August 25, 2025 • 28 mins
Former White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney joins Bo and Beth to breakdown the latest details surrounding the Russia/Ukraine war as well as the Trump administration's crackdown on crime in D.C.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
We have serious problems to solve and we need serious
people to solve them. You cannot be serious for Me's
talk eleven ten and ninety nine three double e BT
Beth Troutman. She's looking out for you. You always know
when you listen to both. This is Good Morning Beat
with Bo Thompson and Beth Troutman. Lucky you you written
(00:22):
enough off. Doing my best to get back to you.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Look for me Sunday, going to be there, honey, is
something special choice you show?
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Yes that time of the week.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
We bring in the former White House Chief of Staff,
former White House Budget Director, former Ambassador to Northern Ireland,
former South Carolina congressman. You see him on News Nation
on CNBC and you hear him on our show. Like
I said, back to the start on Monday's, McK mulvaney
is with us. Good morning, sir Warring, my friend, how
(01:00):
are you doing well?
Speaker 4 (01:01):
Doing well?
Speaker 3 (01:02):
We have lots to talk about today, and you know
here we are a week ago you were you were
with us and we were talking about, okay, what did
you think of the meeting at the White House the
friday before with Vladimir Putin? And then what we were
anticipating what would happen with the meeting on Monday at
the White House with all of the dignitaries assembled there,
(01:24):
and now here we are a week later, and President
Trump on Friday was asked about it, and he was
not happy with the way things are going. There are
attacks that are still happening by Russia on on Ukraine,
and I almost kind of feel like we're back to
where we were a few weeks ago before Trump gave
that deadline. We're almost exactly where we were, and we're
waiting to see, Okay, what's Trump going to do next?
(01:46):
Because Vladimir Putin is not playing along like he thought
maybe he would.
Speaker 4 (01:51):
Yeah, this is this is really not going well. I
can't if we talked about on the show last week
or not, if I talked about on News Nation. I said,
the thing to watch was the schedule that you know Trump,
remember he met with Putin on a Friday in Alaska,
and then he met I think with the European leaders
the following Monday, as you mentioned, and then you expected
something to happen right away. In fact, Trump sort of
(02:12):
hinted that that was things were moving very quickly, and
that as Lensky and Putin were going to meet and
going to meet promptly. That's clearly not going to happen.
And I think what everybody needs to be figuring out
of the White House is that something needs to change.
There's a there's a stasis, there's a status quo right
now that needs to be broken. Putin is completely happy
(02:32):
with the way things are right now. He's talking, there's
no sanctions. He gets to continue, you know, is wars
maybe one hundred percent, it means eighty percent, and he's
still you know, slowly taking over land and so forth.
He's got to think to himself, you know what this is.
This is the best deal I can get right now,
and Trump has to change that. No amount of jawboning
at this point is apparently going to work. So you
(02:54):
have to look at sanctions. You have to look at
military action, you have look at something to change the calculation,
because right now Putin could Putin, I think, is sending
messages that he's fine with the way things are for
the unforseeable future.
Speaker 5 (03:08):
You know, I was wondering about that. Is Putin sending
a message trying to make Trump look weaker. I know
that the conversation that Donald Trump has had since this
war began, was if he had been president. You know,
Vladimir Putin wouldn't have attacked Ukraine in the first place.
And I'm wondering now if Ladimir Putin's trying to say, hey,
look I do what I want no matter who's in office.
Speaker 4 (03:30):
Yeah, I don't think that two things are mutually exclusive.
Starting a war is one thing, and continuing it and
dragging it out is another. I happy to agree with
President Trump, but I don't think Putin would have invaded
if Trump had been president. I think Putin is very calculated.
He likes going to he likes pressing the Democrats because
he thinks they're soft draw on national security. Why that's
why he vided CRIMEA under the Obama administration, I feel,
(03:54):
and why he didn't do anything during the first Trump administration.
So I think that probably is true, but it doesn't
solve a problem now. And you know, every time I
watched the president on TV's like, you know, it's not
my war, it's not my warm I'm like, yeah, okay,
it's not. I get that you didn't start it, but
your president now, and you know, fixing it is part
of your problem. Yes, you do inherit difficulties from previous
administrations and this is one of them. But clearly what
(04:18):
they're doing is not working. We are I mean, he
never really believed the twenty four hour talk during a campaign,
but he thought this thing would be over by now,
and it's not. And Putin is very very quietly, very
subtly sort of thumbing his nose. And so, you know,
Donald's real nice to meet you, Joy, Let's let's continue
this conversation. Maybe I don't know, six eight weeks from now,
let me go bomb these guys for a little bit.
(04:38):
I'll call you back. That's what's happening right now. And
that's going to continue until Trump changes the changes the
status quo.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Well, he said on Friday that in two weeks he
should know whether progress is possible to end this struggle.
And we know now that when he says two weeks,
it doesn't always mean two weeks. It sort of means, okay,
that's my that's my cover, or that's my time to
sort of figure out what the next move is. And the
(05:07):
last time he gave that, like I started saying with you,
last time he gave that ultimatum, it didn't take two
weeks and he made the decision to have the summit.
Now the summit's happened and he's moved past that whole thing.
So now I just wonder, you're so good at taking
us behind the scenes with what he's doing and maybe
how he's strategizing. You know, what, is this the time
that we actually see Trump sort of go on the
(05:30):
offensive as it relates to Vladimir Putin? Because you know
what we saw at the White House, you know last
week was a lot about posturing. It was a lot
about who looks like they have the upper hand, and
and that's a big deal to President Trump as it
is to Vladimir Putin. We've never actually seen sort of
the the the clash. What really happens when when one
(05:51):
of them gets angry.
Speaker 4 (05:53):
Yeah, here's here's a difficult conversation I hope that somebody's
having with the president. And you mentioned deadlines and then
moved deadlines and all that kind of stuff. Deadlines mean nothing.
Now Trump came up and say, we're putting on sanctions tomorrow,
We're putting in sanctions two weeks, putting sanctions in twenty
twenty seven.
Speaker 6 (06:07):
You know, it.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
Doesn't it doesn't make any difference, and the difficult conversation
is that somebody has to go to president. We need
to do something to re establish our credibility because right
now Putin doesn't believe us, he doesn't fear us, he
doesn't respect us. He may like you, I mean, fine,
he may you know, you enjoy your conversations and so forth,
but it's not moving the needle. It's not changing anything.
