How To Stop Activist Judges
01:11:14 Share

Everyone's talking about judges. They're talking about these activist judges. What can be done? Who the hell does some district judge think they are being like, I can tell military planes to turn around? Get the hell out of here. He was like, I'm angry that the plane didn't turn around when I demanded they turn around. You don't know how much fuel is on the plane. You don't know what the situation is. If there's a storm over the Gulf of America, whatever they're dealing with. For him to have this level of ego to be like,

I'm a district judge. I can tell a military plan to turn around. Get the hell out of here.

The media is broken. For decades, Big Cable and legacy media filtered information to hide the truth. But thanks to podcasts like the one that you're listening to and new media around this country, the truth can break through, providing voices and views that legacy outlets we know well will not air. But Big Cable still has a major way of controlling information, access. They do this by limiting access to something called spectrum.

the invisible airwaves that power affordable wireless internet. And by forcing you to keep their bundles, the old cable package bundle, keeping independent media out of reach. Trump and Republicans in Congress have a huge chance right now to get this right by making more spectrum available and breaking the big cable's stranglehold on your information.

You got to tell your senator and your member of Congress to work with President Trump, sell more spectrum, and make sure that you can hear programs like the Ruthless Variety Program. Ladies and gentlemen, your attention, please. Just a catching strays over here. You're in for a hell of a show. Keep the faith, hold the line, and own the libs. It's time for our main...

Good Tuesday to all of you. Welcome back to the Ruthless Variety Program. I'm Josh Holmes, comfortably smug, Michael Duncan, John Ashbrook, left to right across your radio dial, as we always do here on the Ruthless Variety Program. We got a big show in front of you. Everyone's talking about judges. They're talking about these activist judges. What can be done? What can be done? So we're going to explore that a little bit in this episode.

hour or so. I mean, what do you... I mean, that's the thing is I know myself, like many conservatives are super frustrated. We had a streak in President Trump's first administration where it was like a judge factory. But I guess those are like higher tier judges that hopefully this stuff gets to on appeal. But it's like

How long does this process take? Because it's like, you know, we got things to do. There's a lot of illegals that we got to get out of this country. And judges putting a stop to it is not helping the situation at all. Yeah, it's crazy to think that like one district judge of which there's like hundreds across this country could stop.

critical parts of the Trump agenda here over the will of millions of Americans who voted last November. And we know you've got to be smart about how you handle it because Democrats have a history of trying to intimidate these judges. Remember Schumer on Gorsuch? Yeah, yeah.

It didn't work. Democrats and their communist allies tried to intimidate judges, and then Roe v. Wade was overturned. Yeah. So we know you've got to be smart about it. Yeah. So at issue there is there are judges throughout this country, mostly at the district court level, that have blocked deportation, tried to block deportation of violent gang members.

They have blocked a ban on transgender military service. There's just all kinds of different things that are happening within the Trump agenda where you're getting courts pop up. And look, we warned a little bit about this at the beginning, that

that this is what they did the first time around. Now, they were a lot more successful the first time around in that literally everything that the Trump administration was putting forward, they were able to just put a stay on it, litigate it. And, you know, you win some, you lose some. This time around, I think a lot more of it has has sifted through the screen of Democratic 501c4 fail son legal challenges that

Ultimately, they've focused on a few, but these few are pretty significant. You see the White House is pretty worked up about it. So we're going to talk about all of that. We got some variety for you, which is good. That's going to be great. I'm super excited about this. Which is good. And then we got a special guest, Alex Eisenstadt. It's not every day that we have a journo. Yeah, one of Ashbrook's buddies. Yeah, on the program. He's written a book. He's written a book.

But this is one of the guys. So he was at Politico for a long time. He's now at Axios. He's one of the few that I actually don't know what his politics are, which is the purpose of being a journalist. And one of the reasons why he's been as effective as he has been in a journalist capacity is because he gets along with Republicans. Understand he's not trying to judge anybody. He's just reporting the news. If I remember correctly, he was publishing articles that were like,

is Biden, like, okay? Is he cooked? Like, before he dropped out. And, like, things critical of the Kamala Harris campaign before Election Day. So, like, he's...

I've seen sent out tweets and written stories that like absolutely did not toe the line for the Democrats, which I don't think, and I'd want to hear about this. I bet it hasn't been very popular among his fellow journal buddies. Yeah, the guy's very well sourced on both sides. And that's how you get to the place where he is in his career. And this book that he has written is very deeply sourced into the Trump campaign. So looking forward to the conversation.

Chevron's latest deep water development, Anchor, is powered by innovation. This breakthrough technology helps enable us to safely produce oil and natural gas at greater pressures, setting a new industry benchmark.

Anchor is pivotal in our goal to produce 300,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day by 2026 in the Gulf of America, home to some of our lowest carbon intensity producing assets. That's energy in progress. Visit Chevron.com slash anchor to learn more.

We'll start with the judges, but I do have a quick story. Oh, okay. So my oldest, he's playing baseball now. And, you know, Northern Virginia, you got to work to try to find your fields and all of that kind of thing. And it's very, you know, there's a lot of people up there, not a lot of fields. So you go to where you can. And they're playing in this field, which is great. But there's like 8 million people, like, walking. You can't find parking.

And this is like two or three weeks in a row for me. It's driving me crazy. And so we get there. They're playing baseball. It's great. One of the highlights of my life is to watch my son learn the game of baseball. And I'm enjoying it or whatever. But I'm noticing that there's like, I'm not kidding you, like 700 people walking around this park. And like, what are you doing? This is one of my pet peeves.

If you're a grown adult, get the fuck out of a park. I don't need to see you in a park. You like go, go do something. You'll run a bike path or something or bike or whatever. Like don't hang out in a place that's designed to teach kids baseball and they have like jungle gyms. But like this is where they are. They are congregating there. And I see off towards like the third baseline a couple of weeks ago, this group of like 35 people.

And they're all standing there and every one of them looks like a complete incel. Like literally you could typecast what these people – and you know in your head as you're listening to this exactly what that looks like. I don't need to describe it. Every single one of them is staring down at their phone.

They're not looking up at all. Like no conversation between the 50 people that are standing there. Which would look strange because this is a park during the day. It's a park during the day. And they're all congregated into a group, but they're not looking at each other or talking or like playing baseball or any of the normal things you would do in a park during the day. Nothing. I haven't ever seen anything. This is weird as hell. Yeah. It is. And my first question is a group of wolves is called a pack. A group of geese is called a gaggle. What do you call a group of incels? Yeah.

Virgins. Virgins or a terrorist set. So you're telling me this is like a baseball park, they got jungle gyms for kids and stuff, and there's just like adults standing around here? Yeah, they're just standing around. Which, as a parent, like you look and you're like,

What's that all about? That makes no sense. Right? Because, I mean, you're just like Spidey Sense. So a couple of dads, we get together, we start talking about this and we're like, well, they're in the open, they're in nature, they're walking around, but they're all just staring at their phones and they're doing it collectively as a group. It might be that like Pokemon Go situation. Right.

