Speaker 1: Welcome to another edition of the schmid Storm. I'm in London,
Speaker 1: but you got questions and I have answers. Let's get started.
Speaker 1: The question is are there any laws that would prevent
Speaker 1: Donald Trump from nominating one of his sons to a
Speaker 1: cabinet position. Answer to that question is no, there are
Speaker 1: no restrictions on that. But there is a check on that,
Speaker 1: and that is the advice and consent of the United
Speaker 1: States Senate, who could look at Uday and Kusy as
Speaker 1: I like to call them, and say, you aren't allowed
Speaker 1: to run a charity in the state of New York
Speaker 1: because of the fraudulent activity found by the court, and
Speaker 1: therefore you probably shouldn't run a cabinet agency. Because we
Speaker 1: now live in an era where co equal members of government,
Speaker 1: member of the legislative branch have taken that, crumpled it
Speaker 1: up and thrown it away and said things like a
Speaker 1: congressman just did that. If Donald Trump tells us to jump,
Speaker 1: we say how high? Which is not how this is
Speaker 1: supposed to work, any of it. The question is, was
Speaker 1: the crazy nominations that Donald Trump put forward part of
Speaker 1: a plan to clear the way for people he really wanted.
Speaker 1: That would be much easier to get confirmed once the
Speaker 1: cannon fodder went down. I think about this sometimes. If
Speaker 1: he is that shrewd, for sure, Trump is a better
Speaker 1: negotiator than his Democratic adversaries in the Congress. And there's
Speaker 1: no question that he took a bunch of pasta, splattered
Speaker 1: it in red sauce, and threw it against the wall.
Speaker 1: And when you look at all of these people, nobody
Speaker 1: thinks that all of the most seriously unfit people as
Speaker 1: a package can be stopped together. So there obviously is
Speaker 1: a distinction of craziness and unacceptability between mac Gates and
Speaker 1: everybody else for one hundred different reasons. So Gates is
Speaker 1: the person who gets the attention. And then we move
Speaker 1: on to Pete Hegseth, because a drunk cannot be in
Speaker 1: the chain of command with access to the nation's nuclear
Speaker 1: arsenal in the way that the Secretary of Defense has
Speaker 1: no way. But the pursuit of heg Seth until he
Speaker 1: goes down means that Tulci Gabbert, who is as equally unfit,
Speaker 1: is not getting the scrutiny she deserves, to say nothing
Speaker 1: of nominees like Robert F. Kennedy, who will absolutely one
Speaker 1: hundred percent get Americans killed through his insanity, like he
Speaker 1: did in American Samoa with vaccine denial. You can look
Speaker 1: up this story. It's it's sad, it's a travesty, but
Speaker 1: he's likely to get through. And so when we look
Speaker 1: at all of this, I do think that Trump understands
Speaker 1: that if he can do a lot, and he can
Speaker 1: do a lot fast, he's able to overwhelm the system.
Speaker 1: He's able to overwhelm the media, and the media is
Speaker 1: in a capitul in state. They're afraid of him. Everything
Speaker 1: is lining up right now in a way that gives
Speaker 1: a maximum advantage to Donald Trump in his assembly of
Speaker 1: the craziest group of Americans that have ever come together
Speaker 1: into the federal government with real power to exercise over
Speaker 1: three hundred and forty five million people. So yes, I
Speaker 1: think there is a deliberateness to it, but it's an
Speaker 1: accidental deliberateness. At first. Trump is an instinct player. He's
Speaker 1: not a plan he's not a strategist. He's not working
Speaker 1: backwards from an outcome. He's feeling his way forward through
Speaker 1: a very predictable reaction set from his opponents that he's
Speaker 1: learned to into it. The question is what do I
Speaker 1: think about Gavin Newsom's plans to Trump proof the state
Speaker 1: ahead of Trump taking power. I have said for a
Speaker 1: long time that I like Gavin Newsom, I admire Gavenussom,
Speaker 1: and I support Gavin Newsom. But Gavin Newsom is out
Speaker 1: of position politically. And Gavin Newsom is out of position
Speaker 1: politically because his first foray here into national politics in
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty four race was not successful in the
Speaker 1: sense that he used a great deal of capital explaining
Speaker 1: to the country why Joe Biden was fit to run
Speaker 1: when some c bridge was required. He's clearly had little
Speaker 1: reflection about that. Gavin Newsom has two years left to
Speaker 1: be governor of California. When he was the mayor of
Speaker 1: San Francisco, just like when Willie Brown was the mayor
Speaker 1: of San Francisco, the city was not like it is today.