It's not getting you where you want to go. And
(06:29):
you need to do something to re establish credibility. I
don't know if that means setting a deadline and keeping it,
if it gives you an ultimatud and keeping it, if
it just means something out of out of the blue
sanctions today without without any heads up whatsoever, something to
change where we are, because right now it's not that
Putin's got the upper hand, it's just Putin is still
I mean, how many times we've talked about this. You
(06:50):
don't get a deal at the table until everybody believes
they're going to get a better deal at the table
than they get in the field. That's that means, that's
that's war fighting and peace making one on one, all right,
And right now the Russians still feel like they've got
to they will get a better deal by staying in
the field, and you have to change that. Until you do,
(07:10):
it's it's not going to end.
Speaker 5 (07:12):
So that feels like I know you said that Putin
doesn't have the upper hand, but that makes it feel
like he has a slightly a bit of an upper hand.
And if that is the case, how did we get here?
Did how did we get to this point?
Speaker 4 (07:29):
Look, it's a long people keep forgetting that Ukraine is
not a NATO country, right, so it's not the same.
Invading Ukraine is not the same legally as invading Poland
and so forth, and I have to think that has
something to do with it. Look, I was never a
big fan of a wholehearted sort of support of Ukraine.
They're not they're not our allies. We might be friendly
(07:51):
with them, but you know, and I've always struggled with
the European response and so forth. This has just been
a strange thing. Best. It's not like it's not like,
you know, him invading Australia. Ukraine is is not. It
doesn't fall into that sort of sphere. I don't know
how he got here this It really doesn't make that
much difference Trump would say it was Biden's weakness and
(08:11):
then okay, that's fine, but again that doesn't explaining how
it started doesn't help us explain how it finishes. Yes,
it would not have started. I will take him at
his word that this war would not be happening if
he were president, but that's that doesn't mean difference. He
wasn't president, and the war did start. So here we
are now he's president ed states does he want to
finish it or not? Is he going to stay committed
(08:34):
to this or is he not? You know, listen, there's
always a chance he throws up his hands and says,
you know what, Europeans, I've tried. This is your problem,
not mine. I don't see how this is in my
direct American interest, and so forth, you guys figure out
how to fix this. I'm out of here. That's always
possibility that happens.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
This is Good Morning Beat.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Rolling on with Mick mulvaney on a Monday. Bowen beth
here and got a lot more to get to. I
want to hit one more thing as it relates to
Russia and Ukraine. The Vice President was on Meet the
Press yesterday with Kristin Welker, and she asked him this.
Speaker 7 (09:11):
The Russians rejected the ceasefire proposal that President Trump put forward.
There's no meeting plan between President Putin and President Zelenski.
And this week Russia targeted an American factory in Ukraine.
There were six hundred people inside at the time, no
one was killed. What makes you think President Putin is
serious about peace?
Speaker 2 (09:30):
Well, I didn't say they conceded on everything, but what
they have conceded is the recognition that Ukraine will have
territorial integrity after the war. They've recognized that they're not
going to be able to install a puppet regime in Kiev.
That was, of course a major demand at the beginning.
And importantly, they've acknowledged that there is going to be
some security guarantee to the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Again,
(09:51):
have they made every concession, of course they haven't. Should
they have started the war, of course they haven't. But
we're making progress, Kristin, And what I admire the President
in this moment is he's not asking three and a
half years ago, He's not trying to focus on every
nitpicky detail of how this thing started three and a
half years ago. He's trying to focus on the nitpicky
(10:13):
details of now of what do the parties disagree on,
what do they agree on, and how do you build
a foundation from one side of that ledger to the
other so that you can stop the killing.
Speaker 7 (10:23):
What was President Trump? Were you enraged when you learned
that Russia targeted an American company based in Ukraine?
Speaker 1 (10:31):
I don't like.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
I don't like it, Kristen, But this is a war,
and this is why we want to stop the killing.
The Russians have done a lot of things that we
don't like. A lot of civilians have died. We've condemned
that stuff from the get go. And frankly, President Trump
has done more to apply pressure and to apply economic
leverage to the Russians, certainly than Joe Biden did for
three and a half years when he did nothing but
(10:54):
talk but do nothing to bring the killing to a stop.
So you ask me what I'm enraged by. What I'm
in is the continuation of the war.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
It's an interesting exchange there. I was mentioning before the
break about you know what's really going on behind the scenes. Now,
I don't think you can look at how this is
all played out, especially with the first meeting, then the
second meeting. Everything has seemed measured from the White House
with this so far. But I think the longer it
goes with Putin not holding up his into the bargain
(11:23):
as we thought he would or he was supposed to
or asked to, then you know what's going on behind
that facade of you know, the Secretary of State Rubia
was speaking last week on the Sunday shows, and then
you had jd Vance making the rounds this week, and
both of those guys are are good messengers for the president.
What's the president doing behind the scenes. Mick mulvaney, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (11:44):
I mean that's you hope that there's a lot of
backchannel discussion going on. You hope that you heard jad
Vance for example, there go over some of the details
and so forth, and you hope there's ongoing discussions with that.
I'm not sure that's how this negotiation is working out.
That's not how Trump likes to work. Trump likes to
deal principle to principle. Trump thought when he left Putin
(12:05):
in Florid in Alaska and then met with the Europeans
that he was on the sort of the the arc
to a meeting between Zelenski and put that's not happened,
and whatever they're doing right now isn't working. So this,
you know, great, it was great face to face meetings,
and I love face to face meanings. Don't get me wrong,
(12:25):
I think they're tremendously valuable, but you ultimately measure the
value by what you get out of it. And what JD.
Vancis went through right there is a bunch of, you know,
verbal commitments. I guess maybe that the Russians has said
they sort of agree to this, and they sort of
agree to that. Look, everywhere in life, but especially in
politics and geopolitics, actions speak louder than words. So if
(12:46):
I'm sitting in a meeting and go, you know, I
think this, Yeah, listen, I think we've got a sort
of the framework of a deal. I'm okay with territorial integrity,
I'm okay with security guarantee, you give me a little
bit land, I'm sort of okay with that. And then
you go out and you bomb at Americans. That speaks
a lot louder than whatever words you said at the table.
And I know that the White House has got me frustrated.
(13:07):
I'm just hoping they're doing something to try and change
the direction because it's not headed towards peace. Right.
Speaker 5 (13:12):
Now, you know, one of the things that now that
we have a WBT text line is people communicate with
us in real time as they're listening to us have
these conversations. And one of the things that BO and
I like to do is is give everyone a chance
to offer their perspectives. Now, this one I wanted to
read to you because this one is harsh. This person
he didn't leave his name or she didn't leave her name,
(13:33):
but they said, just say it. Trump is weak, He's
never had a plan, and he just wants putin to
be his friend. Do you see any truth to a
statement like that one?