Really? Yeah. You know, I mean, you heard about this. I've never seen it in the wild. No, I remember it was a big thing, but that was like years ago. It was years ago, but maybe there's more of those kind of things. Maybe it's not Pokemon. Maybe it's some... Like a treasure hunt thing. Some geolocated based treasure hunt. Like they do this like geotagging thing I've heard of on the internet. Were they like moving around? These guys... And you're saying it's just like hundreds of people who are just like standing there. They're just standing there staring at their phone and then they move in packs. I call the cops. What?

Well, I mean, listen, that was because like if it's adults hanging out, you want to feel like go to the National Mall, go have your picnic there. You know what I mean? They have like it's like a mile of grass and it's accepted that like there's no jungle gyms. There's no baseball diamonds.

Go hang out there. But like in a kid's playground, I'm calling the police. That's what I'm saying. So a couple of the dads and I, you know, we just sort of checked it out, realized that there were no imminent threat, but also completely hilarious. So we just like watched them because they're just – You should just roll up and start threatening them, dude. Pack of dads. That might come next week because listen to what happened this week. This week, one of these guys like parts off from the crowd and he's down on his phone and he's just typing away and he's not looking up at all. And he walks –

through the baseball diamond between the pitcher's mound and the plate during the game. Unreal. Oh, yeah. No, and he doesn't have the faintest clue that he is disrupting anything. He literally just walks through it, never looked up from his phone. Pitcher can hit him. That's the rule. He can beat him in the head. Is that? Yeah. That's the rule. You can throw, right? As hard as you can.

You can, right? Hit him right in the ear. I think you can take him out. I don't think there's... I mean, he's doing what he's doing. I think Abner Doubleday would have wanted nothing less. When he invented the game, it was not to be interrupted.

But can you believe this? I mean, growing up where we grew up and interacting with the people, like if you saw that situation. None of the dads took a swing at that guy? No, I mean, I'm thinking like week four, it could get ugly. I remember when like dads used to kick ass at baseball games. 50-50 chance someone's getting their ass beat. I mean, if they did that, if that was happening where I grew up, those guys would be in a lot of trouble. No question about it. Anyway, I might read.

work the crew together. I'm glad you guys are... Get them riled up, man. I just need to deposit this because I'm like, am I on a line here? No, you're not. No. You got to stage your ground, dude. Okay. All right. We're going to get to the judges. So let's set this up with clip number one, please.

President Trump stepped up his attacks on federal judge James Boasberg, calling him a, quote, constitutional disaster. Now the showdown between Trump and the judiciary enters a new phase, heading to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington as the administration looks to reverse Judge Boasberg's order, halting some deportations.

President, do you think you have the authority, the power to round up people, deport them, and then you're under no obligation to a court to show the evidence against them? Well, that's what the law says, and that's what our country needs. At issue is the deportation of hundreds of Venezuelans who were flown to a notorious prison in El Salvador last weekend under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, despite Judge Boasberg's verbal order to turn the planes carrying them around.

In court, the judge warned there will be consequences if he decides that his order was deliberately disobeyed. And he expressed sharp skepticism about the sweeping claim of presidential power at the heart of this case.

Oh, sharp. It was sharp. Can I swing at this first? Yeah. Who the hell does some district judge think they are being like, I can tell military planes to turn around? Get the hell out of here. He was like, I'm angry that the plane didn't turn around when I demanded they turn around. You don't know how much fuel is on the plane. You don't know what the situation is, if there's a storm over the Gulf of America, whatever they're dealing with. For him to have this level of ego to be like,

I'm a district judge. I can tell a military plan to turn around. Get the hell out of here. Get the hell out of here. Bring those terrorists back here to America. And how quickly can this be heard on appeal? Because it feels like this is taking forever. Well, you would think it would be heard a lot quicker than it has been. I do. I do. Why isn't it? I think that's our biggest problem. We've got all these judges confirmed. And what are they doing?

Get to work. They're absolutely – Kick this decision out. Throw it out. The process needs to start working right now. It needs to get going. Well, it's an interesting legal case that we will get into on both the White House's perspective and then honestly McCarthy over at NRO who we have used –

significantly over the course of this program talking about the Trump case is now wildly outrageous, all of those things. Very conservative guy. He's got a little different take on it. We're going to present to all of that here in a minute. But also, we need to remind everybody. That's right. Hack madness.

Hack Madness has begun. Yesterday, Smug, you launched the first round. That's right. The two play-in games to see who gets in 16th. There's that music. There's the music. Voting has begun, folks. So it is pinned right now on my profile on X at Comfortably Smug. Go there and vote. And by the time you hear this, there's a good chance that the first round is underway. There's an awful lot of you who may be doing this for the first time.

We've done it five times. This will be the fifth version of it. It is an incredibly significant...

tournament bracket dealing with the biggest journalist hacks in all of politics. It is a people vote and people decide. And so these are real games. Yeah. And you got to get involved in it. If you're not involved in it, if you didn't get a chance to fill out a bracket, that's OK. Your participation still continues. That's right. The comfortably smug X account continues.

where you can vote on each and every one of these people. We had over 1,100 submitted brackets. Oh, I love that. Incredible. I love that. So a lot of people are really excited. This could be our biggest tournament yet. I'm expecting like a couple million votes. It's a big deal. It's so good. All right, we're going to get back to the deportation case, the other cases that have been blocked by judges, the White House's case, the case against them. We're going to dissect it all right after this.

Hardworking Americans know when it's time to roll up our sleeves and get the job done. Now is the time to unleash our nation's energy to create jobs, secure our future, and make life better, more affordable, and full of opportunity for all Americans. That's the power of America's oil and natural gas. Learn more at LightsOnEnergy.org. Paid for by the American Petroleum Institute.

Okay, let's start with the White House case. I think nobody does a better job of articulating their position in why President Trump is correct on the activity that he took to get these people the hell out of the country than Stephen Miller. Let's play clip two. So you called the judge's order just earlier today, quote, patently unlawful, end quote, and said that it was an assault on democracy itself.

Does that mean that the administration is ignoring this order? And might you ignore future court orders that meet the criteria you laid out? The president of the United States and his administration reserve all rights under the Constitution to conduct national security operations in defense of the United States. The Alien Enemies Act...

WHICH WAS PASSED INTO LAW BY THE FOUNDING GENERATION OF THIS COUNTRY. MEN LIKE JOHN ADAMS WAS WRITTEN EXPLICITLY TO GIVE THE PRESIDENT THE AUTHORITY

to repel an alien invasion of the United States. That is not something that a district court judge has any authority whatsoever to interfere with, to enjoin, to restrict or to restrain any way. You can read the law yourself. There's not one clause in that law that makes it subject to judicial review, let alone district court review.

