resign or to, you know, be more pliant, uh, in, in how he sets, uh, rates at the, at the [12:14] fed, the way Donald Trump wants him to. Um, and instead, you know, we are now in a situation where [12:19] by trying to hasten Powell's exit, uh, Trump may actually be prolonging his stay, prolonging his [12:25] tenure because until Warsh is confirmed, Powell will remain there. Um, and so we've gotten this [12:30] weird dynamic in a lot of these interviews with pro Trump reporters, people who are, who are very [12:36] much on his side, who are asking him questions, who are not even bothering to pretend that this [12:40] criminal investigation into, into Powell is some, you know, independent, just sort of follow the [12:46] facts where they lead sort of thing. Even Trump's sort of friendly interviewers are acknowledging [12:52] that this is a pretextual thing that Trump ordered in order to put pressure on Powell. [12:56] And yet, and yet they're sort of just asking now, Mr. President, wouldn't you agree that maybe [13:01] the thing to do now is to drop this probe, uh, in order to actually accomplish the aim that you [13:07] started it for in the first place, which is to get Powell out of there. And his response, [13:10] I'll warn you it's long and we're only going to play like a little chunk of it, but, but we wanted [13:13] to give you like a, a decent chunk just to give you a sense. So this is, this is Trump on that [13:17] particular question. It'd be possible for the banking committee to completely investigate all of [13:25] your concerns about the cost overruns and the testimony, uh, of Jay Powell in front of Congress. [13:30] If you could take that off ramp to get this moving and Jay Powell leaves, Kevin Warsh goes [13:37] in. Is that something you'd consider dropping for the, the DOJ probe to let the banking committee [13:43] handle it? [13:44] Well, I think it is from the standpoint, Joe, from the standpoint that we have to find out [13:47] why a small building costs close to $4 billion. It's not finished, by the way, they have a long [13:54] way to go. They ripped down the most beautiful ceilings. They'll never build them again. The most [13:58] beautiful thick foot and a half thick walls of solid masonry. They're never going to be built [14:03] again. They put up six inch sheet rock walls and they say, so we have no insulation. It's not in the [14:09] budget. I mean, these, well, they had the best, that building was so beautiful. I would have fixed that [14:13] building. I would have had it brand new, beautiful for $25 million and they're going to spend close to [14:19] $4 billion, maybe more than that. I don't know. It's not finished. In fact, I looked at it the other day. I'm, I'm [14:24] afraid Kevin will have to have an office next to me in the White House because that building's not [14:29] going to be done. He's not going to be able to use that building for a long time. And it's about a [14:33] fifth of that answer, by the way, he goes on and on and on and on and on. Our producer, Matt clocked it [14:37] at six minutes, uh, in, in answering this question of why he does not actually want to, want to sort [14:43] of wash, uh, the DOJ's hands of this investigation and hand it over to the banking committee. Uh, what, [14:47] what do you, what do you make of it, Bill? [14:48] I think we're saying just, it's a criminal investigation. No one's accusing Jay Powell [14:53] of taking any money, right? I mean, this is not like, unlike if I might just say Trump, [14:57] the Trump family, the Lutnick family, the Wyckoff family, and all these other people who are [15:02] justly, in my view, accused, or at least what we know that they're getting a lot of money off a lot [15:06] of things, many of which are government related. Maybe the fed did a good job. Maybe they didn't do [15:11] a good job of managing the, you know, the fixing up of their old building. I have no idea. And if [15:15] Congress wants to look at that, fine. But it's really insane that, um, that this is a criminal [15:19] investigation here. And I, Joe Kernan is like speaking for common sense when he says, could you, [15:24] can't we just let this drop? But oh no, he wants to keep it up. Trump doesn't like people who cross [15:29] him. I mean, I think he's probably, even if Worsh gets confirmed, I really wonder, the whole thing, [15:34] don't you think, has been so, uh, he's got, it's become so, he's made such a big deal of how he wants [15:40] a compliant, or pliant, I guess is the better word, fed chairman. It's actually, [15:45] weirdly going to be a little harder for Worsh, I think, to do what Trump wants, which is always [15:49] going to be the lower rates, especially if inflation is up. And incidentally, it's not [15:52] like the fed chairman can just snap his fingers and do it. There is an actual board that votes [15:56] on these rate moves. And Powell could stay on the board, though not as chair, his term as his seat [16:02] doesn't expire. And there are others on the board who are not necessarily dovish on rates. So Trump is [16:08] making, I guess he wants to have a whipping boy there, maybe in the fed, but he's making the actual job [16:13] of the person who I suppose will eventually become fed chairman. Maybe he won't be, I don't know, [16:17] he's got his own conflicts of interest Worsh and his own business stuff. But anyway, uh, whoever [16:22] becomes the next chairman, if someone does, if it's not just Powell, uh, Trump's making his life more [16:27] difficult, not easier. Yeah. Yeah. I have a theory about this and I'm curious to get your take on it [16:31] because, because I did a, a live with Catherine Rampell about a lot of this stuff a few days ago. And