David Frum on Why Trump’s Iran 'Victory' Is a Bust — Plus Trump’s 250th Anniversary Faceplant

Ajouté : 2026-05-30

[00:00:01]We start in Iran and the latest news is that the US and Iran have uh reached a tenative agreement though Trump hasn't signed off on it at least last time I checked. Uh this deal would reportedly open the straight of form and start nuclear talks. David from is this actually going to happen and should it happen? Um I I think how many times do does one get burnt by Trump administration people saying something is on the verge of happening before you say you know what let me know when you've affixed the um notary sign seal to this and then I'll get interested but Trump has announced the war is over he's announced all kinds of terms none of it has turned out to be correct um so I don't know um I'm I'm not going to react to this kind of preliminary news given the record of being deceived One of the problems you have as a journalist dealing with the Trump administration is, look, journalists often find themselves reporting things that aren't quite right. Their source is not as well informed as they hoped the source would be. Um, or events change, but there's an element of deliberate deception that is different this time that reporters have to deal with it. The people, even if they know what's going on, they still lie to you. And and so those of us who consume those reports need to take into account that the sources lie and the sources on top of the sources being imperfect, >> right? I mean, Iran lies obviously and the Trump administration lies obviously and so who are we to believe? Let me ask you this. Let me just sort of set up what I think are the major dynamics here, right? So, Trump needs a deal desperately uh because of the midterms coming and gas prices. Um and but but he has allies uh neoonservatives and even allies Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel who do not probably want the deal. The Iranians presumably would benefit from this deal. They're going to get paid a lot of money.

[00:01:58]They're going to still control the trade of Hormuz. Um but maybe they want to just keep twisting the knife in Trump and ble just bleeding him. That is that's my sense on what we're dealing with at least. Well, I I don't want to rumage around too far inside the box of Iranian thinking because it's I don't speak the language. I don't know the politics. It's not my field at all. So, I want to be very cautious there. Um, but here's my understanding of the way they see the world. Um, the the United States and Iran have been a state of conflict since 1979, 1980 and the hostage taking and there that sometimes been bloodier, sometimes been less bloody, more open, less open, but it's it's been a a state of continuous conflict since the Iranians took the American hostages. all those years ago.

[00:02:40]Um, and every time anyone's played out the chess move of what would happen if this conflict came out fully into the open, the United States really struck Iran as hard as it could that the the next move that every war game going back to the spring of 1980 has had is the Iranians then closed the Straight of Hormuz.

[00:02:57]And while the United States has the potential or the capacity to reopen the straight, it can be done. It's costly.

[00:03:02]It's difficult. And it's and when people play the game backwards, they say, you know, the things we'll have to do to win the game are not worth starting the game. So, we don't start because not that we can't win, but but public opinion won't support us in winning. So, let's not start the game. Um, Trump started the game and he's now in a situation where the Iranians have the straight reform moves and the United States is not willing. Trump doesn't have the political permission to do the things necessary to reopen it by force.

[00:03:30]And so, he's going to end up paying an Iranian price. Um, and in that sense, the Iranians will emerge from this as battered as they are with their leadership dead and their missiles damaged and their nuclear program, which is already set back last summer. Set back, I presume some more. Nonetheless, they come out of this in more control of the Stra of Hormuz than ever before because the United States has already done all the things it would do to punish them for closing the straight of Hormuz. The United States has shot it shot first. The Iranians shot their shot second, and they remain, I think, strategically dominant here. Let's say that the straight of this deal goes through, the straight of form is reopened and oil begins to flow again.

[00:04:09]Um, do you think that it will have happened in time to to save the Republicans and the midterms or is it sort of locked in, baked in the cake now that the economy is not good or at least that inflation's a problem?

[00:04:23]>> Well, the straight of hormones will never be open the way it was open before. Um uh even if commerce is moving everyone will know um that there's before this happened there was always this question if the Iranians do the straight of hormuz what would the Americans do? How would it go? No one knew. Now everyone knows the outcome which is the Iranians can close the straight of hormuz and there's not a lot the United States can do about that at a price that the Trump administration will pay. Um and so the Iranians can close the hormuz at this rate anytime they want to. And if you can close this rate at any time you want to you have closed it. everyone understands who's the master of the straight now and it's no longer the United States. Um, how does that affect gas prices?

[00:05:04]Um, there may be some speculative froth.