Yeah. So, I mean, look, he makes a very transparent case about all this. And I love the fact that Democrats come at a challenge to the law, the legality of what President Trump did based on saying, like, oh, it's an old law. Yeah, it's all it's it's old.

I mean, that's like saying the merits of a bill are judged on how many pages, not what's in it. You know what I mean? It's just it's completely insane that that is their primary focus on how they go about doing this. He lays it out. There's a very serious national security imperative of which President Trump spoke with great detail during the campaign about what he was trying to do. None of this should be a surprise. They're all acting like this is just.

a wild out of left field radical thing that this president has done.

Right. And you've got to remember, Barack Obama deported three million people when he was president of the United States. I don't remember a district court judge challenging those deportations at that point. There have been a record number of district court challenges to this president, more than we've ever seen in history. They are activists. This is lawfare. And the appellate process needs to work and has to work now.

That's it. Well, that's why we have this system. But here's the other side of it from a conservative perspective. Somebody like Andrew McCarthy spent an awful lot of time in this world navigating these kind of things, tried terrorist cases, and now speaks eloquently about a whole bunch of different things. He's got a little different take in clip three.

The problem, Julie, is that the lower courts are stuck with the jurisprudence that the Supreme Court developed after the 9-11 attacks, which gave even alien enemy combatants who were held overseas and had been captured overseas rights of access to the U.S. courts. So I think if Trump is going to win on this Alien Enemy Act,

uh, initiative that they've tried. He's going to have to win that at the Supreme Court because I think the lower courts will be stuck regardless with the jurisprudence they're already, they already have. But listening to, to, um, your reports and especially the comments from, um, from the House speaker and also from, from Senator Schumer, it seems to me like the, you know, they got their eye on the wrong ball. The issue here shouldn't be

the judges, how about Congress help the president with Trend de Aragua? So what he's talking about there is the terrorist, you know, this gang, this Venezuelan gang, Trend de Aragua.

That is here. And part of the core case that the Trump administration is arguing is the trend. Aragawa is basically a state actor, a Venezuelan state actor that we are at war with because they are mayhem within within the United States. And this is a a group group.

That if you're a part of it, you ought to get the hell out. We don't need a full jurisprudence. We don't need the full activity of the courts in order to remove them. You know, like he raises a question here about whether or not the precedent that was boxed in by higher courts during the Supreme Court era of the post 9-11 era was

actually is just what these lower courts are following. Or like the Obama administration deciding that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed needed to be tried in a New York federal court is sort of undermining the Trump position because there's a lot of jurisprudence around that. I think that's McCarthy's point. And that is like...

It's a tough thing to hear, but I don't think we're ultimately going to resolve any of this until the Supreme Court steps in. And that was kind of his point, is that some of these lower courts, they may very well have an agenda, but they can fall that agenda right underneath the precedent that they are supposed to adhere to based on what happened after 9-11. It doesn't make it any easier from our perspective in that these people ought to get the hell out of our country. Right.

His point is that there is a full, you know, 30-year history of jurisprudence of how you go about doing that. It's the TPS report argument, basically, that you were making. And unfortunately, when it comes to jurisprudence in this country, the TPS does matter. It does. It does.

Well, so now it just gets escalated. So the Court of Appeals is going to hear oral arguments this week. They're going to do it in a D.C. circuit, which is— We're hearing that. Supreme Court. Not great. If you can hear us, Supreme Court, save us. That's where this is going to end up. No question about it. They got a fact-finding hearing where the Trump administration—this is according to Fox News—

The Trump administration is to submit more information on the flights, including the information on how planes departed the U.S. They were carrying any people who were deported, quote unquote, solely on the basis of the proclamation and how many individuals were on each plane, where the planes landed, what time the planes took off, that kind of thing. So they're actually looks like they're examining what that district court judge was talking about, about like.

okay, well, you took off. I ordered you to turn the planes around and you didn't. Which... Who gives a shit about that? Bingo. That's what I'm saying. Yeah. I'm like...

Is there any way to expedite this in the sense that, like, if you're the Trump team, say, we don't want any fact-finding. Just rule on this. Just rule on it. And say you want the illegals and the terrorists to stay here because you're a D.C. judge. Just go ahead and say that so we can already get this to the Supreme Court. Let's just skip this step. This is taking so long. I mean, like, we went through four years of violent illegals murdering, raping, robbing, assaulting Americans with impunity.

And now, I mean, those judges weren't doing their job sentencing these people to jail. Exactly, Smug. It's not like there was any district judge across the country that was filing an injunction to stop the Biden administration for shipping hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants across this country. Right. And where was the district judge stopping the illegal from murdering Lake and Riley? You know, like if the illegal if these district judges are so captured by the communists who control the Democrat Party,

Why can't the higher courts see that and see their actions and be like, no, you cannot be captured by communists. We have to rule based on American law, based on the Constitution, that if you are here on a green card, if you are here on some sort of illegal process that you can be sent. I know it's just that I mean, the federal judiciary is never going to go for that.

because it needs to stay out of the political process. And you saw that statement that Chief Justice Roberts put out about how important the normal appellate process is. And that is because they're trying to keep it out of the politics of the day. And we got to...

we got to trust the process. You know, trust the process. Everyone says that in sports. At some level, I mean, look, I can understand the frustration from the Trump administration. No question about it. They sent a reply brief to the D.C. Circuit on Wednesday of last week saying,

where it said the district court is continuing to attempt to price sensitive information from the government. All of the district court's orders should be stayed and the executive branch's standing as a co-equal branch of government should be respected. That's their point of view. You're not in the enforcement game. We are. What the court is saying is you're maybe right about that, but if you don't have due process for people and we don't know whether or not you have or not,

We are it's subject to review and where this gets hairy and I don't have the details on this but where it gets hairy is there's a whole bunch of people that they shipped out of this country that had deportation orders. Yeah, they're violent criminals. They've been convicted of crimes. Right. And and vast majority of them. There is no argument.

The argument from the courts is that they expanded the scope to include people that perhaps didn't have deportation orders. It doesn't mean that they're not illegal, by the way. They're not illegal. Or a member of a violent gang. It just wasn't processed through their TPS report. Right. Which is, you know, an argument. It's an argument. I think the political argument about the action itself is,

isn't it another one of these 80-20s that we talked about last week where the vast majority, 80% of the American people would be like, yes, they're here illegally. They're a part of a gang, suspected part of a gang that is doing tremendous damage in our neighborhoods. Get them the hell out of here. That's the 80. The 20 is like, where's your TPS report? The problem, I think, is where you get into the second half of this argument about whether or not the judicial branch is

has any sort of say in jurisprudence and due process in this country. And it gets hairy. It's the only one, as we've discussed on a number of occasions here, it's the only thing that is on the lean end of 50 for the Trump administration that we've been in discussion since his inauguration. Yeah. Do you want to put up that poll?