Speaker 4 (13:45):
No, accept as a means to an end. Look, we
all like dealing with people that we that we like
dealing with. It's easier to do business with people when
you get along with them. You can do business with
people you don't like, but no one really likes to
do it. And you know, you go back in his
books and so forth, and Trump will talk about trying
to develop relationships with people so weak. Look, you can't
(14:06):
argue there's been no results. I don't know if that
translates into weakness, and of course, ultimately weakness is judged
in hindsight, so you know, if he does something tomorrow
that's dramatic, is weakness still the issue? I don't. I
don't think that it is. I'm trying, Beth, and but
I'm all for the text line and stuff like that,
and I think it's great to get feedback. I think
anonymous commentary is part of the decline of Western civilization.
(14:31):
But that that's that's that's another that's another story entirely.
But I'm just I'm not trying to I'm just simply trying.
I'm not trying to defend the president. I'm trying to
lay out where they are and what they need to
do next, because again, as I've said before, it's just
not working.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
This is Good Morning Beat with Bo Thompson and Beth Troudman.
Speaker 3 (14:59):
Monday morning in the Tyboid Studio. Bowen Beth here talking
to Mick Mulvaney. We see him on News Nation, former
White House Chief of Staff. We talked to him once
a week about all things emanating from Washington and beyond
as it relates to politics, and we were talking about
for the first half hour, mainly about Russia. And Ukraine
Trump and putin the President. Trump has been doing a
(15:23):
lot of things on the domestic front as well, a
lot of talk about what he is trying to do
with Washington, d C. In fact, he was talking about
DC and how DC has changed in the last several
weeks since he has dispatched the National Guard to areas
of the nation's capital. He was talking in the Oval
Office on Friday about how this might extend to other
places in the country.
Speaker 6 (15:44):
If everything works out. And we've already had calls from
other cities, quiet calls, calls from Democrats we'd love you
to come here because they've lost control of theirselves. I'm
not going to say, because I don't want them to
lose their elections. But we've had calls from and goes
from people general we'd love you.
Speaker 5 (16:03):
To come here now. One of the governors has been
going back and forth online mech with President Donald Trump.
That would be Wes Moore, who is the governor of Maryland.
He says online that Donald Trump can stay obsessed with me,
that's fine, but I will stay obsessed with working in
partnership to continue our historic success of driving down crime
(16:26):
in Baltimore. Donald Trump then replying on Truth Truth Social,
Governor Wes Moore of Maryland has asked in a very
nasty and provocative tone, that I walk the streets of
Maryland with him. I assume he is talking about out
of control, crime ridden Baltimore. That's just part of the
post that he posted on truth Social, so in that
(16:48):
it sounds like he's suggesting that places like Baltimore, which
has the fourth highest crime rate in the nation right
now the city of Baltimore according to crime statistics, that
deploying the national to a place like Baltimore could be
a positive thing. And I guess my real question is
DC is a different, you know, a different beast than
(17:09):
other cities across the nation. So if he decided, if
President Trump decided that he wanted to try this out
in other cities like Baltimore. He's also mentioned Chicago, how
does he get around the posse Cooma Tatis Act, which
bars the armed forces from serving as civilian police.
Speaker 4 (17:28):
Came up in the and I'm not entirely clear if
what he's talking about doing in Chicago and Baltimore and
the cities is the same as what he's talking about
doing with the seventeen hundred national Guard units to the
eleven states or whatever prominently republican states by the way,
if they're the same. The way he gets around the
restrictions on sending the National Guard is that the national
(17:50):
Guard are allowed. I think it's Title thirty two or
something like that. Camera what it is we used to
deal with us at the Office Mansion Budget all the time,
that you can send the national Guard. You can federalize
national Guard, essentially, says the President takes responsibility for them,
and the federal government pays them, and they go to
support federal efforts, so that the state National Guard, for
(18:11):
example in Illinois, would go to support ICE efforts or
FBI efforts. This is the tool they used when they
went to California. And I don't know all the limitations
on it, because I don't think we did this very much.
We talked about it and I did the research, but
it's been eight years ago now, so that's how you
get around it. But you're right. Your basic point is
a good one, which is at Washington, d C is
a different thing legally, constitutionally the whole shooting match, and
(18:36):
it'll be insest to see what they're able to pull
off in the other states. I will tell you this,
it's the politics of it is fascinating to me. We
had some really good pulling data on News Nation last
week that in Washington, d C. That eighty percent of
the people polled in this predominantly Democrat city didn't like
what Donald Trump was doing. Did I give an unfavorable
(18:57):
approval rating of the efforts by the federal government to
come in to the city of DC. But in the
same poll, nearly two thirds said it was working. Said
two thirds said it was actually making Washington safer. So
they didn't like it because it was Donald Trump, but
they admitted that it was working. So that's that's a
very interesting political place to be because it puts the
Democrats in a tough bind. I thought the most interesting
(19:18):
interview the Democrat over the weekend was the Ramammanuel, former
governor of Chicago, chief of staff to President Obama, wants
to run for president and says, look, take Trump out
of it, and what we're really talking about is, you know,
are we willing to have a discussion within the Democrat
Party about law and order and crime and punishment? And
it seems like, you know, we're not ready to have
that yet. It's one of the reasons we're losing voters
so dramatically. I thought that was insightful from somebody else
(19:42):
who wants to be president key Out Wes Moore wants
to be president, Emmanuel wants to be president, pritz kerne
Illinois wants to be president, Gavin news who wants to
be president, or k Newsom sorry, wants to president. So
the politics of this is fascinating. In addition to the practicalities.
Speaker 5 (19:54):
You're someone who has traveled all over the world, and
I know that you have probably been in countries. I
know that I witnessed this when I was in Brazil,
I saw it when I was in Pakistan, and I'm
sure you've seen it in different countries around the world
where the military is present at the airport, the military
is present, you know, when you're just walking down the street.
Is that the general feel in Washington, d C? Right now?
(20:15):
And is that the feel we want here in the
United States?
Speaker 4 (20:18):
Thankfully, Beth, I don't know the answer to that question.
I'm one of the many people who tries to get
out of Washington, d C. For the month of August.
So I'll be up next week and we'll see what's happening.
I've seen the photographs or seen the pictures of the
news and so forth, and it looks a little bit
heavy handed. There's a tank in front of Union Station,
I think, or at least an armored personnel carrier. So
(20:40):
I think that could be striking to some people who
spent a lot of time there. That being said, as
someone who takes the Metro every single day in Washington,
d C. And I do, I can assure you that
I'm going to be pretty good about the fact that
it's going to be a lot safer at Union Station
than it has been in the past. Union Station's rough, rough,
rough part of town, and it doesn't need to be
(21:01):
So we'll see what they have. Two answers to your question,
does it look like and feel like? And then was
it what the practicality you know, the crint that the
safety sort of feel of the place.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
Good Morning dtwo. This is Good Morning Beat.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
Final stretch here on a Monday, Bo and Beth and
Mick mulvaney you see him on News Nation, former White
House Chief of Staff and South Carolina congressman. So I
wanted to get into this a real quick. A federal
judge late last week disqualified acting US Attorney for New Jersey,
Alena Habba from participating in any ongoing cases lodged by
(21:38):
her office after the lawfulness of her appointment by the
Trump administration was challenged by defendants in two separate criminal cases.