[00:05:07]Um, and there may be there may be a uh um gas uh there may be an oil price drop and there may be some relief at the pump. Um, I think the best hope that Trump has for the midterms is not anything the Iranians do, but the Democratic problems with candidate recruitment. um you know that in a year when the Democrats look like they're going to win, they've got a ticket that is headed by the Nazi tattoo guy and with his running mate, the al Qaeda guy and you think who who who decided to nominate the the >> You're talking about Maine in Ohio, right?

[00:05:40]>> I'm talking about Maine in Michigan.

[00:05:42]Made in Michigan.

[00:05:42]>> Maine in New Jersey. No, is a congressman. There's a senator from Maine, Graham Platner, who's the guy with the Nazi tattoo, and he's effectively won his primary. not yet formally, but nearly so. Uh, and in New Jersey 11, where there's still an open contest, the leading candidate is somebody with, uh, who volunteered who was a character witness for the Blind Shake, who tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, and who volunteered time for a group in the 1990s for a group that was exposed after 9/11 as an al-Qaeda front. And I normally people with al-Qaeda connections don't have bright futures in American politics. Um, and one reason they don't is because the party they try to enter keeps them away. They said, "We are not going to let you with whatever Mishagas is driving you, we're not going to let you identify us with your al Qaeda history." Uh, that's bad for everybody. Um, but the Democrats don't seem to have the power to stop it. And so in Maine and Michigan, their state uh Senate seats that ought to be easily winnable are in question because of candidate selection problems. And while I don't think whoever wins the Democratic nomination in New Jersey 11 will surely win the district, very safe Democratic district, the branding effect is felt nationwide. And so candidates across the country uh Democratic candidates across the country will pay the price. They will have they will all be asked, "What do you think of Al Qaeda guy and Nazi tattoo guy?" And they will be in an awkward position.

[00:07:08]>> Let me ask you about uh so yet another White House construction project is underway. Uh, crews are erecting an octagon shaped cage on the south lawn that will host next month's UFC belt, >> helping mark the nation's 250th anniversary and Donald Trump's 80th birthday. I'm sure you've seen the pictures, David. This thing is is gaudy, ugly, >> vulgar. Um, you know, and by the way, I was surprised at the the the the backlash against the destruction of the east wing of the White House that, you know, I'd kind of gotten used to the American public not caring much about this stuff, but it does seem like there was a backlash. Do you think anyone else is going to care about the sort of desecration that we're witnessing of of the White House? Well, it you do create a cumulative story as with I mean obviously most Democratic candidates are not linked in any way to al Qaeda, but if you have one who is, he contaminates the whole brand and while lots and lots of Republican activity is not about redecorating the White House while the country is in economic trouble, um that identification spreads. There's something about the the the cage fight though that I think really gives pause to what it says about the country. So the United States celebrated the first centennial, the centennial of the 1776 declaration in 1876 with a huge exhibit of science, arts, and technology. And the new machines, new new devices, including the brand new telephone. Um, and many of the artifacts from that amazing exhibition in 1876 are still on display in Washington in one of the Smithsonian museums on the mall. In 1976 was the 200th anniversary and there are many many uh events to mark the 200th anniversary. But perhaps the most iconic and most memorable was the great riata of sailing ships in New York Harbor. And what was important about this riotta was it had ships from both the United States and Great Britain. say 200 years after the beginning of the war of of the revolution in New York Harbor, the greatest harbor in the English-sp speakaking world, there were um these 18th century and 19th century ships from two former rivals, now intimate friends.

[00:09:17]And it was it was a a visually stunning display of Anglo-American reconciliation and unity for the 200th. What are we doing on the is on the 250? Do we have science and technology? Do we have beautiful visuals, statements of reconciliation? No, we have gladiatorial bones on the and I think it's Jonah Goldberg who said sponsored by Bronno, you know.

[00:09:42]>> Yeah, >> it it is a it is just a dis a statement of the country going backwards um away from the uh the aspirations and ideals at 100 and 200 into where are we at 250?

[00:09:54]This is this is not a very what um and meanwhile they're just spreading gold leaf on anything you can spread gold leaf onto and spreading blue paint onto anything you can't spread gold leaf onto.

[00:10:05]>> Not subtle. It's just so on the nose.

[00:10:07]It's idiocracy. It's unbelievable. And I think it is a microcosm of uh tell is very symbolic of of a different time and a different uh different type of leader.

[00:10:20]>> Yeah. I mean, why wouldn't why why wouldn't you um I mean, this 1876 contrast is especially poignant. I mean, we're living in this age of miraculous technological transformation. Why not mark the day with some display of what American knowhow has given to the world science? Well, we can't do health because we're we're now against health.