Yeah, let's skip ahead because I think this is a good precursor to do it. Yeah, so this is a new poll from Washington Post-Ipsos on this specific issue. In the poll, an overwhelming majority of Republicans voted

79% say Trump should not defy court orders. It also found that 82% of independents and 92% of Democrats agree. Now, look, it's not exactly that clear cut. If you look at the framing of the question itself, it says, you know, if an order by the Trump administration was found to be illegal by a court, should they defy that order? And it's like, you're kind of rigging it a little bit in that sort of framing. Like if you put,

You know, Donald Trump wants to deport violent criminals from this country and a court wants to stop him. Should he ignore the court? I bet you it's closer to 50-50. But the point remains the same, and that is—

By vast margins, the American people like the rule of law in the sense that there needs to be a check and a balance across the executive branch. So tread lightly, I would say. I understand the thinking of like, you know, you can't just –

go wild, run amok with it because eventually, you know, Democrats are going to win an election someday and then they're going to go ham with it. So I get that. I mean, at the same time, it's like we got it. Number one, we got to find a way to just expedite this as quickly as possible, whether it's setting a precedent by the Supreme Court when they finally get this there. Or I think like McCarthy mentioned of like, get a bill.

done through Congress, maybe just like super limited scope so it doesn't have time for people to throw in their own little gimmies and whatever BS they want of just being like Trendy or Wagwa.

terrorist group can be allowed to be deported instantly. Just ram that through the House and the Senate. Get that ball. Like, because the thing is, is there's not a lot of time. We need to put up like record deportation numbers on the daily because of this hole that the Biden administration has put us in. They have. No question about that. Where we're dealing with here is a very specific, very dangerous group.

that everybody agrees has absolutely no business being here. The question is how you went about doing it.

And this has bedeviled the Trump administration in the first term, is what they're talking about is always on the 80. It's always in the 80 and the 20. The question is how you go about doing it. Now, I think Stephen Miller makes a very, very persuasive case that there is laws in the books here that deal with a president making a determination that these people are a clear and present threat to the United States of America. Nobody would argue the trend of Aragua is anything but that. Mm-hmm.

Where it gets hairy is some of these people that don't have deportation orders, some of these people who haven't been processed by the system, and whether or not these people are actually a part of that gang to begin with. And I guess my – where I come down on this is I agree with you, Smug, in that we've got to process this as quickly as possible. No question the higher courts need to make a ruling.

I also think in a sea of 80-20 issues that this president has put on that has led to a 25% approval rating of Democratic Party because they oppose all this stuff, be careful what you talk about. Talk about the principle of what it is that you're doing. When they start getting into impeaching judges and that kind of thing, you're going 80-20 in the other direction.

And they've got such a wave of momentum at this point. The principle by which this question arose to the courts in the first place is an 80-20 issue. Argue that issue. Right. They need to impeach the decision. They need to get rid of the decision. Some of these district court judges, by the way, their thinking behind the opinions they're writing is completely unbiased.

You can't understand it. One of them cited the play Hamilton. Well, we'll get into that in a minute. Get out of here. Exactly. Maybe now's a good time to get into that. Yeah, well, this is a second case, the one that has come up dealing with the Department of Defense. Pete Hegseth, very disinterested in the decision, and well he should be, of a court ruling basically that the military's ban against transgender people

enrollment doesn't stand. Right. And this, this went to Reyes, Judge Reyes, U.S. District Judge Reyes in Washington, D.C. issued a preliminary injunction last week. This is according to Fox News again, blocking the Pentagon from enforcing Donald Trump's executive order for banning transgender people from serving in the military. In her 79 page ruling, Reyes in part said,

cites Lin-Manuel Miranda's musical Hamilton to justify blocking the ban on transgender troops. Look, I'm not for impeaching judges. I'm in favor of impeaching this judge. This one might. If you are a serious person who is somehow elevated to a U.S. district judgeship,

and you're citing Hamilton instead of, I don't know, the Constitution? Yeah. Or maybe the founding fathers that this musical was based upon? You are such a loser, and you have brain worms. This is such like...

Theater kid bullshit. It's like, get out of here. It is, and it's why we need the higher courts to overturn them. And a higher court can say that I don't care which musical you like. If it's Hamilton or Hello Dolly, none of those things apply to U.S. law. The terrorists need to be out. And we also need to spin up that judge factory again that we had going on in the first Trump administration. And we need to start getting some judges in here who, like—

Make Pat Buchanan look like a rhino. Like, we don't need any more of these, like, country club Republicans. We don't know where they're going to stand. It's a coin flip. Oh, man, you know, this guy's kind of libertarian-ish. You don't know where he's going. We got to, I mean, like, that time has gone. Like, we're dealing right now with a radical left who's bankrolled overseas.

Right. Your grace has given untold tens of hundreds of millions of dollars to buy up all these prosecutors and judges across the country for their radical agenda. This is not like, oh, you know, this is just your standard Bill Clinton kind of like Democrat party. There's degree to disagree. These people are literally stopping terrorists from leaving.

They're using our own system against us. And it's like, oh, well, we're not sure what we can do. Maybe the terrorists should be allowed to have that apartment building in Denver, Colorado. Maybe they should be allowed to run amok in our country. Nobody understands it. They're like, wait a minute. They're terrorists. They shouldn't be here. It's basic principle.

You know what I mean? Like, and I understand the background and the context and what they were thinking after 9-11. And I appreciate all of that stuff. But like, this is a new day and age. And these judges need to operate based on what the reality is in America today. And if they're not, people would be very upset. I love that Ashbrook said that because I think it's extremely accurate. Like, not just with this specific deportation case or the transgender case, but also like,

you know, all of these Hamas sympathizers who are going to Nasrallah's funeral, right? And there's some professor somewhere, this Mahmoud Khalil, who's like organizing for Hamas on Columbia's campus. And the argument always is using our values against us for the reason why we should let terrorists stay in our country.

It's like those really dishonest liberals on the internet who are like, how as a Christian could you agree with this? You know fucking nothing about our religion, but you're going to say I'm a bad person for wanting to enforce the laws of this country? These are bad people. They are dishonest people and do not take their arguments seriously. Well, they're trying to catch a technicality. Yeah. One way or another, they're trying to catch a technicality.

And I guess the question from an administration standpoint is, have you thought through their game plan before we execute it? I think in the case of the transgender thing, I think this is an open and closed book. You know, for the same reason that Bill Clinton could say, don't ask, don't tell, is the new policy of the United States military. Right.

You can do the same in terms of transgender by acclimation within the context of an administration. Like that was challenged.

Right. It was upheld. Right. Because of an executive. But if you listen to these district court judges, they're like, no, I'm sorry. The guy in the dog mask and Karl Rove in a wig, they're allowed to be in our military. We're not allowed to tell them they're not allowed. You know what I mean? Like people elected a completely different government. Or they're like, one day more. Right.