And I've never heard this phrase, the blue slipping, uh
And and I was learning about it this weekend and
sort of preparing for the show today. And then yesterday
on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo, she had Alina
(22:01):
Habba on the show, and during the course of that conversation,
a US Senator from North Carolina came into the conversation, what.
Speaker 8 (22:09):
Do you want to say about Senator Tillis. Tom Tillis,
a member of the Judiciary Committee, has stated publicly that
if Chairman Grassley tried moving a district judge or US
attorney through the Judiciary Committee without a blue slip, he
would oppose that nominee. And that means we would not
even have the votes to pass a nomination like Haba
out of committee because Tillis would vote no along with
(22:32):
the Democrats.
Speaker 9 (22:33):
You know, they're trying to look at this as they
all need to get along to go along. But they're
not looking at what this does. The President was rightfully
voted in by a majority of Americans, and he is
entitled to pick his US attorneys, his Department of Justice officials,
his judges so that we can continue the agenda that
the American public voted for, which is to get rid
of crime. In the state of New Jersey and June alone,
(22:55):
we arrested over three hundred criminals, illegals, rapists. What is
so bad about that work? The truth is, it has
nothing to do with the work that we're doing. It
has nothing to do with the crime that we're stopping.
It has to do with trying to prevent President Trump
from continuing his agenda, and it has to stop. So
I would say to Senator Tillis and Senator Grassley, you
(23:15):
are becoming part of the issue.
Speaker 3 (23:18):
So we'll get to Alena Haba specifically in a second here,
But Mick, the blue slip concept in the chamber there,
can you shed some light on that.
Speaker 4 (23:27):
It's pretty simple. It's a tradition in the Senate, of course,
one of those you know, it's not in a Constitution,
so if you're looking for it, it's not going to
be there. Essentially, says look, before any president can put
a judge of a federal bench in a state that
both of the senators from that state need to sign off,
all right, and it's the Senate looks at. It's sort
(23:48):
of an informal check and balance that you know, even
if you've got a Democrat president, he does get to
a point, say, you know, judges for the federal ben
from South Carolina, but only ones that are acceptable to
the two Republican and then vice versa when there's a
Republican office in Democrat states and so forth, and it
does lead to this compromise judge swapping sometimes, you know,
(24:09):
you get a Democrat judge and a Republican judge. Obviously
if you've got a Republican White House and Senate in
a Republican state, then it's easier. The same is true
and everybody's Democrat, etc. So what's happened here is that
Haba has been appointed or name nominated to New Jersey
on the federal bench where there are two Democrat senators,
and they won't approver he, they won't approve her. They
(24:31):
won't send in the blue slip saying she's okay with us,
which is not surprising and What Pillis is saying is, look,
I benefit North Carolina benefits from the blue slip rules
when there's a Democrat president, and I want to keep
the rules around, and therefore I will vote to respect
the blue slip rules, and if you can't get the
(24:51):
approval of the two senators from the state of New
jersey'll vote against it.
Speaker 5 (24:54):
Do you know Alena Haba and do you feel that
she deserves approval from these guys, from these senators, Yeah,
I've no.
Speaker 4 (25:02):
I don't know is the threshold. I know how I
feel generally about Senate confirmation on judges. I've been through
Center confirmation, one of the most demeaning processes of my
professional career. I've always sort of been in the opinion
of that the president should be entitled to his or
her team and a less a person is wildly unqualified
or has significant sort of moral criminal type of issues,
(25:27):
that the president should be entitled to his or her cabinet,
should be entitled to his and her judiciary, et cetera.
So I'm not a big fan of the Senate Advice
and Consent. I think they advising and Center is just bizarre.
It makes it It's become more extort and delayed that
it is advised to consent. So that's a longer discussion
for another day. But I think I see exactly what
(25:50):
Senator Tillis is doing. You're saying, look, this helps North Carolina.
Sometimes if we get rid of it, North Carolina will
be worse off. Therefore, I'm going to continue to stick
by the tradition of the blue slip rules.
Speaker 3 (26:00):
Talking a few minutes ago about all the various Democrats
who seem to be sort of maneuvering to possibly run
for president next time around, and of course one of
the names you mentioned Gavin Newsom. This time last week
we were asking you what about this, this act of
of you know, mimicking President Trump's tweets and such and
sort of kind of fighting fire with fire, or coming
(26:22):
at him in the same fashion that he comes at
Newsom with. Well, if people thought that this was just
sort of a passing fad for him, now he's actually
opened up an online store to sell products that are themed.
You know that there's all the Maga style hats and
and things you can buy with Trump on them and
Trump phrases. But now Newsom has gone at least he's
(26:44):
gone to the extent that he's he's opening up and
actually offering people the option to buy these, you know,
things that are sort of tongue in cheek mimicking Trump,
and the money's going to his election coffers. So I guess,
I guess Newsome's going to stay with this stick for
a while.
Speaker 4 (27:02):
Yeah, imitation is the greatest over flattery, right. I saw
one of his flags the other day. It's that white
text on a blue field with a sort of a
thin white box, and it says, Maga make America Gavin again. Listen.
I can't stand the guy's politics, but you got to
give him credit. This has been a huge success. He's
zoomed up the charts and social media impressions and so forth. Clearly,
(27:26):
as of right now, he's the front runner for the
Democrat nomination. He's doing everything right. I don't know why
anybody else didn't think of this sooner. In fact, I
can imagine Pritzker and Wes Moore and Ram Emmanuel going, goodness, gracious,
only I thought of that. It's a great marketing tool.
And yeah, it's funny. I mean, if you're willing to
sort of suspend your political views for the sake of
(27:47):
humor sort of stuff is actually quite creative, so I
follow it on Twitter anyway. I think it's been a
huge success for him. Whether it translates into electoral victories,
you know, eighteen months from now, remains act and longer
than that, goodness, gracious, three and a half years now,
remains to be seen. But right now he's certainly the
talk of the nation when it comes to the leading Democrats.
Speaker 3 (28:08):
All Right, we've covered a lot of bases here in
a short amount of time. Always good to have you
on Hope. You have a great week and we'll talk
to you next time. Thanks guys, We see there is
Mick mulvaney, Foke Thompson here. Thanks to Bernie and Steve
and Zoke and Garrison and Boomer. On the first day
of school, Hope. Everybody has a safe ride home this afternoon.