[00:10:40]We're against vaccines. Um uh we can't do artificial intelligence because that technology is being run by the president's friends for the president's benefit. I mean, uh, we can't we can't make a statement. We can't even have a music festival because it's the president is associated so much with his personal brand and his own $250 bill that artists, even those who are popular in the parts of the country where the president is popular, don't want to be there because they say, "I don't want to be identified with what is becoming your personal gift to yourself and not a celebration of the nation as a whole."

[00:11:15]And even personally, David, I mean, I'm a patriotic guy. Uh, I was too young to be, you know, kind of aware of the bicesentennial. This is, you know, I got two sons, a 15-year-old and a 13-year-old. I can imagine a scenario where like we would really go all out and sort of celebrate America's 250.

[00:11:35]We're going to celebrate it, of course, but it's going to be marred by Donald Trump, the bread and circuses and the, you know, kind of blasphemy and that's taking place, uh, the desecration. And so, we're going to have just a normal Fourth of July. I don't think it's going to be much more than that.

[00:11:53]>> Well, there's something with the cage fight. You say this is an aggressive statement that this administration sees its base as people who really enjoy watching people punch each other in the face. And um and even on the highest and most solemn occasion in the national calendar, we're going to mark it by punching people in the face. and uh no ideals, no technology, no art, no science, um uh you know, no Fred, no Frederick Douglas reenactors uh reading the declaration. I mean, just it's just it's just people punching each other in the face because that's who the Trump administration sees as his base and they don't care about anybody else. What kind of administration would even if it's true that your base is like people even the people who like watching people punch each other in the face don't want to be thought of as people who are defined by punching each other in the face. They well we we go to church too sometimes as well as watching people punch each other in the face.

[00:12:52]>> Very sad, David. I wish someone else was present for this moment. You alluded to this one already. The Treasury Department is considering issuing a $250 bill featuring Donald Trump, though any such bank note would require a change in federal law.

[00:13:06]>> Yeah.

[00:13:06]>> Quote, "For the US currency, at present, no living person can be on US currency, and the currency must say in God we trust." Treasury Secretary Scott Bessett said, "So right now, there is proposed legislation that is in front of the House, in front of the Senate to change the first requirement so that a living person, Donald J. Trump could be on the $250 bill.

[00:13:27]>> I mean, I don't get too worked up by this, but it just seems like one more example of uh Donald Trump's kind of authoritarian tendencies um and narcissism. I mean, combined.

[00:13:38]>> Well, it's also a sign of the drift away from the founding principles of the country. I mean, it it's hard to think of something >> short of inviting King Charles of Great Britain to move back over here and resume his throne over the United States. Um it's hard to see what would be a more direct repudiation of everything that people thought 1776 was about um than the president's face on the money. Oh yeah, here's something. One of the the great slogan of 1776 was no taxation without representation. Meaning that when the government has money, that money must come from a vote of the people's representatives. And Donald Trump is marking the 250 by trying to create once again a slush fund under the president's control that's not passed by Congress, not even from any formal judicial proceeding, but just something that he and his stooges have created for him to spend on anybody he wants as he tried to use the tariff money to create a slush fund independent of Congress.

[00:14:32]The the theme of 2026 has been in every way we can, we are turning 1776 on its head.

[00:14:40]All right, equal time here. Let's move to the Joe Biden story this week. In a clip from an interview with C with CBS News that was released on Wednesday, Jill Biden said she was quote horrified on the night of the debate as she watched her husband on stage in Atlanta.

[00:14:57]I was frightened because I'd never seen Joe like that before or sets. Never, she said. I mean, as I watched it, I thought, "Oh my god, he's having a stroke." And apparently in another moment she said that she wondered if he had been drugged or something. Um, >> this is getting a lot of push back because there's this sense that Joe Biden pushed Biden pushed Joe Biden into kind of staying in the race and she this is the first time we're hearing about it. Like apparently after the debate she comes out and tells them he does he did such a good job. I mean I know it's water under the bridge but I didn't bring this up. She's out there h you know hawking the book. She's telling this story. He's talking. Um, will they go away ever, David from?

[00:15:40]>> Well, it is a strange story and and everything that can be said about it, I think, has been said, including that.