we had [16:36] a little bit of a disagreement about what, what's actually going on in Trump's mind here, because [16:40] there, you can make an argument. And I think Catherine was kind of making this argument that [16:43] all of this is just, you know, Trump not really believing, you know, what he's, what, what he's [16:48] saying. It's all just sort of like kayfabe in order to try to get Powell. Um, and, and it has been [16:53] all along. I am kind of, of the view after listening to a bunch of these interviews, he, cause he always [16:59] does the same thing, right? It's always like somebody asks him what's going to happen with Powell. Is it [17:03] possible you'll drop that probe? And he could answer that question, you know, either way very quickly and [17:07] move on, but he really does seem genuinely personally aggrieved about a lot of the nitty [17:12] gritty details of this fed building probe. Um, and, and, you know, he's, he in, in that sort of like [17:19] weird developer way that Trump has, where he activates the same part of his brain, uh, that, [17:23] that gets him so excited about his ballroom or about the Kennedy center or about any of these things. [17:28] Um, and, and it genuinely, I, I, I genuinely think there's a way in which he's gotten high on his own [17:32] supply here where he's like, yeah, I really, I don't like Powell cause he wouldn't cut interest [17:37] rates. Um, and, and, you know, I, I hope Kevin Warsh gets in there and can cut interest rates for [17:41] me pretty soon, but all that has to be set aside for the time being until we get to the bottom of [17:47] this scandal at the fed. And I think like, that's a genuine thing on the part of the president. [17:52] He seems actually mad and aggrieved about it. I don't know what you, what you make of all that. [17:56] No, I think you could well be right. I haven't really thought about it that way. [17:59] He certainly is obsessed with the construction stuff. I've always taken that to be more [18:02] on the, you know, vanity and egomaniacal side of things, the Kennedy center, especially the ballroom. [18:08] There's a good piece in the Washington post was it over the weekend that every, he's mentioned [18:12] the ballroom more often this year and brought it up. You almost always bringing it up himself [18:17] in speeches and appearances and interruptions in his own speeches to point out there and discuss [18:23] it when he's at the white house. He mentioned the ballroom more often than he's mentioned health [18:26] insurance or a million other issues. You know, he's obsessed with the ballroom and that's his, [18:30] but I've always taken that to be part of his, as I say, ego, megalomaniacal, you know, [18:35] wanting to leave these things with his name on it behind and so forth. Anyway, so I don't know if [18:40] the Fed thing is his developer. Just, you know, he doesn't like the way they're doing it. I think [18:45] he doesn't like Powell. He appointed Powell. He, Powell did not accommodate him in 2020 and he [18:50] probably blames Powell partly for, you know, the economy not being even stronger and therefore [18:55] him not getting reelected. And so I think there's a pretty big personal grudge against Powell too. [19:00] Yeah. Yeah. Do you remember that speech that he gave, I think last year at the United Nations where [19:05] he went in and did like five minutes of shtick right off the top about, you know, relitigating old [19:11] grievances that back when he was a developer, the UN had given the contract to somebody else to [19:15] renovate their, their building in New York rather than him. And, you know, they went with terrazzo floors [19:20] instead of the, the, the beautiful marble he would have done. I mean, like really just like [19:24] chapter and verse through this stuff. There's something about the guy. I don't know. I don't [19:27] know exactly what to make of it, but, uh, but apparently, you know, Jerome Powell is, is a [19:31] public architect enemy number one, uh, as well as the, the interest rates, uh, boogeyman for, [19:36] for the president right now. Um, that's enough about all that. Let's do one more clip here. One, [19:40] one last clip from this, this squawk box interview before we go on to a few other things, [19:44] because it's about, it's both newsy and again, just, just a real, real insight into the, [19:49] the mind of this singular president, uh, and the way he approaches these things. This is about, [19:54] um, the, the, the tariffs, the tariffs, uh, the, the liberation day tariffs, which the Supreme [19:58] court struck down, uh, a little while ago. And specifically on the question of whether, [20:03] uh, the tariff revenues that were collected all last year, you know, now that the Supreme court has [20:08] said those taxes were illegal, you weren't ever allowed to take in those billions and billions of [20:12] dollars. The question being, do they have to give them back? Um, and, and Trump weighing in on this [20:16] specific question. Uh, let's play that real quick here. [20:20] President on that topic, there's a whole number of very large companies, including Apple and Amazon [20:25] and others that have not sought, uh, reimbursements yet, uh, for the tariffs. I mean, [20:31] they, they haven't, they haven't tried to collect refunds. Um, and from what I understand, part of [20:36] the reason that they have waited is because there is a worry, uh, about frankly, offending you. Uh, [20:43] do you, would you find it offensive for them to try to, uh, collect a refund? [20:47] I think it's brilliant. If they don't do that, actually, I actually, if they don't do that, [20:50] they, they got to know me very well. I'm very honored by what