Exactly. Get out of here. Fully doing a theatrical play to try to justify their decision making. Les Mis is a good play, though. I'm just going to say. It's a pretty good play. By the way, on the play front, did you see that there was this story in the Daily Beast last week? Hell yeah. About how they were all like outraged. It was a bonkers plan is what they said. Quote unquote bonkers plan by Donald Trump to try to renovate the Kennedy Center. Literally renovate.

it. And he was like, they spent $200 million building rooms underneath it that nobody ever uses. Why would they do that? We'd like to renovate this situation. And oh, by the way, I kind of like cats. He loves cats. Yeah. I kind of like to play cats. Maybe cats can come back and they're like bonkers. Bonkers. Bonkers. It's hilarious. I mean, we talked about this, that like they just hypervaluate about every single thing. Yeah. And the

The fact that they can't focus on something shows how just scattered they are. If we can't impeach Judge Reyes, at the very least, we should be able to replace Hamilton with Katz. And it's like Trump's point is absolutely right. And that is like maybe the Kennedy Center, which ostensibly is like a public service of the arts in our nation's capital, should – I don't know.

Show some shit that like regular Americans want to watch. You know what I mean? It's like not everything has to be like, I don't know, the marriage of fucking Figaro. You know? She's like, I'll be back. You will see. I mean, you can't make it up. It's the funniest shit of all time that they're actually, they literally are what we thought they were. They are so...

sort of boxed in by their own culture that they actually think that there's nothing but this is sort of weird, lib, progressive. This is how communists think. They make a decision and you have to live with it. Just think about like separately, think about what they're doing with these Tesla cars. Okay. They're like, yeah, I'm striking a blow against Elon Musk by starting fire to somebody's Tesla. Well,

A regular person has a car payment on that. They were expecting to take that car to work or to drop their kids off at practice. And the communists are like, no, it doesn't matter that you're hurt. What matters is that we attack Elon Musk and regular people suffer. This is communism. This is what these liberal judges are trying to enforce on our society, just like all of their lunatics out there burning cars. And we have to stop it in our

Yeah, look, I don't think there's any disagreement, certainly amongst the four of us on that. I would just say in terms of the politics of what it is that they're dealing with, knowing that you've got big things like taxes and big, big, massive economy wide arguments that are happening in the next 90 days, 100 days.

Be very careful about what portions of this we're arguing. Is it the intent? Because that's 80-20 on our side. That's great. If we start talking about impeaching judges, it goes 20-80. I mean, there's multiple polls that show that this thing is underwater by a long shot.

argue this thing all the way through the hill. My guess is that we get to the Supreme Court on some of this. We're all going to get a victory in the end one way or another. So I just caution people from a – if you're involved in a political discussion, make sure it's a political discussion you can win because

And the courts do their job to ensure that you win that, too. You can have your cake and eat it, too. Just don't go too far and absolutely blow your credibility with the American people, because that's a thing. Like, that's a thing at the beginning. They've done such a good job. This administration has done such a good job at picking issues that Democrats put themselves in a lean end of public opinion with.

And then driving it all the way through to the point where they just explode themselves. Mm-hmm.

This is one of those that's a little nuanced. You've got to be smart about the way that you execute it. But the underlying action that this administration took still is with that 80-20 proposition that we've been talking about for the last two weeks. Anyway, so our question to you and our question of the day, you've got to like and subscribe in order to do it and then feel free to opine. But our question is what should be done? What should be done? Should we just keep seeing this legal process all the way through?

Are impeachment of judges warranted?

Should we just do everything we can do to start up that Trump-McConnell confirmation train that was done between 17 and 20 to ensure that our higher courts are the real backstop to this stuff? Or should Congress do something? Or should Congress do something? Because ultimately that's what the judiciary is relying upon, and that's what Andrew McCarthy is talking about. They're like, well, if you wanted to pass the law, then pass the law, and we'll adhere to it. Mm-hmm.

But you didn't do that. And so anyway, interested in all of your thoughts. I know there's a lot of frustration out there, us included, on all of that. You can leave your comment there and we'll get to your comments from last week right after this.

We will unleash the power of American innovation. We will soon be on the verge of finding the cures to cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and many other diseases. The cure for cancer is closer than ever, but the Biden pill penalty is forcing researchers to abandon breakthroughs that could save millions of lives. Only President Trump can fix it. He'll ignite a golden age of innovation to defeat cancer once and for all.

Tell Congress end the Biden pill penalty. All right. So our question from last week is, what is the craziest thing that Dems will defend next? This goes to our 80-20 construct that we were talking about in the previous segment, but it is truly remarkable. You all have liked and subscribed. We appreciate it. But to do this, we always start with a voice. First one comes from Sharon Penley, and you're going to love this. Sharon writes, craziest position for Dems to take next requires great visuals.

Therefore, I advocate they tackle the last bastion of DEI immunity, fine arts. This is something we could all get behind. A beautiful reach-across-the-aisle moment. Who could be against a stage full of plus-size ballerinas, pirouetting in delicate pink tutus? Who hasn't longed to hear a bass baritone tackle the challenge of singing Madam Butterfly?

As an added win for us, now that Trump and Rick Grinnell are administering the Kennedy Center, they could usher in this new golden age for the arts. Bravo. Amazing. Well done. I love that. Well done. Sharon Penley, thank you. Sharon, thank you for that. Dunks, what else do we got? This is from Hank Borg. Hank writes, next crazy from the American left, promoting sympathy for the Mexican cartel and its loss of income.

due to the Trump administration's securing of the southern border. It feels like they're halfway there already. Dude, that doesn't even sound that crazy. I mean, the media would never be like, we're actually hurting the Mexican cartel, but they would be like, you know, you don't actually understand that there's millions of Mexicans who were

lie on the internal economy of the cartels being involved in the community. It's like there are legitimate businesses that are going to suffer. Dude, I love how educated we are on the left side, to the point where your immediate thought on that was exactly the way they'd sell it. If someone says that around Ezra Klein, he's going to write about it. The residual economy?

He's like, there are Mexicans there in Guadalajara that have simple tomato stands at the market. And they're going to suffer because this cartel member isn't buying tomatoes anymore. Yeah, and you've done that, sir. You've done that. What else we got? This comes from Rick Corral. Rick writes, I think the Democrats will defend USAID funding to determine the food preference of Sherry Jacoby's Peril Cacti.

down by the railroad trucks. Bland or spicy, nobody knows. Dude, that is hilarious. Rick, 10 out of 10 stuff there. 10 out of 10 stuff there. What a king. God, I love that. All right, so I think, Smug, I think you're the one that brought this to our attention. Very interesting story. A very interesting story. Maybe we should just leave with a clip and go from there. Let's go to clip four.

The Orlando Police Department has just released new images of a woman who's accused of killing her dog at Orlando International Airport. Here are the pictures just in from Orlando Police. You can see right here the woman who police say is Allison Agatha Lawrence with her dog back

on December 16th. Police say she was planning to fly to Columbia with her dog, but when she didn't have the proper paperwork to take the dog on board, police say she drowned it in the restroom and then went on that flight. I don't even... Dude, look, first, I hate that I'm laughing. It's sad.