[00:15:46]Um, advice to all of us, if you see your loved one on television having a stroke in real time, um, you don't wait until for 90 minutes more uh to get them to a doctor. If you think they're having a stroke, it could be the difference in them being paralyzed or dead. If you believe that, then you should act immediately. Not wait, not after you've gotten they've gone on stage for a while and gone through the spin room and you tell everyone a great job. Get them immediately to a hospital if that's what you think. Um I think the reason um that the debate was so disastrous was because it exposed it could not be true that no one had ever seen him before like this.

[00:16:21]that just could the one thing you could if if you're like that um in a debate, you were like that on other days and you were like that at other times. Um and I I'm prepared to accept that Biden got worse fast once he became president. Um you know, you the president he takes a physical toll on the people who hold that office and even when they are uh young and fit. Um we saw George W. Bush, we saw Barack Obama. We saw Bill Clinton. We saw these were these were men in their 40s when they came into office. And you saw they were not men in their they were very they didn't age just eight years in the eight years.

[00:16:58]They aged at 20. Um so we see that. So if you start as old as Joe Biden started, the toll may accelerate a decline that might have been much more gentle had you had a less stressful job.

[00:17:09]All of that said, um I don't think it was the scandal of the century that once they elected Joe Biden, they tried to put a good face on how healthy he was, but it was super irresponsible of him not to make a plan for transition. And in many ways the story of one of the stories that's gone wrong in the Democratic side of the aisle in the 21st century is um Democratic candidates for president didn't take seriously the question am I is the running mate the person who can step into the job immediately uh Barack Obama did not respect Joe Biden as the best person to succeed him and he made that very clear because when it came time to succeed him he he discouraged Joe Biden from seeking election and preferred Hillary Clinton.

[00:17:52]So if you thought Hillary Clinton was the second best person after you in the Democratic party, why didn't you make her your running mate in 2008? But that's the most important thing the vice president does. And in the same way Biden picked Kla Harris, a person he obviously had very little respect for.

[00:18:07]And Harris picked Waltz, a person she obviously had very little respect for.

[00:18:11]Um so the the the there's a lesson here which is um presidents and presidential candidates need to take mortality seriously and they need to pick whether they exactly like the person or not. The most important there's a lot of political science that cast doubt on all this punditry that they help in the race. Um there's we always talk as if it'll make a difference and it never really does. Um, and even when they screw up, as Walt screwed up his debate with JD Vance, it probably didn't make any difference. So, think just question what if your life is cut short, which we hope it won't be, but what if it is? Who do you want to take the job over after you and maybe make better decisions about that role than Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris did?

[00:18:56]>> And John McCain probably. and John John McCain >> even though I was a big Palin booster at the time but you know >> but Republicans Republicans >> um uh I I don't think it's been as conspicuous how little regard they had for I mean uh Reagan really did choose George wanted George HW Bush to succeed him. Um and uh Bush picked Cheney because he thought if anything happened to Bush Cheney could really do the job.

[00:19:24]That's that the Republicans have a somewhat better they have other problems. They had a somewhat better better record on that question than than Democrats have done in the 21st century.

[00:19:34]>> Let me ask you uh I don't know if you saw this and N Gingrich was on a podcast this week and he said that the Clinton impeachment was a mistake and I want to read you just a little bit an excerpt from N's reasoning. He says, "I realized that we were really off course in August of that year when I was at the OK Cafe in Atlanta with my two daughters, who at the time, I guess, were in the early 20s." And they both said to me, "If our friends lose money on the 401k because of some stupid intern, we are going to be mad at you because frankly, it ain't a big enough deal for us to lose a lot of money, right?" And then N says, quote, I realized at that point I had completely misunderstood how the culture was evolving.

[00:20:18]So to me, David, this doesn't say that uh Gingrich I'm sorry, this this doesn't say that Clinton didn't deserve impeachment. It's N saying, "I thought people cared about character. Apparently >> 401ks are all I learned that 401ks are all that matters."

[00:20:38]Uh, you know, >> I had I had that. So, one of the things that made N. Gingrich one of the most popular topics to cover in Washington for the time that he was powerful and long after was he's really capable of saying anything. And I often wonder um as smart as he is, as well informed, as well read, as lucid, does he ever think before he talks or do things just come into his mind and he lets you go? And because that story, that's just a bizarre and highly discreditable story. I mean, if it's true that in August of 1998, uh, Gingrich thought, um, that the impeachment was a mistake. He had lots of exit ramps, wrong, lots of exit ramps. Um, that there were lots of proposals to have various kinds of motions of censure. Uh, there are many Democratic votes for that. in August of if he thought if he was convinced in August of 1998.