you just said. If they don't do [20:55] that, I'll remember them. I will tell you that because I'm looking to make this country strong. [21:00] Supreme court could have helped us. Now they have birthright citizenship. They'll probably rule [21:04] against us. No country in the world has it. It's horrible for our country. And I just see it. You [21:09] know, I see some of these Republicans that are nominated by me, uh, asking real bad questions [21:17] and looks like maybe we're going to lose that one too. Look what happened with NIL. They destroyed [21:23] college sports, the court system destroyed. So there's kind of two halves to that one, right? [21:29] I mean, which, which one do you want to tackle first, Bill? We can do the, the, the tariff stuff [21:33] or the, the grab bag of Supreme court grievance there at the end. I think the tariff thing is [21:37] revealing in this way. Trump is proud of the destruction of the rule of law and the turning [21:43] and turning our nation as much as he's been able to, uh, into crony capitalism and depending on [21:48] government favors and depending on favors from him and that you will, you know, he will turn [21:54] government in a certain direction because you have carried favor with him. Obviously we've seen that in [21:58] the, in the payoffs basically in terms of the contributions and both to the family, direct [22:03] payoffs to the family and the contributions to the ballroom and all this other stuff. So, uh, you [22:07] know, it's, it's nothing new, but I'd say other presidents might've concealed a little bit of that [22:12] or been, you know, done that under the guise of a kind of rule of law thing. Trump's proud of it. [22:17] That's great. Amazon and Apple are being smart if they're carrying favor with me and I'm going to [22:21] remember, right? They said, so I am struck by the degree to which he does not try to pretend that he's [22:26] as any belief in any kind of sort of impartial, uh, rule of law or kind of free market capitalism. [22:34] Yeah. And, and not only, not only that they're carrying favor with him and he will, he will [22:39] remember that and, and, you know, bestow blessings on them later, but the specific mechanism by which [22:43] he's glad they're carrying favor with him, just to be clear, the Supreme court has said it was illegal [22:48] for the government to collect this money. The government had no right under the law to, to rake in [22:53] these billions and billions of dollars from all of these companies. And the idea that, that the [22:58] president would then turn around and make that a litmus test and say, well, are you with me? Are [23:02] you going to let me keep that money or are you against me? And you're going to try to, as you [23:06] have every right to do under the law, go back and get the money that you should never have had to pay [23:11] me in the first place, according to the, according to the highest court in the land and the fact that [23:15] and give that money back to the taxpayers. It's not to him. I mean, right. This isn't like a civil [23:19] suit between Donald Trump and Amazon. And he's grateful that Amazon's dropping the suit or [23:24] something. That would be kind of white wonder. This is money they're supposed to get back because [23:27] the taxpayers are supposed to get that money back, so to speak. Not, you know, the government, [23:31] our government is supposed to have that money. And, uh, uh, anyway. [23:35] Yeah, no, it's, uh, it's, it's really grotesque. [23:38] And I mean, he's the companies, companies are supposed to get it back so they can, you know, [23:42] Well, they are the taxpayer in this instance. I mean, they are the ones that are literally [23:44] paying the tariffs. And they presume we would pass it on to their consumers and so forth. [23:48] Yeah. Yeah. So it's a, it's all a mess. Um, uh, but, but we can, we can leave that there. We [23:53] don't have to get into the end, you know, the college sports stuff, the birth. He is, [23:56] he is obviously incorrect that we are the only country that does birthright citizenship. Just not [24:00] true. There are a bunch of others. Uh, and we've done it for a long time. It's worked out pretty well [24:03] for us. Um, but, but yeah, I mean, I don't know that you, you, you, you kind of got a sense from [24:07] that, the end of that clip there, most of the interviews like this, right. He gets asked a question [24:11] and he goes pinballing off, uh, onto, onto whatever other topics they try to bring him [24:16] back. Uh, he pinballs off a different direction. I mean, this is just the way that his, his mind [24:20] functions these days. Um, but we can leave it at that. That's enough of a, that's enough direct [24:23] from the president for one day. Uh, unless Bill, is there anything else you want to, you want to [24:26] hit before we split? Just, you know, I thought that last thing is revealing. He, there's always a [24:30] little bit of a canniness in his insanity. And in this case, he wants to attack the court. He wants [24:37] to discredit the court as much as possible as these decisions that are negative to him [24:40] in the case of tariffs have come down or will come down in the case of birthright citizenship. [24:44] So the NIL thing is like literally insane in the sense that what does that have to do with anything? [24:49] And I don't know, did the U S government never have a position on that? I'm not, I don't know. [24:52] Did Trump administration, but, uh, it just sort of, uh, if you have some, if you don't think college [24:56] football is what it used to be, or college sports is what it used to be, because the entire Michigan [24:59] team, the one this year is, you