Good talk, Beth, good top Hope.
We have serious problems to solve and we need serious
people to solve them. You cannot be serious for Me's
talk eleven ten and ninety nine three double e BT
Beth Troutman. She's looking out for you. You always know
when you listen to both. This is Good Morning Beat
with Bo Thompson and Beth Troutman. Lucky you you written
(00:22):
enough off. Doing my best to get back to you.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Look for me Sunday, going to be there, honey, is
something special choice you show?
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Yes that time of the week.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
We bring in the former White House Chief of Staff,
former White House Budget Director, former Ambassador to Northern Ireland,
former South Carolina congressman. You see him on News Nation
on CNBC and you hear him on our show. Like
I said, back to the start on Monday's, McK mulvaney
is with us. Good morning, sir Warring, my friend, how
(01:00):
are you doing well?
Speaker 4 (01:01):
Doing well?
Speaker 3 (01:02):
We have lots to talk about today, and you know
here we are a week ago you were you were
with us and we were talking about, okay, what did
you think of the meeting at the White House the
friday before with Vladimir Putin? And then what we were
anticipating what would happen with the meeting on Monday at
the White House with all of the dignitaries assembled there,
(01:24):
and now here we are a week later, and President
Trump on Friday was asked about it, and he was
not happy with the way things are going. There are
attacks that are still happening by Russia on on Ukraine,
and I almost kind of feel like we're back to
where we were a few weeks ago before Trump gave
that deadline. We're almost exactly where we were, and we're
waiting to see, Okay, what's Trump going to do next?
(01:46):
Because Vladimir Putin is not playing along like he thought
maybe he would.
Speaker 4 (01:51):
Yeah, this is this is really not going well. I
can't if we talked about on the show last week
or not, if I talked about on News Nation. I said,
the thing to watch was the schedule that you know Trump,
remember he met with Putin on a Friday in Alaska,
and then he met I think with the European leaders
the following Monday, as you mentioned, and then you expected
something to happen right away. In fact, Trump sort of
(02:12):
hinted that that was things were moving very quickly, and
that as Lensky and Putin were going to meet and
going to meet promptly. That's clearly not going to happen.
And I think what everybody needs to be figuring out
of the White House is that something needs to change.
There's a there's a stasis, there's a status quo right
now that needs to be broken. Putin is completely happy
(02:32):
with the way things are right now. He's talking, there's
no sanctions. He gets to continue, you know, is wars
maybe one hundred percent, it means eighty percent, and he's
still you know, slowly taking over land and so forth.
He's got to think to himself, you know what this is.
This is the best deal I can get right now,
and Trump has to change that. No amount of jawboning
at this point is apparently going to work. So you
(02:54):
have to look at sanctions. You have to look at
military action, you have look at something to change the calculation,
because right now Putin could Putin, I think, is sending
messages that he's fine with the way things are for
the unforseeable future.
Speaker 5 (03:08):
You know, I was wondering about that. Is Putin sending
a message trying to make Trump look weaker. I know
that the conversation that Donald Trump has had since this
war began, was if he had been president. You know,
Vladimir Putin wouldn't have attacked Ukraine in the first place.
And I'm wondering now if Ladimir Putin's trying to say, hey,
look I do what I want no matter who's in office.
Speaker 4 (03:30):
Yeah, I don't think that two things are mutually exclusive.
Starting a war is one thing, and continuing it and
dragging it out is another. I happy to agree with
President Trump, but I don't think Putin would have invaded
if Trump had been president. I think Putin is very calculated.
He likes going to he likes pressing the Democrats because
he thinks they're soft draw on national security. Why that's
why he vided CRIMEA under the Obama administration, I feel,
(03:54):
and why he didn't do anything during the first Trump administration.
So I think that probably is true, but it doesn't
solve a problem now. And you know, every time I
watched the president on TV's like, you know, it's not
my war, it's not my warm I'm like, yeah, okay,
it's not. I get that you didn't start it, but
your president now, and you know, fixing it is part
of your problem. Yes, you do inherit difficulties from previous
administrations and this is one of them. But clearly what
(04:18):
they're doing is not working. We are I mean, he
never really believed the twenty four hour talk during a campaign,
but he thought this thing would be over by now,
and it's not. And Putin is very very quietly, very
subtly sort of thumbing his nose. And so, you know,
Donald's real nice to meet you, Joy, Let's let's continue
this conversation. Maybe I don't know, six eight weeks from now,
let me go bomb these guys for a little bit.
(04:38):
I'll call you back. That's what's happening right now. And
that's going to continue until Trump changes the changes the
status quo.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Well, he said on Friday that in two weeks he
should know whether progress is possible to end this struggle.
And we know now that when he says two weeks,
it doesn't always mean two weeks. It sort of means, okay,
that's my that's my cover, or that's my time to
sort of figure out what the next move is. And the
(05:07):
last time he gave that, like I started saying with you,
last time he gave that ultimatum, it didn't take two
weeks and he made the decision to have the summit.
Now the summit's happened and he's moved past that whole thing.
So now I just wonder, you're so good at taking
us behind the scenes with what he's doing and maybe
how he's strategizing. You know, what, is this the time
that we actually see Trump sort of go on the
(05:30):
offensive as it relates to Vladimir Putin? Because you know
what we saw at the White House, you know last
week was a lot about posturing. It was a lot
about who looks like they have the upper hand, and
and that's a big deal to President Trump as it
is to Vladimir Putin. We've never actually seen sort of
the the the clash. What really happens when when one
(05:51):
of them gets angry.
Speaker 4 (05:53):
Yeah, here's here's a difficult conversation I hope that somebody's
having with the president. And you mentioned deadlines and then
moved deadlines and all that kind of stuff. Deadlines mean nothing.
Now Trump came up and say, we're putting on sanctions tomorrow,
We're putting in sanctions two weeks, putting sanctions in twenty
twenty seven.
Speaker 6 (06:07):
You know, it.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
Doesn't it doesn't make any difference, and the difficult conversation
is that somebody has to go to president. We need
to do something to re establish our credibility because right
now Putin doesn't believe us, he doesn't fear us, he
doesn't respect us. He may like you, I mean, fine,
he may you know, you enjoy your conversations and so forth,
but it's not moving the needle. It's not changing anything.
It's not getting you where you want to go. And
(06:29):
you need to do something to re establish credibility. I
don't know if that means setting a deadline and keeping it,
if it gives you an ultimatud and keeping it, if
it just means something out of out of the blue
sanctions today without without any heads up whatsoever, something to
change where we are, because right now it's not that
Putin's got the upper hand, it's just Putin is still
I mean, how many times we've talked about this. You
(06:50):
don't get a deal at the table until everybody believes
they're going to get a better deal at the table
than they get in the field. That's that means, that's
that's war fighting and peace making one on one, all right,
And right now the Russians still feel like they've got
to they will get a better deal by staying in
the field, and you have to change that. Until you do,
(07:10):
it's it's not going to end.