[00:21:32]But notice something else about that story. What when he says it was he think he now thinks it was a mistake. What he's saying is I'm blaming everybody else that the rest of you were not worthy of me that you didn't have this the moral um the moral rectitude that I did. And then there's the problem. N Gingrich moral rectitude really like you know you you are disappointed in the character of the country. You N Gingrich with your history and your choices. you are disappointed with the G like new Gingrich he's a brilliant man he really was he's a great legislative technician great political technician model of rectitude no not no one thought that not um none of his many wives would have thought that um and uh so it just it's it's a strange thing to say I I remain in retrospect I was active and I supported the Clinton impeachment and I remain baffled by what to think about it because I I think it's clearly right that it was it was a had track for the country to be on. Um but then there was this problem of the president had President Clinton had so obviously told lies under oath had organized other people to tell lies under oath. Um and how and and then this is a question of while it seems unimportant that I I'm not so sure that how a president treats women is such an unimportant aspect of who that president is. um that it was highly abusive action both the original actions when um you'd expect the president to say when he um that I'm so flattered um my beautiful young girl but um you know you you need to go find yourself a boyfriend um and I've got a wife that's that's okay um and then okay having not turned her down um if he or sorry having not halted this when it began and pinning the blame on her And the there was a campaign of defamation and harassment of her um to protect himself.

[00:23:25]The whole thing was was really ugly. And again, a different time would have found some way to keep this out of the the impeachment trial. But it's not it's not a trivial thing what what happened. And what um and I think one of the things we're seeing in our politics now is um the breakdown of mutual regard between men and women is a powerfully radicalizing force, a dangerously radicalizing force in politics. Um, and how how a president treats women and not just Bill Clinton, but John F. Kennedy before him. It's important to the register of who they are. Again, I don't know that impeachment was the right answer, but Clinton made sure there was no other answer. And you Gingrich also made sure there was no other answer. And for Gingrich now to say, um, you all let me down is is, >> as I say, it's an unconsidered remorse >> and one that bad directions.

[00:24:15]>> I would say Ging Gingrich is not moralizing here. He's he's saying he I'm I'm the one sort of editorializing here saying that um the gist of it is that the American public only cares about 401ks. They don't care about character or sex or whatever. Gingrich sort of told this story uh without imposing any sort of value judgment or mor moral story. But let me just say this too, David. I wonder if there's some cognitive dissonance sort of taking place here. I mean, I was for the Clinton impeachment. I I think he deserved an impeachment. I think Trump deserved impeachment twice, but for Gingrich, he has to say Trump shouldn't have been impeached.

[00:24:55]>> Yeah.

[00:24:55]>> So maybe does that force him to now re-evaluate whether Clinton should have been as well?

[00:25:00]>> Yeah. Yeah. Well, in in in the Trump impeachments, we are much more in the terrain of the classic behavior um that I think the authors of the Constitution had in mind for what an impeachment process was designed to address.

[00:25:13]um uh the authors of the Constitution, who are of course all men at a time when only men had political power, they was the right approach to Clinton, I'm sure, was is to draw a veil of hypocrisy and denial over it and no one see it and no one mention it. Um and they they would they would have been really dumbfounded to see something like this um come into the public view. But that also implicates some of their views about what it meant to abuse women. Um but they would have had no trouble saying okay Trump impeachment one is about the use of the power of the presidency and the power of the country um to muscle a a weak ally to f to fabricate that that is absolutely the kind of thing they would have all recognized from the pages of Cicero as impeachment 101 and then an armed attack on the proceedings of government. Well, that that is hard to imagine anything that is closer to the core of the of of what the um of what the impeachment power is designed to prevent. So, yeah, these are probably of all the impeachments in American history, the Trumps are the clearest cut. like Andrew Johnson, >> yeah, >> uh was impeached for um his bad settlement of the Civil War, but the actual specific basis of the impeachment was um that he refused to comply with a law that was that everyone would today agree was unconstitutional. Um you know, Richard Nixon um cover up and um from campaign abuses, but the campaign abuses themselves were not that different. The cover up was worse than anything that had happened before, but the campaign abuses were not that different from what had happened before. um Clinton, we've discussed that, and the Trump is this is these are the the most shocking these two impeachments involved the most shocking abuses of power in the history of the presidency.

[00:26:55]>> All right, let's move on. We'll go back to foreign policy here. Politico reports that the Pentagon has spent months positioning troops and weapons needed for the US to launch a military attack on Cuba. All it needs is a final go-ahad from Trump. Cuba is in quote a lot of trouble. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday at a full cabinet meeting, >> quote, "Having a failed state 90 miles from our shores is a threat to the national security of the United States."