This is like a clearly mentally disturbed individual. You think so? But according to the AP, a woman drowned her dog in the Florida airport bathroom and then boarded an international flight where she was prevented from bringing her white miniature schnauzer with her because of a paperwork issue. The woman was arrested in Lake County on Wednesday on the charge of an aggravated animal abuse, a third-degree felony. She was released on $5,000 bail. Okay. Okay.

We've talked a lot about the airline situation. They say that she couldn't board. She had to make the flight. She had a couple of options. Yeah. She chose the darker of those options. She's like, how do I get on this plane and drown the dog? Like, that's the first idea. She's like, thinking of options. And I don't know how you get drown the dog on there. Yeah.

Do we, is there a photo of this dog? I've mentioned these type of dogs before. It's one of these like shitty little white dogs. If you can play the B-roll one more time, I think you can probably see. It's a miniature schnauzer. It's a miniature schnauzer. I mean, we're talking a white miniature schnauzer. You know the type, folks, the like really shitty little white dogs that are always filthy. Yeah, but. You were saying it was asking for it? Well, and then you see, it's like one of the little tiny ones. Like she was standing in line. It's one of those small dogs. You know the type, folks. I'll give you a hint.

Ugly dogs, always running around, filthy little dogs. No one likes these dogs to begin with. And you see it so frequently on planes. That's like...

You know, the dog's always going ham. They always claim that, oh, you know, this is my like, you know, psychological support dog or whatever. Well, she didn't have the paperwork for that. That's the thing. It's like she took the matter into her own hands. And like, look, the airline says the dog's not flying. I just think the airline said the dog's not flying. She's like, you know what? I'll obey with that command. And it's like, what are you going to do? You're going to leave your dog an orphan?

I think what we have to recognize... It's a dog. It's a dog. We have a problem in our culture, and that is the import that there's some people that put on a post on Instagram for travel. And the idea that you might miss a vacation because of a dog and not be able to post on Instagram about your trip to Colombia is probably what motivated this woman to drown her dog. I mean, would we be mad if she took it out to the quarry and shotgunned the dog? Why?

Some people do that when they want to get rid of it. You mean like in a quarry? If you've got to get rid of a dog, you've got to get rid of a dog. And there's limited options in an airport. It's not like you can have access to a handgun in an airport. So you're saying the drowning in the bathroom... What's the other one? Is she going to choke the dog out? Which is more humane? You want to choke this little dog out with your hands? Or are you just going to dunk it in the toilet? Given the options... What she should have done is just checked into the lounge.

and brought the dog in and then just bounced. Yeah. And be like, it's somebody else's problem. Oh, just left the dog. Now it's somebody else's problem. But that's the thing is I think it's more responsible. Yeah.

To kill the dog. To be like, here, now you take care of my problem. It's personal responsibility. You know, it's the conservative view. It's like, you're not going to depend on someone else to take care of your problem. You take care of your problem yourself. She had a problem. And then the problem was taken care of. It's a dog. There was a potential adoption element. We're going to get so much fucking hate. It was a dog. It was a dog. It had to go.

I had to go. Also, what was the paperwork that was the problem on this particular dog? I mean, the dog couldn't have weighed more than 10 pounds. And here's the thing is, I know that agent at the gate was super excited to be like, ma'am, your dog's not going to board. They get so uppity and happy with their job. Like, actually, your suitcase weighs 26 pounds. You're going to have to move it around.

Can we talk about the... The blood's on the hands of that lady at the gate. Can we talk about the mental health of somebody who's like, I simply must bring my dog on international travel. I simply must.

Like, there's no other arrangement that can be made. I need to have this dog with me. And they're like, you can't bring it. She's like, fine, drown it in the bathroom. Well, again, to me, this lady strikes me as responsible because usually people are like trying to pawn their dog off on their friends. Like, oh, I got to get out of town. You want to take care of my dog? I don't want to, but like, I guess because we're friends. You think euthanasia is more humane than boarding the dog? You got to solve your own problems. You got to be responsible. If you get a dog, you're responsible for the dog.

You know, like so many people are like, oh, I'll just leave it at my mom's house or I'll leave it with a friend. It's like, no, you got to take care of your own problems. This lady did it. Take care of the problem. Your point that society did not incur any ramification. That's the thing. From the act. That's the thing. Here. Interesting. It's an interesting take. Once again, our airports and our airplanes. Having a bit of a moment. Having a bit of a moment.

Listen, we got to get to our interview. This guy is a very good journalist in Washington, D.C., somebody who Republicans talk to very few in the corporate mainstream press are people that you allow inside your bubble to have candid conversations because they think that you'll treat them fairly. This is somebody who's had a demonstrated record over decades.

of treating people fairly, understanding what's the difference between news and opinion, and just reporting out the facts. He's written a book, and you're going to hear all about it right after this.

Well, our next guest, notably absent from the hack badness tournament, is a senior political reporter at Axios. He was previously at Politico. We've all known and worked with Alex Eisenstadt for quite some time. How are you, sir? Thanks, Josh. I've been looking forward to this one. This is, I mean, look, you're in brave new territory. Not a lot of your colleagues have ventured into the ruthless situation. So you mentioned the hack tournament. Can we talk about that? Oh, yeah.

Sure. So I have to say that every year I wait for that episode with a lot of anxiety because I'm like, is this the year that I'm going to be on this thing? It's like, oh, is this the year that I wrote something to piss off Holmes or Ashbrook? And I've been lucky so far, including this year. I've been lucky so far, but I'm like, the thing about luck is it runs out at some point. So it's like...

I'm like one bad headline away from being on that thing. Honestly, you're further than you realize, I think. I mean, the hacks that we picked for this tournament are repeat offenders. And it's gratuitous. It's gratuitous. You know, here's the thing. The hack madness thing doesn't get put together because we disagree with the headline or disagree with the story. It's...

It's the gratuitousness by which you pursue just straight partisanship, which is something we worked together for a long time. It's something you've never done. Have you written things that I absolutely hate? 100%. And you've let me know about it. I've let you know about it. But, I mean, I know that you're in constant search of the truth and you're well-sourced and you do due diligence on the stories that you write.

And on the book that you've written here, which is why you're on the program. Listen, the inside story of Trump's return to power, that this is part of what everybody is sort of wondering about on the actual inside. Now, many people, I think, in your community, the journal community, think that they've got the inside scoop. I know from talking to people on the inside, you actually kind of do.

Thank you. Yeah. So let's go back in time to February 2023, which is when I started working on this. I went to a bunch of people in Trump world, people who work for him, around him, donors, operatives, lobbyists. And I said, look, I want to write a book.