Speaker 5 (07:12):
So that feels like I know you said that Putin
doesn't have the upper hand, but that makes it feel
like he has a slightly a bit of an upper hand.
And if that is the case, how did we get here?
Did how did we get to this point?
Speaker 4 (07:29):
Look, it's a long people keep forgetting that Ukraine is
not a NATO country, right, so it's not the same.
Invading Ukraine is not the same legally as invading Poland
and so forth, and I have to think that has
something to do with it. Look, I was never a
big fan of a wholehearted sort of support of Ukraine.
They're not they're not our allies. We might be friendly
(07:51):
with them, but you know, and I've always struggled with
the European response and so forth. This has just been
a strange thing. Best. It's not like it's not like,
you know, him invading Australia. Ukraine is is not. It
doesn't fall into that sort of sphere. I don't know
how he got here this It really doesn't make that
much difference Trump would say it was Biden's weakness and
(08:11):
then okay, that's fine, but again that doesn't explaining how
it started doesn't help us explain how it finishes. Yes,
it would not have started. I will take him at
his word that this war would not be happening if
he were president, but that's that doesn't mean difference. He
wasn't president, and the war did start. So here we
are now he's president ed states does he want to
finish it or not? Is he going to stay committed
(08:34):
to this or is he not? You know, listen, there's
always a chance he throws up his hands and says,
you know what, Europeans, I've tried. This is your problem,
not mine. I don't see how this is in my
direct American interest, and so forth, you guys figure out
how to fix this. I'm out of here. That's always
possibility that happens.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
This is Good Morning Beat.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Rolling on with Mick mulvaney on a Monday. Bowen beth
here and got a lot more to get to. I
want to hit one more thing as it relates to
Russia and Ukraine. The Vice President was on Meet the
Press yesterday with Kristin Welker, and she asked him this.
Speaker 7 (09:11):
The Russians rejected the ceasefire proposal that President Trump put forward.
There's no meeting plan between President Putin and President Zelenski.
And this week Russia targeted an American factory in Ukraine.
There were six hundred people inside at the time, no
one was killed. What makes you think President Putin is
serious about peace?
Speaker 2 (09:30):
Well, I didn't say they conceded on everything, but what
they have conceded is the recognition that Ukraine will have
territorial integrity after the war. They've recognized that they're not
going to be able to install a puppet regime in Kiev.
That was, of course a major demand at the beginning.
And importantly, they've acknowledged that there is going to be
some security guarantee to the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Again,
(09:51):
have they made every concession, of course they haven't. Should
they have started the war, of course they haven't. But
we're making progress, Kristin, And what I admire the President
in this moment is he's not asking three and a
half years ago, He's not trying to focus on every
nitpicky detail of how this thing started three and a
half years ago. He's trying to focus on the nitpicky
(10:13):
details of now of what do the parties disagree on,
what do they agree on, and how do you build
a foundation from one side of that ledger to the
other so that you can stop the killing.
Speaker 7 (10:23):
What was President Trump? Were you enraged when you learned
that Russia targeted an American company based in Ukraine?
Speaker 1 (10:31):
I don't like.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
I don't like it, Kristen, But this is a war,
and this is why we want to stop the killing.
The Russians have done a lot of things that we
don't like. A lot of civilians have died. We've condemned
that stuff from the get go. And frankly, President Trump
has done more to apply pressure and to apply economic
leverage to the Russians, certainly than Joe Biden did for
three and a half years when he did nothing but
(10:54):
talk but do nothing to bring the killing to a stop.
So you ask me what I'm enraged by. What I'm
in is the continuation of the war.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
It's an interesting exchange there. I was mentioning before the
break about you know what's really going on behind the scenes. Now,
I don't think you can look at how this is
all played out, especially with the first meeting, then the
second meeting. Everything has seemed measured from the White House
with this so far. But I think the longer it
goes with Putin not holding up his into the bargain
(11:23):
as we thought he would or he was supposed to
or asked to, then you know what's going on behind
that facade of you know, the Secretary of State Rubia
was speaking last week on the Sunday shows, and then
you had jd Vance making the rounds this week, and
both of those guys are are good messengers for the president.
What's the president doing behind the scenes. Mick mulvaney, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (11:44):
I mean that's you hope that there's a lot of
backchannel discussion going on. You hope that you heard jad
Vance for example, there go over some of the details
and so forth, and you hope there's ongoing discussions with that.
I'm not sure that's how this negotiation is working out.
That's not how Trump likes to work. Trump likes to
deal principle to principle. Trump thought when he left Putin
(12:05):
in Florid in Alaska and then met with the Europeans
that he was on the sort of the the arc
to a meeting between Zelenski and put that's not happened,
and whatever they're doing right now isn't working. So this,
you know, great, it was great face to face meetings,
and I love face to face meanings. Don't get me wrong,
(12:25):
I think they're tremendously valuable, but you ultimately measure the
value by what you get out of it. And what JD.
Vancis went through right there is a bunch of, you know,
verbal commitments. I guess maybe that the Russians has said
they sort of agree to this, and they sort of
agree to that. Look, everywhere in life, but especially in
politics and geopolitics, actions speak louder than words. So if
(12:46):
I'm sitting in a meeting and go, you know, I
think this, Yeah, listen, I think we've got a sort
of the framework of a deal. I'm okay with territorial integrity,
I'm okay with security guarantee, you give me a little
bit land, I'm sort of okay with that. And then
you go out and you bomb at Americans. That speaks
a lot louder than whatever words you said at the table.
And I know that the White House has got me frustrated.
(13:07):
I'm just hoping they're doing something to try and change
the direction because it's not headed towards peace. Right.
Speaker 5 (13:12):
Now, you know, one of the things that now that
we have a WBT text line is people communicate with
us in real time as they're listening to us have
these conversations. And one of the things that BO and
I like to do is is give everyone a chance
to offer their perspectives. Now, this one I wanted to
read to you because this one is harsh. This person
he didn't leave his name or she didn't leave her name,
(13:33):
but they said, just say it. Trump is weak, He's
never had a plan, and he just wants putin to
be his friend. Do you see any truth to a
statement like that one?