[00:27:23]>> Yeah.

[00:27:24]>> Boy, David, it sure sounds like Cuba is going to be next. And maybe it's a way to distract from >> Iran or gas prices or whatever. But, uh, I mean, what do you think is going to happen with Cuba? That definitely sounds like they're working on laying the groundwork for something. Well, what what I would wish and hope and what might have happened at another time is that the that these resources are prepositioned to assist and and aid and provide humanitarian assistance when the regime collapses under its own weight.

[00:27:52]Um, which it seems on its way to doing.

[00:27:55]Um, h how you um it is worth remembering that um when the Castros took power in Cuba, Cuba had the second highest standard of living in the Americas after Argentina. um uh and and that that's not just by aggregates. That's if you look at the spread of domestic appliances and um other standards of well-being. It was a um it was not a first world country, but the idea that that Castro took over a place that was on its way to rapid development um and what what that country could have been like and today if if it had a different course of development today, it would be a fully it would look like Florida. It would look exactly like Florida. The people who ma built Florida came from Cuba. It would look like Florida. Um, and that was a future they could have had.

[00:28:39]Instead, they have poverty and misery and lack of electricity and lack of fuel and diseases and um the population fleeing any way they can. Um, so I'm hoping that this is a humanitarian mission. Uh, that is a great use of American power, ideals back joined to humanitarian intervention where we're called for. Um, I don't think the United States needs a third Trump war.

[00:29:04]Well, look, I mean, if Donald Trump is looking for a legacy, uh, things that you statues of him in Havana, um, and even people like us might grudgingly say, well, this was good.

[00:29:18]>> We got Cuba's Yeah.

[00:29:20]>> If if you said to me, um, we say grudgingly say, um, look look what happened in Venezuela. I mean, that's really the model here that that Trump found a way to um get rid of the dictator of Venezuela without doing anything to make Venezuela a better place for the people who live there. I mean, it's it's actually kind of perfect in it in his policies, total regard for the welfare of the Venezuelan people. So you think if there's going to be an intervention in Venezuela, it should leave behind some kind of transi. It should put set in motion some kind of transition to a more open system, a more democratic system, um, one that can resume trade. One where the United States is not plundering its oil for the benefit of a Trump another of these Trump slush funds, but where the oil resources are being developed for the benefit of the Venezuelan people. And Trump has managed it's perfect. I mean, that that is the consistent through line in Venezuela and Iran is utter indifference to the well-being of the people. um under who under uh who are being tyrannized over and and whom there's some slight nod to the idea that the United States might seek to help them, but then when it happens there's no regard. And so I if that's the future for Cuba, that's not a future that I would have any grudging respect for.

[00:30:28]That's a that's a future that would be pretty dismal and shameful. Wouldn't you think though the difference is that the Cuban exile community was pretty well represented within the Republican party, including Marco Rubio as Secretary of State? And so the odds are they're certainly not going to leave a leftist dictator in place just because he's willing to play ball with the Trump administration, right?

[00:30:53]>> Uh why are you So what does leftist mean in they they would leave a gangster in place as that's what they've done? I don't know that in these contexts, leftism and rightism mean very much. I mean, is is Venezuela now a leftist country? It's just a thugocracy. It's a c it's a mafia state um with a big role for the military. And Trump is very comfortable with that. Much more comfortable than he was would be with, as he said, he didn't want the person who had the closest thing to a democratic mandate in Venezuela. He had no regard for her. Um and uh he's he's left behind. He's happy dealing with the former Cuban agent who's a crook. um who will let him and his friends make some kind of corrupt business deals. Why why do you think they would be discontented with such an outcome in Cuba? Um there's we hope so, but there's no reason to think so. And one more point is if the regime in Cuba does fall, uh the level of help Cuba will require is way beyond the ability of the private investment capital deployed by the Cuban-American community to fix. Um it's going to need its water systems, its electrical systems brought into the 21st century. is going to need education to schools and healthcare. It's going to be a big foreign aid package and it's going to have to come from the United States.

[00:32:02]And um I think that's one of the reasons why they don't want a democratic transition because a democratic transition means recon an East German style recon reconstruction and just to give in mind a scale um that to bring East Germany up to West German standards uh after 1989 cost something like a trillion euros. Now, some of that spent was to pay for pensions and ongoing expenses, but the scale of 17 million people in East Germany, a trillion euros. Um, there are not as many people in Cuba, but the gap in income between Cuba and Florida is that much greater.