I want it to be a fair book. It's not going to come at things from the pro-Trump angle or the anti-Trump angle, but I just want to talk about what happened, give readers a sense of what happened behind the scenes, give them a sense of what it's like to be a fly on the wall. And what I told people was, "I want you to just treat me like your journal. Tell me what happened day to day." And

And a lot of people, some people did not participate, which is fine, of course, but a lot of people did. And I think those people really wanted to tell history. We didn't know how historic this campaign would be at that point. We didn't know how dramatic this campaign would be. And it ended up being a lot more dramatic than any of us expected. But I think everyone felt the need to, they wanted to record history and they wanted to help document history. And so I'm appreciative of the people who,

Who wanted to help with this project. I'm really glad you did it because a lot of us on the consultant side watched what was happening in the Trump campaign from the very early days. And it was clear that they were much better organized than anybody gave them credit for. I mean, the way they handled Iowa, the way they handled New Hampshire, it was a clinical display of how you win an election. And I know you go into great detail on all that.

So this is an important theme of the book, which is that if you look at the operation that Chris, Chris Acevedo and Susie Wiles put together, it was far more functional than anything Trump had in 2016, far more functional than he had anything in 2020, and definitely far more functional than the organization he had in the White House. And so she has put together this very effective operation, one that's very professionalized. And she's taken it to the White House.

And so you see in the first White House, there was a lot of infighting, right? You had different power factions. All of them were leaking on one another. They were stabbing each other in the back. They were pushing their own agenda. And this time around, you don't have that. Susie Wiles has brought in people who are loyal to her. Many of them are Florida-based. They've worked with her and around her. They worked with her on the campaign. And so you see a much tighter group that is –

much more centralized. And so that's not to say there hasn't been some chaos. That's not to say there hasn't been some intrigue during the few months of this White House. But I think it's been a lot less than what you saw in his first term. You got a couple of vignettes in this book that I think sort of uncover

how deep you were into reporting out this book. One of them revolves around Butler. Yeah. What can you tell us about that? Yeah. So we, you know, we all know what happened that day. We've seen those, those horror, the horrifying video, very disturbing to watch, of course, what happened on stage that day. But one of the things I really tried to do was, um,

take readers inside what happened next, because I don't think there's been as much coverage about what happened in the hospital on the way to the hospital that day. And so one of the things that I try to convey in this is just how chaotic it was and how many, how much people were uncertain about Trump state going into right after, right after the shooting happened. And so one of the scenes I have is that they're getting off the,

They're going into the caravan of cars. They're going on the way to the hospital. Chris LaCivita is back in Milwaukee preparing for the convention, and he's cutting ads, and he gets a call from his daughter, who's also on the campaign, and she said, Dad, something's happened to the president.

He calls Susie Wiles, who's in one of the SUVs speeding towards the hospital. And he tells her, he asks her what's happened. And she says, I don't know yet. She doesn't know the condition that he's in. And so they were rushing to get all the aides into the SUVs. They're bolting to the airport. They're bolting to the hospital, rather.

And then they get into the hospital and Trump is they close down a wing of the of the hospital to make room for Trump. There are Secret Service agents with long guns out and he gets stretchered out and his shirt is off.

Because it was so bloody that he's just in there in his undershirt. And he gets to, he's in his room, he gets a CAT scan. And after the CAT scan is done, he asks the nurse, can I get a copy of this on CD? Because I want to compare it. I want to release it to the press. And I want to compare it.

to Joe Biden's so I could show that my mental acuity is better than Joe Biden's. He's just the ultimate showman. The ultimate showman. But to that point, he's then, as he's about to head to the airport, he's about to leave the hospital, he's looking at these pictures. And of course, you remember those photos

those pictures that were taken of him from that day. And he says, those are the most iconic American photos I've ever seen. And I think what this shows is, and this is a theme in the book too, is he understands the power of imagery in a way that I think few politicians really do. He knew that those images would have a lasting impact on the campaign, on, on, on his legacy, really. Yeah. Also had, uh,

Look, a big impact on the campaign. I mean, you mentioned on the way to the hospital, all they knew is shots rang out and there was blood. They didn't know. That's right. They didn't know if he was hit, if he was hit seriously, ear, it could have been anything. Yeah. But they were trying to figure all this out in a matter of moments between the stage and the hospital. And it sort of affected the psyche of that entire campaign. It affected the psyche of the campaign and...

It only the fear of an assassination attempt had always sort of been quietly in the background. There's one scene that Trump comes to. This is a this was a few months prior. Trump comes to D.C.

for a hearing in the January 6th indictment. And so he's leaving Reagan Airport. He's coming downtown. And what's happened, but D.C. police have failed to shut down the streets. So as his team is making their way to the courtroom, there is almost a traffic accident with Trump's attorneys. They almost get into an accident.

And then on the way back to the airport from the courthouse,

It's pelting rain. The D.C. police still have not blocked off the streets. And as they're making their way back to the airport, one of Trump's aides worded themselves someone could easily ram Trump's car on the freeway, on the beltway, just making it back to the airport. It was that close. There was another scene in the book where Trump is going to the Iowa State football game and he's going to he's planning to go to a frat house.

And the day before, Secret Service goes to check out the frat house. And there's like dozens of guns that are in one of the rooms just completely out in the open. Secret Service had to put those guns, lock them up in a closet. And so it just goes to show there were a lot of concerns about Trump's safety even before the assassination attempt. And that has tensified in the weeks ahead when it become clear that Iran was really trying to assassinate him. So I'm curious, you know,

you know, outside of just, just like the assassination attempt. And then you've got in multiple jurisdictions, dozens of indictments against Donald Trump and all of this sort of thing. And of course the campaign over the summer and all of this and the switch out between Biden and Kamala, was there a point when you were writing this that you're like, wow,

I might be writing the definitive memoir of the greatest comeback in political history. Like, was there a moment that crystallized that? Well, I don't want to say that I was writing the definitive, but I knew that I was writing something really remarkable. And it occurred to me as I was finishing up this book that what he, that, and this is one of the conclusions that I reach is that

Trump has split the American public. Either you love him or you hate him, and there's not a lot in between, right? But here's what we can conclude, that he is one of the greatest political athletes of all time. No question. His instincts are bar none. For him to make this comeback...

illustrates that he understands something very fundamental about the American psyche. And he took his indictments and he turned them around and he turned them into a political asset instead of a political liability. We heard throughout the campaign that this was going to be the end of Donald Trump. Hardly the case. A couple of things. You mentioned Iran. This is obviously something that

Right.

The fear within the Secret Service and at the highest levels of the U.S. government about Iran assassinating Trump is far more profound than we knew at the time. So let's go back to late summer. Secret Service has a briefing with Trump. And what they tell him is this, that the Iranian government has teams of agents in the country with access to surface-to-air missiles. Jesus Christ.

And so from there, Trump and his team and his security apparatus come up with a plan, which is they're going to put him on the plane of a donor by the name of Steve Witkoff. And Witkoff, of course, now is playing a very important role and he's Mideast envoy. And so they put him on the they put Trump on this decoy plane and.

