Quick reminder: If you want to participate in Bernie’s Q&A for next week’s No BS Zone podcast, submit your question on this page’s comment section. You must be a paying subscriber to participate. (If you’re currently a free subscriber, you can upgrade here).
Hi everyone.
Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.
Let’s get right to it…
John, Marco Rubio appears as if he's ready to have a nervous breakdown or just totally annoyed and stressed to the max. Do you believe he clashes with Stephen Miller and Sec. Hegseth over policy? I believe Marco has the most common sense of these three men. — Sharon H.
Hi Sharon. Rubio’s inability to mask his misery has been comedic fodder for some time now. The look on his face is that of a man who knows better, and knows he’s surrounded by fools, but has to subject himself to routine humiliation to keep himself politically viable, and in the administration’s good graces.
That said, I’m certainly glad he’s part of this administration. He’s one of the few capable and competent people in it. As for whether he clashes with Miller and Hegseth behind the scenes, it’s hard to say. I’m sure he disagrees with them on all kinds of stuff, but I suspect he largely keeps his head down, picks his battles, and stays in his lane as best he can — just for his own sanity.
So unfortunately, I see that both sides continue to ramp up the rhetoric and lawfare up in the North Star State. Minnesota AG Keith Ellison called the ICE influx a “federal invasion” and is suing the federal government. The DOJ in apparent response is investigating Walz and Frey for “obstructing” ICE activities.
I get the impression most of this is just the kind of performative ridiculousness that Jonah Goldberg was decrying in the Friday G-file. Do you think any of this is actually going anywhere in the courts? — Aylene W.
I think what Ellison is doing is purely a political stunt, and I can’t imagine it will go anywhere (a waste of time and money). As for the DOJ, they’ve grown far too comfortable with reflexively going after Trump’s political opponents, regardless of how poor of a legal case they have. My guess is that the stuff against Walz and Frey won’t go anywhere either. So yeah, Aylene, I guess do view it all as “performative ridiculousness.”
John: Do you read Peggy Noonan regularly in the Wall Street Journal editorial page? She wrote many of Reagan's most famous speeches and is a traditional conservative who has run afoul of the MAGA crowd. I still think she has a way with words. In last Friday's column, she analyzed that Trump and his crowd are "right but repulsive", while his Democratic opponents are "wrong but romantic." Do you agree with this analysis, and does it synthesize repulsed Trump voters like me and the attraction of crazy leftists like Mamdani who charm with a smile and a silver tongue. — Steve R.
I don’t read Noonan as often as I should. She’s a good writer, and I think she makes a lot of good points. The particular piece you’re referencing is behind the WSJ paywall, and since I’m not a subscriber, I’m not sure of the context of her phrasing.
If she’s referring to Trump’s policies as a whole, I disagree that they’re “right.” Some of them certainly are. Others — including some very consequential ones — are absolutely terrible. As for “repulsive,” that’s often the tact this administration consciously chooses to take, even when their policies are right on substance. So, I guess I’d mostly agree with that part.
As for the Democrats, I think they’re often wrong. I don’t personally find their ideas, or the presentation of their ideas, “romantic,” but a lot of lefties certainly do — the affection for Mamdani being a good example.
You’re probably asking this question of the wrong person, Steve. I think both parties are so toxic and embarrassing that it’s hard for me to empathize with those who find either appealing.
Bernie and you have been talking about Trump probably being impeached (for a third time) if the Dems win back the House in the midterms (likely). So I have a question: As of now, in his second term, which act by Trump do you think is the most impeachable? — Ben G.
Interesting question, Ben. First, I’ll just remind the people reading this that impeachment is a political process that’s left up to the discretion of Congress. It doesn’t require the commission of a crime, but rather an argument that an individual has egregiously abused their power.
If you’re asking which act I think has the strongest, most sensible grounds for impeachment (in this second term), it would probably be his threats to militarily invade, conquer, and take ownership of a NATO ally (thus destroying the NATO alliance)… on the grounds that owning that ally was “psychologically important” for him, and because some independent organization based in a different country didn’t give him an award.
Actually, that feels more like a 25th Amendment argument. And if it were Biden who’d done this, virtually everyone reading this would agree with me.
Sir John —a recent poll shows that more women than men now seem to approve of using assassinations to get rid of those they deem to be bad political actors. By the way this includes both Democrat & Republican women. What in your speculative opinion do you think brought this about? —“Locusta & Squeaky Fromme” regards from The Emperor
I had to look this up to figure out what you were talking about, Emperor. The Network Contagion Research Institute? I don’t know anything about the organization, but frankly, I don’t buy their findings. Aside from the fact that they couldn’t even spell Donald Trump’s name correct in their report, I simply do not believe that a majority of both women AND men think a Trump assassination would be justified, nor do I believe the comparable numbers for a Mamdani assassination. I think those premises alone are garbage, so I have no reason to further consider the alleged gender discrepancy stuff.
I can’t say that I blame Jan. 6 police officer Michael Fanone for going off at the Jack Smith hearing [Thursday]. It’s sick that five years later, Trump people are still disrespecting the cops who did their jobs that day. Your thoughts? — Alex D.
A guy named Adam Cochran had an excellent take on this right after it happened. About Fanone, he wrote:
I want you to understand who that man is.
Michael Fanone was a member of the Capitol Police.
He wasn’t on shift that day - he self deployed when his colleagues call[ed] for back-up.
Fanone *WAS* a Trump supporter and voter.
He showed up to defend his oath.
He was beaten, tased, dragged down the capitol steps, suffered a heart attack, a concussion and a traumatic brain injury being assaulted by rioters.
Due to his injuries that day he retired, unable to serve.
He also lost a number of friends that day due to violence that took their lives.
He stood his ground and defended the members of Congress that were inside.
He’s spent every day since, denouncing Trump and the Jan 6th riots, and pushing for accountability.
He lashed out at first at statements by Troy Nehls, a Trump loyalist who pushed for a new committee to investigate Jan 6th blaming the officers for the violence, and claiming it was entrapment.
Nehls has even suggested that it was the officers own faults that they got injured, or that Jan 6th was “staged”
And then Ivan Ranklin, a far-right conspiracy theorist and Michael Flynn associate made further comments.
Ranklin is the one who falsely accused Capitol police of planting a device on Jan 6th.
And that is why, the scruffy looking tattooed former Trump voter, looked like he was about to punch somebody.
Fanone is rough around the edges - but he is an American hero!
I agree. And I’m proud to have met and shaken hands with three of the four officers who were in attendance yesterday (including Fanone). They have been disrespected and treated like absolute s*** over the last five years, from every possible angle, capped off by the presidential pardons of their attackers. Thus, I’m willing to give Fanone some leeway to express his displeasure the way he did yesterday.
Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.
John- I can forward to you a gift link behind the paywall for the Noonan piece. I think your answer to that particular question would be better if you actually read the piece the questioner referenced.
Can you still say fuck on this website? For a friend