[00:32:37]I'll take it'll be it'll be a big bill and the Trump people won't want to pay it and so they won't want to start a democratic process which has one of his coraleries that the United States would be on the hook to help rebuild Cuba.

[00:32:50]>> All right. So, The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation involving Eugene Carol's lawsuit over her sexual abuse allegations against President Donald Trump.

[00:33:03]Trump was found liable in that case. The probe is focused on a trust founded by billionaire Democratic donor Reed Hoffman, whose nonprofit helped pay some of Carol's legal costs. Two sources said Hoffman, a co-founder of LinkedIn, is an outspoken critic of Trump. Do you think it matters that it turns out that a critic of Trump was bankrolling this? I mean whether whether it would uh matter legally or just in the you know court of public opinion.

[00:33:32]>> Yeah.

[00:33:33]>> It it see would seem to confirm the case that this was like a political operation as well as a lawsuit. Um, and there may be some um cannons of legal ethics questions about that because I think you're not supposed to have unconcealed payment of of attorneys. Um, uh, on the other hand, uh, does did it change the outcome of the Gawker litigation that it turned out that Peter Teal was bankrolling rolling Hulk Hogan? I I don't think it did. Um uh I don't think there's any way to this is not a random case of the uh a case of the Department of Justice going through all the cases of um an undisclosed interest in the outcome of the litigation saying well let's let's just pick this file out of the many hundreds or thousands we could find. This one seems like a obviously what they they've got a mandate and we've seen it again and again to prosecute critics of the president um and people who um he thinks did him wrong and uh this this is uh this is going along at a time when both the department of justice um the US attorneys have been politicized in a way that is really uh alarming um and we see by the way then total impunity for people pardons and now promises of a giant slush fund for people engaged in a violent conspiracy against the United States All right, let me ask you about this.

[00:34:49]This is someone that used to be a friend of yours, Vice President J. D.

[00:34:52]>> Vance, >> after criticizing Pope Leo recently, telling him uh, you know, to be careful with this theology or whatever, uh, >> he is now praising Pope Leo for issuing a new theological document rife with warnings about unbridled advancements in AI. The text Leo's first encyclical since his installation as Pope last year urged a restraint that doesn't stop progress but rather functions as the exercise of responsible care for the human family.

[00:35:26]So Vance said, "What I read of it sounds very profound and the sort of thing that you would expect and hope from a leader of the church. The thing about morality is that the principles never change, but the way you apply those principles does because the world changes, right?" which I ask you David from what has happened to JD Vance and who is holding him hostage because this sounds pretty reasonable to me.

[00:35:48]>> Well, once a blogger always a blogger um you know >> this could have been in the from forums.

[00:35:54]>> It could have you know uh you don't have to have opinions on everything if you're vice president of the United States. Um, you know, and you you the idea that you're giving out grades grades to the pope as vice president. Well, his last effort, uh, I give I give it an F, but this this is a solid effort. Uh, you know, B+, A minus.

[00:36:15]If he keeps working in this range, we could be heading into, you know, straight A territory. Like, it's not his place to say. Um, and uh he he demonstrated with the Iran war that he knows how to keep his mouth shut. um he kept his mouth very tight tightly shut on the Iran war. Um keeping your mouth shut as vice president. The sweet spot for vice presidents in my opinion um is to work on issues that are important but not controversial. Um and the the classic example of this is Al Gore and the Clinton administration. Um there were uh a um a little surge of uh airline crashes in the middle 1990s.

[00:36:54]Uh an exception of the general trend of aviation civil aviation becoming safer and safer. They were we went kind of into reverse in the uh late '9s and President Clinton appointed Al Gore to head a commission on airline safety that made many many recommendations almost all of which were accepted. Uh and that's the that's that's the kind if you're a vice president that's the kind of work you want. You you do something it makes a difference. It's something of secondary importance. So no one is looking over your shoulder to say what does the president think about this? As you can say I'm the most important person in the room. I'm the only person who's most important person who's going to work on this file. So you talk to me or you talk to nobody. there's no appeal to the president from this and you you make an impact but without being unnecessarily divisive and and Vance it seems to me has done exactly the opposite that um he's been kind of the blogger and chief the poster chief um he's engaged uh he's put himself in the head of this crackdown on Somali's project at the same time as the during the most fraudrone administration not only in American history not only in the history of the democratic world but contender to be one of the all-time heavyweight fraud champions of the world, including Yeltson's Russia and Moubu's Congo. Um, he he's put himself in these positions. And I think that's one of the reasons why even a lot of Republicans are saying Rubio looks a lot more I um Bance needs a kind of kind of nasty podcast. Uh, and Rubio looks more like what the way a president of the United States should talk and sound.