The other aides are put on Trump Force One. Oh, my gosh. That's a short straw. What an assignment. I hope they didn't get the intel brief. So Trump takes his own motorcade to the plane. And the other aides are not told that Trump is not in their motorcade, but they're taking their own motorcade. The aides get in Trump Force One. The doors close. And all of a sudden they realize Trump is not in his seat.

And so they ask. So the so the team, the leadership says, look, the president's not flying with us today. This is just a exercise for for how things could work in the future.

And so the aides are kind of like frustrated. They're like, well, what's going on here? Because are we like, are we, you know, being used as like lure? Are we used as bait? And they're like, no, they're giving reassurances. No, you're not bait. But what this illustrates is the concern because people were worried that the surface to air missiles could be used to down the plane upon either takeoff or landing. Oh, man, that's just a wild guess.

It is wild. And I have a question for you, Alex, on this. I mean, everything that you have are reporting in this book, everything you're talking about, this is American history. This is very interesting color about an objectively consequential figure in our country and in our country's history.

And I just wonder why we don't hear more of this in the mainstream press. I mean, obviously, you're very well sourced and maybe the others in the mainstream press are not as well sourced as you are. But like the Iran stuff, I remember reading like one throwaway story and, you know, on a broadcast digital piece about how Iran is after Trump, like.

Why is there not more coverage of this in the mainstream press? There's such a demand for it. Yeah. So I will say a couple of things. First is that there was reporting in here that sources gave me that they made clear to me they did not want out there until when the campaign was over.

And so we did get some reporting on Iran. I don't think we got as much reporting as we don't know as much as we do now. The second thing is there was some reporting and there were some details that the people who worked for Trump did not want to divulge until after the campaign was over and they felt freer to talk about their stories and to give a download of what happened.

And the concerns about Iran were something that they didn't want to talk about necessarily as much at the time. It was an ongoing threat. No question. And one of the things I find fascinating is the reboot here from the first four years to now a second term.

And the first four years, obviously, Jared Ivanka played a huge role in that administration and what it ultimately looked like. And there was this inference that family was sort of out of it. We're redoing this and sort of a professional. Jared and Ivanka wanted to do their own thing. They wanted to get out and out from underneath politics and everything else. But the family...

stayed very involved with some different players. Yeah. And tell us a little bit about that. Sure. So, you know, you've seen Donald Trump Jr. has taken on a really important role as not just being a figure on social media, which he certainly is, but he's kind of emerged as a power broker and a really important influencer, right? Like you see Don Jr. out now. He's very involved in this Wisconsin judicial race. Yeah.

And you're seeing him get involved in other—I know he's been helpful to you guys in Senate races. So he's an important figure. I think Melania Trump is also an important figure, and people don't talk about her as much. She doesn't necessarily love politics, but—

But she plays an important behind the scenes role in this campaign. And she's got a lot of opinions on things, particularly as it relates to style. She doesn't like when Trump dances at rallies. He doesn't necessarily take her advice on that. But he does take advice from her on other things. And she gave him advice. He wanted his first tweet back after he was replatformed on Twitter. He wanted to go after Ron DeSantis. She urged him, no, don't do that because that's

not how you want to spend your first tweet. And he followed that advice. But here's the other thing that Milani understands. She understands that by being scarce and by being out of the limelight, it increases her value. So she went to an event at one point in this book. She goes to an event at John Paulson's house, big donor out in Palm Beach, and donors loved her.

And she's done other events and she's a massive, massive draw. Her scarcity creates value. It's interesting. She's not alone, though. I mean, this is sort of the emergence of Barron. We were introduced to Barron Trump in the first term as a young kid.

for great reason. His mom wanted him out of the spotlight and very private. In this campaign, he's an adult and he's going into college and he's got opinions. But not only that, he understands a new media world in a

way that not everybody does. Right. And that's something that Trump recognizes. So there's a vignette in this book where at one point, Trump's aides are coming up with this plan for the final stretch of the race, the media plan, and they want him to do some podcasts. And so they call up Trump. He's on the phone and they have him on speaker. They're back in the office and they say, we'd like you to do some podcasts. And he says,

Ask Barron. So the aides, they don't have Barron's cell phone number, right? Because he's sort of a protected member of the family. And so they finally get his number. They call him up. And he's like, yeah, that's a great idea. And he suggests that they do the PBD podcast, Patrick Bet-David, who, of course, is a very influential podcaster in conservative circles.

and he recommends some others and he becomes involved in this podcast push, which I would argue was a very central part of the Trump campaign in October. And one of the chapters I have in the book says, "Brat Summer became Bro Fall." And,

Look, I mean, the conservative podcast push that Trump engaged in was very important. It wasn't even just conservative podcasts, really. But it is he went on and got a lot of support from younger people. He cut into demographic groups that Democrats typically have. He won over urbanites. He won over more suburbanites. He won over he made gains among black boners, other minority voters.

And this conservative podcast world, and this is not sucking up to you guys, you play an important role in this,

It has become a major advantage that those in the conservative world have over liberals who really are nowhere in this space right now. And it's something that they are just trying to put their arms around and they don't really have. That's fascinating. It's fascinating stuff. Listen, the book Revenge, the Inside Story of Trump's Return to Power by Alex Eisenstadt. You got to get you got to buy this because we just...

scratch the surface of it. I assume everybody can buy it anywhere you get books. Anywhere. Anywhere you get... Listen, love this stuff. You've been a terrific reporter for a long time. Thank you. Incredible amount of stories that we didn't know before this book. Thanks for coming in here, pal. Thanks for having me. Appreciate it.

Tons of insight in that book. I'm really glad Alex came in to talk about it. I recommend everybody go and check it out for themselves. That campaign made history in so many ways. And the more you can read about it, the more you can study it, and the more Republicans in the future can try to replicate the success of the Trump campaign. I think that's better. Really glad he came in today. Yeah. I mean, you got to like the fact that there are people at the higher echelons of that campaign who trusted him.

him with the stories that they were telling. You know, not all flattering, but no campaign. Nope, nothing in life is. But when you've got a story that you can tell in a accurate, just way, you give it to people like this. I'm glad he came in. I hope he sells a million books. Listen, you gotta subscribe. Like and subscribe to the YouTube channel.

Follow us along the way, and don't forget to follow Hack Madness. If there's one thing, if you don't have an X account, get on X, or no other reason than to follow Smug and vote along with us, because your vote may determine who is the next...

The number one hack. It's a huge deal. In all of Washington, D.C. With that, folks, I think we did it. I think so. Absolute banger of an episode. Gentlemen, thank you so much, Alex, for dropping by for that interview. And thank you so much to our listeners. Again, like Holmes said, like and subscribe to the YouTube if you have not yet. So until next time, minions, keep the faith, hold the line, and own the libs. We'll see you Thursday. Stay ruthless.