know, for, are all transfers or whatever, uh, because of NIL, [25:04] uh, you know, to blame the court. I mean, he is kind of clever in a very weird way, [25:08] accumulate any grievance you can against any institution you want to delegitimize or lessen [25:14] the stature of he's pretty, I guess he's pretty good at that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, [25:18] everybody should be good at something. Um, uh, I guess we'll leave it there. That's enough [25:21] with the president. We got a couple more stories, uh, to hit, but before we hit those, uh, we got [25:26] to do a quick ad read. In fact, you, you got a tiny sneak preview of it, of, of me dressed [25:30] different right at the top. Uh, when we played on those other clips, let's hit that real quick. [25:33] We got an ad for you. Bulwark takes is sponsored by Zoc doc. I've got young kids at home. I know [25:40] health issues don't follow a neat nine to five schedule. In fact, sometimes it's 9 PM to 5 AM [25:45] with Zoc doc having no time to book a doctor's appointment is actually no problem. So when you [25:49] don't have any time for yourself until 11 PM, cut your finger, making a midnight snack or binge [25:54] watch a medical drama and unlock a new health fear. You can go to Zoc doc anytime, 24 seven and find [26:00] a doctor you love to make your health plan happen. Yep. Even if it's way after hours. [26:05] Zoc doc is a free app and website that helps you find and book high quality in network doctors. [26:10] So you can find someone you love. We're talking about booking in network appointments with more [26:14] than 150,000 providers across all 50 States, whether you're looking for dermatology, dentistry, [26:20] primary care, eye care, or one of the other 200 plus specialties offered on Zoc doc. You can [26:25] easily search by specialty or symptom to build the care team. That's right for you. [26:29] Appointments made through Zoc doc happen fast, typically within just 24 to 72 hours of booking. [26:34] You can even score same day appointments. Stop putting off those doctor's appointments and go [26:38] to Zoc doc.com slash bulwark takes to find an instantly book a doctor you love today. That's Z-O-C-D-O-C.com [26:46] slash bulwark takes Zoc doc.com slash bulwark takes. Thanks Zoc doc for sponsoring this message. [26:53] Wow. We're getting a little fancy with the visual elements, uh, uh, for these now that, that nine, [26:59] that 9 PM to 5 AM thing is true by the way. I, uh, just, just this last night I was, uh, [27:03] I was up half the night with a, with a, uh, a semi ill child. So that's if, if, if you're wondering, [27:07] if you've been sitting there wondering why I am lacking my ordinary sort of, uh, verve and, and, [27:12] and ever effervescence, um, now, you know, um, but, uh, but, but, but, but I digress on that front. [27:17] Um, I should say, cause we said at the top and haven't said since I'm Andrew Edgar with the [27:20] bulwark. This is bill crystal with the bulwark. We write the morning shots newsletter. Uh, we're [27:23] coming to you live on Tuesday, uh, to talk about Donald Trump's, uh, interview this morning on [27:27] squawk box and a bunch of other stuff. This is strange bill. Cause we're 28 minutes into this. [27:31] Uh, and we have yet to talk about what under ordinary circumstances would have been, you know, [27:36] the big news of the day right now, which is that Donald Trump had a cabinet secretary resign [27:41] yesterday. But like the, the fact that this is, this is like a B story, even while it's happening, [27:46] has sort of epitomized, uh, the tenure of, of outgoing labor secretary, Lori, Lori Chavez [27:52] de Raymer, who has been totally racked by scandal the entire time she has been in this job and yet [27:57] has never really seemed to be able to break into the headlines about it. It's been sort of strange, [28:01] but you wrote about this, uh, this morning and morning shots bill. Can you just talk a little [28:04] bit about what happened? You know, what's, what's, what's, what's underway here, uh, in, [28:08] at the department of labor. She had all kinds of personal scandals and they finally forced her out. [28:12] It sounds like, uh, her departure was announced by the white house spokesman, [28:15] uh, in a, unceremoniously in a truth social post, not, they didn't let her at least even [28:21] announce her own resignation. Um, so they've now pushed out three cabinet secretaries in, [28:26] I guess, about seven weeks, uh, um, uh, Kristi Noem and, and Pam Bondi and now, uh, the labor secretary, [28:35] they have been all three to be women. I go on about that a little bit, kind of abusing that, [28:38] you know, Hagseth and, uh, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Lutnick, all of whom have comparable, [28:45] I'd say either miss mismanagement of their agencies and or personal scandals. They, they're, [28:51] they're, they're still there. Maybe they'll go, uh, maybe not. Kash Patel's still there. [28:55] FBI is not on the cabinet, but pretty important job. So maybe a little bit of gender issues there [29:00] with Trump and his judgment of these different people. But, um, uh, anyway, so it's, yeah, [29:05] but you're right. It's, I mean, look, honestly, this, when you, when you've lived with Kristi Noem [29:09] and the level of scandal we had there, and when you've lived with, uh, Lutnick and, uh, [29:14] Witkoff and the Trump family, you know, the, the, the stuff that the labor secretary was doing [29:20] actually reminded me a little bit more of old time scandals where, you know, she's using the staff [29:24] to get her a drink from the hotel bar. And there was some pretty bad stuff, some sexual stuff [29:28] with some security garden and kind of miss, you know, fairly bit bad misuse of her staff, [29:34] but it was a little, it was, it was, it was penny ante stuff compared to what we're used to in the [29:38] era of Trump. Right. The, the, the stuff that we, that we once upon a time would have said, [29:42] Oh man, she's, uh, she's gone. She can't survive this. And yet she has just kind of lived along all [29:47] this time because there have always been bigger headlines on any given day. I remember, I mean, [29:50] the only, the only piece of original reporting that I think I did about, uh, about the labor secretary [29:55] for the, for her entire tenure was very early on. Um, you know, when, when we were still in the sort [30:00] of, um, you know, Trump's people are coming into all these agencies and everybody's kind of mad and [30:06] doge is going on and everybody's really unsettled and nobody knows if their job is safe. And I just [30:10] remember that, that, uh, that she came in and, and pretty promptly threw herself a sort of large [30:16] birthday party at the labor department, um, which we had, you know, sort of a grieved, uh, sort of [30:21] labor department, civil servants, uh, uh, you know, leaking to us pictures, pictures of this party [30:26] with, you know, with her face, uh, you know, uh, uh, posted jauntily around the, around the building [30:32] and things like this. Um, so, so yeah, I mean, again, just, she was one of these people where, [30:36] where she, she could have come in and, and sort of soothed things. And instead she kind of came in and, [30:42] and got the, got her, her employees against her pretty quick and, and ended up, you know, [30:46] being in a lot of these scandals. And it was sort of probably just a matter of time. [30:50] Her husband also was sort of banned from labor department headquarters for also supposedly, [30:55] uh, you know, allegations of sexual harassment and all these sorts of things. So just a weird [30:59] figure, uh, overall, but also sort of an interesting figure because she was, uh, supposedly it's been [31:04] reported kind of one of Trump's strongest connections to actual organized labor, um, [31:09] which has been, you know, a significant part of his coalition over the last few years. [31:13] Um, so, uh, so who knows, who knows what will happen, uh, as a result of this, but, uh, [31:17] but so long to, to Lori Chavez de Raymer, who, uh, could not even manage to be front page news [31:22] on the day of her firing, whether that is good, uh, or bad for her, uh, I will leave to the reader [31:27] to determine, but that's enough. I mean, do you have anything else on her or should we, [31:29] should we move on? No, no, no. All right. So long, Lori, um, secretary, uh, madam secretary. [31:34] Um, thanks for, thanks for your service. Uh, let's go on to one other thing here, [31:37] which is this is, and this is a little bit small ball, unless you're us. Um, cause we both live in [31:41] Virginia. Uh, but I guess not. I mean, it has as big national repercussions for the, for the house [31:46] of representatives. Um, the, the Virginia redistricting vote, uh, it's, it's arrived. [31:51] It's today. Um, you, you probably voted early bill. Uh, I didn't cause I, uh, uh, was, was, [31:56] you know, I, I, I procrastinated. I got it off. I have to go vote today. Um, but this is, this is, [32:00] uh, basically the first big swing by the new democratic trifecta in Virginia. You know, [32:07] until pretty recently, we had a Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin. Um, and then last year, [32:12] Democrats, uh, swept, uh, the state in the November off your elections for the first time [32:18] in a long time. I actually don't know when the last time Democrats had a trifecta. The last time [32:21] Republicans had a trifecta in Virginia was, I think 2012 was when they, when they won it. Um, [32:27] but this is the first time Democrats have had a trifecta in the state in a long, long time. [32:30] Um, uh, and you know, it was a commanding when Abigail Spanberger, who, who, you know, [32:35] was elected governor. She won by 12 or 15 points. I can't remember now off the top of my head was a [32:40] large, large win. Um, uh, especially, you know, coming off of a Republican incumbent, uh, and, [32:45] and majorities for Democrats in, in both, uh, houses of the Virginia legislature. Um, and, [32:50] and their first big swing has been to jump into this redistricting fight, right? Um, that, [32:57] that Republicans kicked off last year with the off cycle, uh, redistricting in Texas, uh, [33:01] Republican or sorry, Democrats responded in California, uh, with a, with a, uh, ballot [33:06] measure to, to permit a, a redistricting, um, you know, to, to give Democrats more seats there. [33:13] Basically we've just had sort of competing outrageous gerrymanders across this, across [33:18] the country, right? Um, in, in, in a lot of these states, um, there have been some smaller states, [33:22] uh, where, where Republicans have tried to just eke out one or two more seats here and there. [33:26] Uh, they did it in Missouri. They tried and failed to do it in Indiana. Um, and now this is sort of [33:30] the second big Democratic, uh, counterpunch in Virginia, but it is also the most ostentatious, [33:37] um, really of any of them, right? I mean, like, like Republicans, uh, picked up five seats in Texas, [33:43] Democrats picked up five seats in California, but these are big states with, you know, 50-ish, [33:47] uh, uh, delegates. The, the, the map that has been proposed by Democrats, uh, in Virginia is going [33:53] from a six, five, uh, Democratic leaning split to a 10, one Democratic leaning split. So