[00:38:20]>> All right, let me get you out of here on this, David. Uh we'll circle back to an earlier part of the conversation where you were were mentioning uh that you think Democrats have made some candidate recruitment mistakes. Um but as you know we're now in the unofficial start of summer, midterms are right around the corner. Uh what is your sense today? Do Democrats take the House? Do they take the Senate?

[00:38:45]Uh >> yeah, >> what's your, you know, sort of quick reading of of the midterms? Um, I think that the vote is going to be very lopsidedly for the Democrats. Um, I think there's going to be a lot of public interest in this midterm. The turnout rate rates will be high. Um, and I think that if you when you aggregate all the votes that the Democrats get uh versus all the votes that the Republicans get, the Democrats will get a lot more. That said, um, with the overturning or the effective overturning of the Voting Rights Act, Republicans are back in, um, in the upper upper hand on the um, gerrymandering wars. They they initiated it. Then there was a moment where it looked like they had lost because of the the seeming success to the Democrats of the Virginia gerrymander. The court then Virginia courts overturned that voting rights act is on its way up. The Republicans are probably going to have an advantage in the maps.

[00:39:33]Um and uh and the economy while not great is not recessionary. Uh so I think that is sufficient to give the Democrats an advantage in the House. It may not be a huge one, but in the Senate, which was going to be a reach, but which was achievable, I I think Democrats have made a series of decisions that are going to really hurt them. One of the things you hear people Democrats say a lot is by choosing Paxton, the Republicans have made a choice that will require them to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in Texas. But the the Republicans have hundreds of millions of dollars. The Democrats by making a serious race against Paxton are also going to spend the same couple hundred millions of dollars that also won't be available to them. Their resources are less. Um, and they've talked themselves into the idea that because Taler Rico talks about God that the structural problems of the Democrats in Texas have been overcome. I think they really haven't. Um, and meanwhile, they're pinning a lot of hopes on Texas because they're going to make decisions in Maine and maybe Michigan, too. uh that where they give away races that would have been with a more careful candidate uh very achievable. Um and again these things interact uh even if Platner wins and even if um New Jersey 11 they they they win um it's going to be important the the North Carolina race and the ne and races in other states are going to be affected by the national brand of the Democratic party. Um, and in the midterm elections of 2018 and 2022, Democrats offered a pretty sober brand. Um, and in 2026, they're saying they want to be a much spicier brand, and they don't understand how off-putting that is to the people who are the most reliable, most consistent voters in the swingiest states.

[00:41:17]>> All right. I I think I'm more bullish on Dems in the midterms than you are, David. But, >> yeah, >> I'm very about it. I'm very anxious about it. And >> we shall see. And look, maybe it's a val one thing to say about it maybe a valuable lesson is if the Democrats um in 26, if these DSA candidates, these Democratic Socialist candidates do weigh down the Democrats in 26, it may drive the party to make more responsible choices about his presidential ticket in 2028. Um that that uh you know, we need a party that speaks to the broad center of the country, that's a marketoriented party that says we're going to combine social provision with market orientation. That's that's what Americans want. They don't want socialism and they don't want Trumpism.

[00:41:59]Um they want the government to be run well and responsibly by adult people. Uh is that so much to ask for? Apparently yes. Thanks for >> Yes, it is.

[00:42:08]Anything you want to plug or any final thoughts, David, before we ride off into the sunset? Um, may I give a a a plug that's not quite personal, but my wife Danielle has a new book out that published on May 5th about her um journey through, as some viewers may know, we had a bereavement in our family uh two years ago. And my wife has written a poetic and beautiful book about that bereavement called Dispatches from Grief, a mother's journey through the unthinkable. And uh um it's had a a very touching response from people who are in our situation. And if there anyone is watching who is looking for a way to articulate the things they feel, this book may be a great help to them.

[00:42:46]So that's the thing I'll plug.

[00:42:49]>> Well, I think it's going to help a lot of people.

[00:42:51]>> Thank you so much >> for a long time. Thank you, David.

[00:42:54]Thanks everyone for watching. Uh rate, review, please, uh consider becoming a subscriber and we'll see you back here.

[00:43:00]I think I'm talking to Charlie Sykes on Monday. Thanks, David from.

[00:43:03]>> Byebye.