Speaker 4 (13:45):
No, accept as a means to an end. Look, we
all like dealing with people that we that we like
dealing with. It's easier to do business with people when
you get along with them. You can do business with
people you don't like, but no one really likes to
do it. And you know, you go back in his
books and so forth, and Trump will talk about trying
to develop relationships with people so weak. Look, you can't
(14:06):
argue there's been no results. I don't know if that
translates into weakness, and of course, ultimately weakness is judged
in hindsight, so you know, if he does something tomorrow
that's dramatic, is weakness still the issue? I don't. I
don't think that it is. I'm trying, Beth, and but
I'm all for the text line and stuff like that,
and I think it's great to get feedback. I think
anonymous commentary is part of the decline of Western civilization.
(14:31):
But that that's that's that's another that's another story entirely.
But I'm just I'm not trying to I'm just simply trying.
I'm not trying to defend the president. I'm trying to
lay out where they are and what they need to
do next, because again, as I've said before, it's just
not working.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
This is Good Morning Beat with Bo Thompson and Beth Troudman.
Speaker 3 (14:59):
Monday morning in the Tyboid Studio. Bowen Beth here talking
to Mick Mulvaney. We see him on News Nation, former
White House Chief of Staff. We talked to him once
a week about all things emanating from Washington and beyond
as it relates to politics, and we were talking about
for the first half hour, mainly about Russia. And Ukraine
Trump and putin the President. Trump has been doing a
(15:23):
lot of things on the domestic front as well, a
lot of talk about what he is trying to do
with Washington, d C. In fact, he was talking about
DC and how DC has changed in the last several
weeks since he has dispatched the National Guard to areas
of the nation's capital. He was talking in the Oval
Office on Friday about how this might extend to other
places in the country.
Speaker 6 (15:44):
If everything works out. And we've already had calls from
other cities, quiet calls, calls from Democrats we'd love you
to come here because they've lost control of theirselves. I'm
not going to say, because I don't want them to
lose their elections. But we've had calls from and goes
from people general we'd love you.
Speaker 5 (16:03):
To come here now. One of the governors has been
going back and forth online mech with President Donald Trump.
That would be Wes Moore, who is the governor of Maryland.
He says online that Donald Trump can stay obsessed with me,
that's fine, but I will stay obsessed with working in
partnership to continue our historic success of driving down crime
(16:26):
in Baltimore. Donald Trump then replying on Truth Truth Social,
Governor Wes Moore of Maryland has asked in a very
nasty and provocative tone, that I walk the streets of
Maryland with him. I assume he is talking about out
of control, crime ridden Baltimore. That's just part of the
post that he posted on truth Social, so in that
(16:48):
it sounds like he's suggesting that places like Baltimore, which
has the fourth highest crime rate in the nation right
now the city of Baltimore according to crime statistics, that
deploying the national to a place like Baltimore could be
a positive thing. And I guess my real question is
DC is a different, you know, a different beast than
(17:09):
other cities across the nation. So if he decided, if
President Trump decided that he wanted to try this out
in other cities like Baltimore. He's also mentioned Chicago, how
does he get around the posse Cooma Tatis Act, which
bars the armed forces from serving as civilian police.
Speaker 4 (17:28):
Came up in the and I'm not entirely clear if
what he's talking about doing in Chicago and Baltimore and
the cities is the same as what he's talking about
doing with the seventeen hundred national Guard units to the
eleven states or whatever prominently republican states by the way,
if they're the same. The way he gets around the
restrictions on sending the National Guard is that the national
(17:50):
Guard are allowed. I think it's Title thirty two or
something like that. Camera what it is we used to
deal with us at the Office Mansion Budget all the time,
that you can send the national Guard. You can federalize
national Guard, essentially, says the President takes responsibility for them,
and the federal government pays them, and they go to
support federal efforts, so that the state National Guard, for
(18:11):
example in Illinois, would go to support ICE efforts or
FBI efforts. This is the tool they used when they
went to California. And I don't know all the limitations
on it, because I don't think we did this very much.
We talked about it and I did the research, but
it's been eight years ago now, so that's how you
get around it. But you're right. Your basic point is
a good one, which is at Washington, d C is
a different thing legally, constitutionally the whole shooting match, and
(18:36):
it'll be insest to see what they're able to pull
off in the other states. I will tell you this,
it's the politics of it is fascinating to me. We
had some really good pulling data on News Nation last
week that in Washington, d C. That eighty percent of
the people polled in this predominantly Democrat city didn't like
what Donald Trump was doing. Did I give an unfavorable
(18:57):
approval rating of the efforts by the federal government to
come in to the city of DC. But in the
same poll, nearly two thirds said it was working. Said
two thirds said it was actually making Washington safer. So
they didn't like it because it was Donald Trump, but
they admitted that it was working. So that's that's a
very interesting political place to be because it puts the
Democrats in a tough bind. I thought the most interesting
(19:18):
interview the Democrat over the weekend was the Ramammanuel, former
governor of Chicago, chief of staff to President Obama, wants
to run for president and says, look, take Trump out
of it, and what we're really talking about is, you know,
are we willing to have a discussion within the Democrat
Party about law and order and crime and punishment? And
it seems like, you know, we're not ready to have
that yet. It's one of the reasons we're losing voters
so dramatically. I thought that was insightful from somebody else
(19:42):
who wants to be president key Out Wes Moore wants
to be president, Emmanuel wants to be president, pritz kerne
Illinois wants to be president, Gavin news who wants to
be president, or k Newsom sorry, wants to president. So
the politics of this is fascinating. In addition to the practicalities.
Speaker 5 (19:54):
You're someone who has traveled all over the world, and
I know that you have probably been in countries. I
know that I witnessed this when I was in Brazil,
I saw it when I was in Pakistan, and I'm
sure you've seen it in different countries around the world
where the military is present at the airport, the military
is present, you know, when you're just walking down the street.
Is that the general feel in Washington, d C? Right now?
(20:15):
And is that the feel we want here in the
United States?
Speaker 4 (20:18):
Thankfully, Beth, I don't know the answer to that question.
I'm one of the many people who tries to get
out of Washington, d C. For the month of August.
So I'll be up next week and we'll see what's happening.
I've seen the photographs or seen the pictures of the
news and so forth, and it looks a little bit
heavy handed. There's a tank in front of Union Station,
I think, or at least an armored personnel carrier. So
(20:40):
I think that could be striking to some people who
spent a lot of time there. That being said, as
someone who takes the Metro every single day in Washington,
d C. And I do, I can assure you that
I'm going to be pretty good about the fact that
it's going to be a lot safer at Union Station
than it has been in the past. Union Station's rough, rough,
rough part of town, and it doesn't need to be
(21:01):
So we'll see what they have. Two answers to your question,
does it look like and feel like? And then was
it what the practicality you know, the crint that the
safety sort of feel of the place.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
Good Morning dtwo. This is Good Morning Beat.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
Final stretch here on a Monday, Bo and Beth and
Mick mulvaney you see him on News Nation, former White
House Chief of Staff and South Carolina congressman. So I
wanted to get into this a real quick. A federal
judge late last week disqualified acting US Attorney for New Jersey,
Alena Habba from participating in any ongoing cases lodged by
(21:38):
her office after the lawfulness of her appointment by the
Trump administration was challenged by defendants in two separate criminal cases.