I mean, [34:00] it truly is an outrageous gerrymander like on the merits and the, the argument is, well, [34:05] what are you going to do? You know, Republicans started this fight. Um, and we need to try to [34:08] bring it back to parody nationally. You know, we, we, we don't want Republicans to, to win. [34:14] We don't want Republican states to win more seats through gerrymandering, uh, then, then Democrats [34:18] win seats through gerrymandering going into these midterms. And that's the only thing that matters. [34:22] And this question of how, how badly we're gerrymandering our own state, uh, uh, just [34:26] sort of pales in comparison. It's, it's, it's a, it's an un, it's an irrelevant concern compared [34:30] to the national, uh, issue. Obviously this is a, a change, right? For, for Democrats to be talking [34:36] in these terms. Um, you talked a little bit about this on your, uh, on the podcast with, uh, Tim [34:41] yesterday, Bill, but can you just kind of like walk me through how, how you are, you are crunching all [34:46] this in your own, in your own kind of personal assessment as a voter? Yeah. You know, [34:49] it's a change in Virginia. Virginia voters, uh, voted two to one in 2020. I was one of them, [34:55] uh, to vote, uh, to have a non-partisan redistricting mechanism put in place, uh, [35:00] it was kind of complicated, involved the courts and a commission with people appointed from both [35:04] parties. It ended up, the commission couldn't agree. So they went to the courts, they appointed [35:08] special masters. I think I have to know one of them slightly political science types did a very fair [35:13] redistricting for 2021. That was, uh, um, fair because it ended up six, five, which is kind of [35:19] what the split in the state would be in a normal situation, right? It's a slightly democratic state, [35:24] uh, now, but also fair in the sense that they tried to keep communities together. It's the [35:29] contiguous districts. You know, this was sort of like a good government dream of what a redistricting [35:34] would look like. And that's what Virginia has operated on in the last first half of this decade. [35:38] Uh, and then, as you say, then Republicans went first in Texas and California responded, [35:44] but other states were going to go, Missouri and others went, Florida may still go in that direction. [35:49] And so the Virginia Democrats decided we have to have a temporary, I mean, to be fair, it's, it's, [35:54] it, it, for the rest of this decade, it puts into this place, if the voters vote for it today, [35:59] this constitutional amendment, which, or constitutional provision, I guess, uh, which, which, uh, [36:05] embodies this new gerrymander or, or a new gerrymander replacing the old non-gerrymander, [36:12] uh, but it only lasts through 2030. So it's sort of explicitly a temporary fix for this temporary crisis [36:17] that the Texas Republicans and Trump basically have caused. That's the argument for it. I think it's [36:22] convincing. Um, and so I voted for it, uh, last week, as you say, I voted for early. It's pretty close, [36:28] though. A fair number of Democrats, clearly a fair number of Spanberger voters, I'll put it this way, [36:33] have are, are uncomfortable with this because I think there are a lot of good government [36:38] Democrats and some Republicans to be fair in Virginia. And, and it was a two to one vote in 2020. [36:44] So a lot of people from both parties voted for that and they don't like this concession to [36:49] partisanship, which I think is justified by the kind of emergency situation we're in with what [36:55] the Republicans are trying to do. But, uh, I, in a way it's a tribute maybe to Virginians that they're [37:01] nervous about it, even though they may well pass it. They may not. It's pretty close. It looks like, [37:06] um, we'll see what the, uh, maybe I'll write about it tomorrow morning, what the results [37:10] are, but it's interesting how many, I know personally people who, uh, you vote for a good [37:15] thing this morning, but you're reluctant, you're likely yes vote, but you're a reluctant yes vote. [37:20] I actually know a couple of people up here in McLean who are no votes, uh, though, [37:24] certainly Spanberger voters and anti-Trump because they just think it's a mistake to go [37:29] down that road. So I respect people who have those hesitations. So I think in this case, they're, [37:33] they're misguided. Yeah, no. And I, and I totally see where, where they're coming from. [37:36] I mean, again, just, just to, to talk about myself personally, like I, I voted for Abigail [37:41] Spanberger last November with a song in my heart. It was the easiest thing, easiest decision ever, [37:44] right? I mean, it was just, um, I, you hardly had to think about it. And this is a very different, [37:49] this is a very different, uh, situation as far as I'm concerned. And I guess in, in, [37:53] in some ways it really does reflect, you know, the journey that the democratic party has had to go on [37:58] in the last number of years where, where they really have grown more sharp elbowed and they [38:03] really have, you know, woken up, I guess, to, to the, to the threat, um, on, on the other side of [38:09] things, um, woken up to the realization that no, actually Donald Trump truly does want to destroy a [38:16] lot of the things that makes this country, uh, uh, strong and a lot of the institutions and the, [38:21] the, you know, just the, I, I hate to say norms, cause that's such a threadbare word, but, but, [38:26] you know, the rule of law and, and all these things like it, and he has to be stopped and [38:29] we should pursue whatever sort of legal democratic