Speaker 1: He has no other job but to make Los Angeles
Speaker 1: and San Francisco and the big cities of California Jules again,
Speaker 1: or at least to hand off to his successor a
Speaker 1: slightly better state than the state it's in right now.
Speaker 1: Because the country looks at California and they are a
Speaker 1: guest California as a brand is thoroughly broken. It is
Speaker 1: not admired. It is not a place where people think
Speaker 1: about as one to go to like it used to
Speaker 1: be for reinvention, for opportunity. California has become synonymous with
Speaker 1: government failure, and it has become the prop of the
Speaker 1: American cleon Donald Trump, a world class demagogue. So the
Speaker 1: results of the election were that America wanted to California
Speaker 1: prove the United States by making Trump president. And what
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom should start doing is governing and stop doing
Speaker 1: is posturing. All of us would be much better off.
Speaker 1: Ambition is a fine thing, and it's a necessary thing
Speaker 1: in politics. But we're entering a period when politics is
Speaker 1: going to be about one thing, to be about who's
Speaker 1: on your side and who's tough enough to stand up
Speaker 1: to an array of powerful interests, which include, for the
Speaker 1: first time in our lifetime, the government of the United
Speaker 1: States directly threatening opposition and directly threatening acts of conscience
Speaker 1: because they can things are about to get serious and real,
Speaker 1: and for Democrats to be able to win again at
Speaker 1: the national level, they have to repair the sense of
Speaker 1: alienation that exists between them and a lot of ordinary
Speaker 1: people about their ability to keep them safe, to keep
Speaker 1: order in the big cities, and to maintain prosperity in
Speaker 1: their core and for good reason. The question is with
Speaker 1: Matt Yatesgan and Pete Hagsath's about to join him over
Speaker 1: a cameo, who is the next most vulnerable Trump pick.
Speaker 1: That is obviously the spectacularly unfit, unqualified, Russian useful idiot
Speaker 1: Tulci Gabbert, who has grown up I shit you not
Speaker 1: in a cult in Hawaii. Read all about it. The
Speaker 1: bottom line is that the National Intelligence Director cannot be
Speaker 1: a person who can't distinguish reality from fantasy, can't English
Speaker 1: Russian propaganda from news, So Tulsa Gabert cannot be the
Speaker 1: National Intelligence Director. Plus Tulsa Gabbert is not smart enough
Speaker 1: intellectually to navigate the nomination hearings, so she will be
Speaker 1: the next up. And of course Robert Kennedy. The Tara Palmer,
Speaker 1: one of the best political reporters in the country, has
Speaker 1: reported that this posted here is the questionnaire for Robert
Speaker 1: Kennedy over at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Speaker 1: Why is Robert Kennedy quizzing prospective female employees about their
Speaker 1: sexual history? The era we're entering into is one I
Speaker 1: still continue to believe there's a great deal of a
Speaker 1: lack of imagination about and so the unfitness at a
Speaker 1: moral level, at an intellectual level, at a mental health level,
Speaker 1: amongst the team that Trump is assembling is extraordinary. And
Speaker 1: during these next weeks of months, that unfitness will stretch
Speaker 1: down to confirmable position at a sub cabinet level, and
Speaker 1: there will be too many to name, and most of
Speaker 1: them will get through. And the Senate is not inclined
Speaker 1: at a basic level to do much exercising of its
Speaker 1: advice and consent power, So most of these people will
Speaker 1: end up in government. That's going to be bad for America,
Speaker 1: bad for you, and it's going to cost some people
Speaker 1: their lives out there. And we'll see how many when
Speaker 1: we get to the end of the catastrophe and can
Speaker 1: look back. But the position of the warning is that
Speaker 1: I'm warning you that there is a catastrophe coming. If
Speaker 1: at the end I'm wrong and we wind up on
Speaker 1: the other edge of the rainbow with a pot of
Speaker 1: gold and Donald Trump smiling behind it, I'll be the
Speaker 1: first to admit I'm wrong. But I don't think we're
Speaker 1: headed in that direction. I'm Steve Schmidt. This is the
Speaker 1: warning and I invite you to join. Subscribe on our
Speaker 1: sub stack, on our YouTube channel, follow us. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the community.