And I've never heard this phrase, the blue slipping, uh
And and I was learning about it this weekend and
sort of preparing for the show today. And then yesterday
on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo, she had Alina
(22:01):
Habba on the show, and during the course of that conversation,
a US Senator from North Carolina came into the conversation, what.
Speaker 8 (22:09):
Do you want to say about Senator Tillis. Tom Tillis,
a member of the Judiciary Committee, has stated publicly that
if Chairman Grassley tried moving a district judge or US
attorney through the Judiciary Committee without a blue slip, he
would oppose that nominee. And that means we would not
even have the votes to pass a nomination like Haba
out of committee because Tillis would vote no along with
(22:32):
the Democrats.
Speaker 9 (22:33):
You know, they're trying to look at this as they
all need to get along to go along. But they're
not looking at what this does. The President was rightfully
voted in by a majority of Americans, and he is
entitled to pick his US attorneys, his Department of Justice officials,
his judges so that we can continue the agenda that
the American public voted for, which is to get rid
of crime. In the state of New Jersey and June alone,
(22:55):
we arrested over three hundred criminals, illegals, rapists. What is
so bad about that work? The truth is, it has
nothing to do with the work that we're doing. It
has nothing to do with the crime that we're stopping.
It has to do with trying to prevent President Trump
from continuing his agenda, and it has to stop. So
I would say to Senator Tillis and Senator Grassley, you
(23:15):
are becoming part of the issue.
Speaker 3 (23:18):
So we'll get to Alena Haba specifically in a second here,
But Mick, the blue slip concept in the chamber there,
can you shed some light on that.
Speaker 4 (23:27):
It's pretty simple. It's a tradition in the Senate, of course,
one of those you know, it's not in a Constitution,
so if you're looking for it, it's not going to
be there. Essentially, says look, before any president can put
a judge of a federal bench in a state that
both of the senators from that state need to sign off,
all right, and it's the Senate looks at. It's sort
(23:48):
of an informal check and balance that you know, even
if you've got a Democrat president, he does get to
a point, say, you know, judges for the federal ben
from South Carolina, but only ones that are acceptable to
the two Republican and then vice versa when there's a
Republican office in Democrat states and so forth, and it
does lead to this compromise judge swapping sometimes, you know,
(24:09):
you get a Democrat judge and a Republican judge. Obviously
if you've got a Republican White House and Senate in
a Republican state, then it's easier. The same is true
and everybody's Democrat, etc. So what's happened here is that
Haba has been appointed or name nominated to New Jersey
on the federal bench where there are two Democrat senators,
and they won't approver he, they won't approve her. They
(24:31):
won't send in the blue slip saying she's okay with us,
which is not surprising and What Pillis is saying is, look,
I benefit North Carolina benefits from the blue slip rules
when there's a Democrat president, and I want to keep
the rules around, and therefore I will vote to respect
the blue slip rules, and if you can't get the
(24:51):
approval of the two senators from the state of New
jersey'll vote against it.
Speaker 5 (24:54):
Do you know Alena Haba and do you feel that
she deserves approval from these guys, from these senators, Yeah,
I've no.
Speaker 4 (25:02):
I don't know is the threshold. I know how I
feel generally about Senate confirmation on judges. I've been through
Center confirmation, one of the most demeaning processes of my
professional career. I've always sort of been in the opinion
of that the president should be entitled to his or
her team and a less a person is wildly unqualified
or has significant sort of moral criminal type of issues,
(25:27):
that the president should be entitled to his or her cabinet,
should be entitled to his and her judiciary, et cetera.
So I'm not a big fan of the Senate Advice
and Consent. I think they advising and Center is just bizarre.
It makes it It's become more extort and delayed that
it is advised to consent. So that's a longer discussion
for another day. But I think I see exactly what
(25:50):
Senator Tillis is doing. You're saying, look, this helps North Carolina.
Sometimes if we get rid of it, North Carolina will
be worse off. Therefore, I'm going to continue to stick
by the tradition of the blue slip rules.
Speaker 3 (26:00):
Talking a few minutes ago about all the various Democrats
who seem to be sort of maneuvering to possibly run
for president next time around, and of course one of
the names you mentioned Gavin Newsom. This time last week
we were asking you what about this, this act of
of you know, mimicking President Trump's tweets and such and
sort of kind of fighting fire with fire, or coming
(26:22):
at him in the same fashion that he comes at
Newsom with. Well, if people thought that this was just
sort of a passing fad for him, now he's actually
opened up an online store to sell products that are themed.
You know that there's all the Maga style hats and
and things you can buy with Trump on them and
Trump phrases. But now Newsom has gone at least he's
(26:44):
gone to the extent that he's he's opening up and
actually offering people the option to buy these, you know,
things that are sort of tongue in cheek mimicking Trump,
and the money's going to his election coffers. So I guess,
I guess Newsome's going to stay with this stick for
a while.
Speaker 4 (27:02):
Yeah, imitation is the greatest over flattery, right. I saw
one of his flags the other day. It's that white
text on a blue field with a sort of a
thin white box, and it says, Maga make America Gavin again. Listen.
I can't stand the guy's politics, but you got to
give him credit. This has been a huge success. He's
zoomed up the charts and social media impressions and so forth. Clearly,
(27:26):
as of right now, he's the front runner for the
Democrat nomination. He's doing everything right. I don't know why
anybody else didn't think of this sooner. In fact, I
can imagine Pritzker and Wes Moore and Ram Emmanuel going, goodness, gracious,
only I thought of that. It's a great marketing tool.
And yeah, it's funny. I mean, if you're willing to
sort of suspend your political views for the sake of
(27:47):
humor sort of stuff is actually quite creative, so I
follow it on Twitter anyway. I think it's been a
huge success for him. Whether it translates into electoral victories,
you know, eighteen months from now, remains act and longer
than that, goodness, gracious, three and a half years now,
remains to be seen. But right now he's certainly the
talk of the nation when it comes to the leading Democrats.
Speaker 3 (28:08):
All Right, we've covered a lot of bases here in
a short amount of time. Always good to have you
on Hope. You have a great week and we'll talk
to you next time. Thanks guys, We see there is
Mick mulvaney, Foke Thompson here. Thanks to Bernie and Steve
and Zoke and Garrison and Boomer. On the first day
of school, Hope. Everybody has a safe ride home this afternoon.
Good talk, Beth, good top Hope.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!