measures we can, uh, in order to, in order to reign [38:36] him in to whatever degree we can. And gerrymandering is one of them, you know, it's, it's, it's legal. [38:40] It's on the books. You're, you're elected, you're allowed to wield this power. Maybe voters will [38:43] punish you for wielding this power. Um, but, but you know, it's, it's not like Donald Trump trying [38:48] to run the entire country by fiat, uh, and, and saying, you know, let the courts try to restrain [38:53] me if they will, you know, I am the avatar of the popular will. Gerrymandering isn't like that. [38:57] You know, this is, this, this would be, uh, likely legal. I guess I should say there are, [39:02] there are legal challenges to it. So it's not impossible that it would get thrown out. [39:05] Um, and, and, and if that happens, then the old maps will stay in place. You know, [39:09] this is all sort of like normal procedural stuff. And yet I do worry about it. [39:13] I do, I do worry that it is, it is sort of a coarsening and, uh, and, and a lowering of, [39:18] of, you know, democratic, uh, hopes and goals for, for, for, you know, what, what we should, [39:25] what we should expect and demand our government to do for us. It is actually factually the case [39:29] that we as Virginians will just be more poorly represented by a heavily gerrymandered map. We [39:34] have less ability to sort of, uh, choose our own leaders and to sort of, uh, influence the course [39:39] of action by voting, all these sorts of things. And these are problems. And, and the other, [39:43] the only other thing I would say about it is I really do detect kind of like an echo. And I wrote [39:48] about this a little bit in morning shots today. I mean, like when, when you look back in 2016, [39:53] Donald Trump had his core base of, you know, lunatics and, and, and, you know, terrible people, [39:59] uh, deplorables, one might even go so far as to call them. Those were real people, [40:02] but that was not a winning electoral coalition. Right. And there were a lot of arguments, [40:06] uh, that, that sort of normie Republicans and reluctant, you know, anti, uh, Hillary voters [40:11] and all these people. Um, there were a bunch of different arguments that ended up pulling [40:15] these people together into a coalition that, and that was, that was large enough to elect [40:19] Donald Trump president of the United States to all of our sorrow. And, and one big piece of that, [40:25] and I remember living through this one big piece of that was this whole flight 93 election conceit [40:30] that like, uh, Republicans just thought Hillary was so bad and Democrats were so awful that we [40:36] truly as a country could not survive her election, could not survive when we're a democratic president. [40:40] And therefore the only thing to do was to sort of jettison all sort of thought of scruple and all [40:45] thought of principle and any sort of moral or intellectual objection you might have to Trump [40:49] or even to anything that Trump might try to do. And you just had to throw in with the guy. [40:53] And I am not at all saying to be clear, I am not at all saying that decision was like equivalent [40:58] to, you know, whether or not Virginia should read gerrymandering maps, right? [41:02] Uh, it's a very different, very different sort of thing. Uh, Republicans were obviously not [41:06] correct in that moment that, that a Hillary Clinton presidency would have destroyed the country. [41:10] Um, I think, I think everybody has had cause to sort of look back at that and laugh by now. [41:15] But I, the only reason I bring it up is to get at the, the sort of the way you can trick yourself [41:22] into sort of deciding, uh, that, that this or that principle that you, that you, [41:27] you're, that you actually consider yourself to adhere to very strongly, uh, is, is, is okay to [41:32] set down just this one time or for just this one, uh, reason because the benefit will be so good. [41:36] And it's always easy to do that, you know, when it comes to like accruing more power, you can, [41:41] you can easily say, well, you know, all of this, all of, all that this sort of principled [41:44] opposition to gerrymandering is really doing for us, uh, is, is keeping us from getting the power [41:49] that if we had, we would do so much good with it. And if they have it, they're going to do so much [41:53] bad with it. So how could it not be like the appropriate thing, um, to set aside this scruple [41:57] or set aside that principle and just go get that power. Um, but I also think that, that, that is a, [42:03] an impulse that we have recently witnessed do shocking harm, uh, to the country as, as it has [42:09] sort of greased the skids, uh, for, for Trump to take and then retake power later. Um, and so, [42:14] and so I don't know, I'm just, I'm just kind of bummed out and, and, and tormented about the whole [42:18] thing. I probably will still vote yes though, uh, because you know, we need a Congress that will, [42:21] that will stop this guy in so far as possible. So I don't know. Those are just my thoughts on it. [42:25] No, I think it's well said and well written this morning and people should read it and make up [42:29] their own minds. I, I would just, I had one thing that they could have, it's, they could [42:32] have gone to the ballot with gerrymandering of, of state level districts and they didn't. Uh, [42:38] and there too, Virginia has this, you know, has this, uh, relatively non-ger, well, not relatively, [42:44] has a non-gerrymandered state house and state Senate. And, and they've swung, [42:49] as you said, the Republicans, Democrats, one house that was up until last year, [42:52] the Democrats picked up a whole bunch of seats, but they could lose them again. [42:55] And Republicans have controlled those, those bodies were very tightly balanced, uh, [42:58] before that, uh, very closely balanced. So, uh, it's not like in some states, [43:03] there's just gerrymandering top to bottom, right? You start gerrymandering from the congressional level [43:07] all the way down to, uh, the state assembly level. Uh, and that Virginia has been not been that way. [43:12] And, and as I say, I think this is a reason personally, a reasonable temporary, uh, uh, [43:18] expedient, but as you say, these temporary expedients can be become more than temporary [43:22] and, and the expedient can start to swallow the rule or the principle, which isn't it. [43:26] So we'll see what happens tonight. Maybe I'll write about it tomorrow, [43:29] because I've been trying to follow the, you know, the election a little closely, [43:31] and it'll be a little bit of a tip off, I suppose, on, on, uh, you know, Democratic, [43:36] it's, it's not really a part, I mean, it's a little different from a typical vote for candidates, [43:40] but it probably will tell us something one way or the other. And it will have a real world effect. [43:43] That is, I think you're, you probably are looking at a 10 to one delegation. If this passes, [43:47] you're probably looking at maybe seven, four, if they just, if Democrats have a good year and pick [43:52] up a seat just in the normal course of things. But, um, so that's three congressional seats [43:57] difference, which is not nothing given that the current margins are, are, are less than that, [44:01] right? Yeah. Yeah. A couple other interesting things just to say about this before we go, [44:07] first of all, it is not at all clear. It's going to pass it. The polling seems to suggest it is [44:11] favored, uh, but not by, not by near as much as maybe it's proponents expected going in. Um, [44:16] there, there really are a significant number of these sort of defections from the Spanberger [44:19] coalition, um, who are, who are voting no or just staying home. Um, Republicans seem very energized [44:24] about it for obvious reasons. One interesting thing on that though, is that nobody has really sought [44:30] to get the president involved in any way. Um, there has been no effort on the part of the [44:34] Virginia Republican party to bring him in to kind of rally the troops. And I think that's wise. I [44:38] think, I think that they, you know, Republicans are really trying to run this playbook that is 100% [44:44] focused on the sort of good governance issues. They're trying to pull at, you know, the heartstrings [44:49] of gullible rubes like myself, um, and, and your friends that you were talking about earlier, um, to [44:54] say, are you really, are you really going to stoop to this level? Are you really going to do that? [44:58] Um, and meanwhile, if they got the president involved, I think all of us would be like, [45:03] oh yeah, no, that's what this is all about. And, uh, and, and we would go with a, go into [45:07] it a little easier. So that's probably smart on smart on their end. Um, uh, Democrats have, [45:11] or Democrat aligned groups have heavily outspent Republican aligned groups, uh, in this, [45:17] in this, uh, fight over this, over this initiative. Um, it's, it is very funny the way these things [45:21] get kind of cloaked. Um, I think, I think the group on one side is Virginians for fair [45:25] elections and the other one is Virginians for fair maps. Um, so, uh, so yeah, that's, [45:28] I mean, the whole thing is sort of, there's a, there's a comedy to it. It's sort of, sort of [45:33] ridiculous in, in, uh, in, in a lot of ways too. Um, but, uh, but anyway, we can leave it at that. [45:38] Um, we will, uh, we, if, if you're a Virginian or if you just want to backseat drive, feel free to, [45:43] to chime in in the comments about how, how you're parsing all this stuff. We'll, we'll, we'll, [45:47] we'll read all that. Maybe you'll even, maybe you'll even convince me one way or the other [45:49] when I go to vote later today. Uh, but I don't know, Bill, anything else before, [45:53] before we let the good people go? No, let's let people go and, um, get back to work. And, [45:58] uh, uh, this was a good discussion though. And, uh, yeah, we'll, and you'll, you'll, [46:02] you'll talk to the white house about the Trump scheduling of those. Maybe, maybe I'll, yeah, [46:05] Tuesday morning's okay to do the eight 30 or 9am interviews, but most mornings early, uh, or [46:11] late the night before would be better. Yes. You heard it. Caroline, if you're watching, [46:15] uh, uh, Donald, if you're watching, um, you know, that, that would help us out a lot. [46:18] We'd really appreciate it. Um, you know, really, really good for our programming schedule. [46:22] Um, so, so thanks, uh, thanks Caroline and Donald, uh, for in, in advance for figuring [46:25] that out for us. Thanks Bill for coming on and talking, uh, and, uh, and, uh, thanks to all [46:29] of you out there who are watching. Uh, we hope you enjoyed the show. Um, we'll be back here next [46:33] Tuesday. I'm sure we'll, we'll, we'll see, uh, uh, here and there on YouTube in, or, or on [46:37] Substack if you're watching over there, uh, in the intervening time as well. Uh, we hope you'll [46:40] subscribe to the channel. We hope you'll subscribe to our newsletter over at the bulwark.com morning [46:44] shots in your inbox every Monday through Friday morning, uh, at or around 9 30 AM, you know, [46:50] depending on, on how, how, uh, well the wheels are turning on any given morning. Uh, thanks [46:54] everybody. And we'll see you all next time.