National Guards, Government Shutdowns, and the Prosecution of James Comey

Summary

• Federal Intervention: The podcast discusses the controversial use of federalized National Guard troops by the president to address riots in cities like Portland and Los Angeles, raising concerns about the erosion of state autonomy and constitutional norms.
• Political Authority: The hosts debate the implications of using military force to impose national unity, highlighting the lack of common civic values and the potential for escalating tensions between federal and state governments.
• James Comey Indictment: The indictment of former FBI director James Comey for making false statements is examined, with the hosts expressing skepticism about the Justice Department's independence and the potential for political motivations behind the charges.
• Government Shutdown: The ongoing government shutdown is analyzed, with a focus on the strategic targeting of spending cuts and the potential impact on public perception and political negotiations.
• Healthcare Spending: The discussion highlights the significant role of healthcare spending in federal budget negotiations, emphasizing the challenges posed by the failing Obamacare system and the lack of meaningful reform efforts.
• Decentralization: The hosts advocate for decentralizing federal control through block grants, arguing that local governments are better equipped to manage resources and respond to community needs.
• Political Strategy: The podcast explores the strategic use of government shutdowns and budget cuts to influence public opinion and policy outcomes, noting the potential for both short-term and long-term political consequences.

Transcript

[Music] Welcome back to the Power Market podcast. I'm Ryan McMin, executive editor at the Mises Institute. And joining me today are two of our contributing editors, Connor O'Keefe and th Bishop. And we get together here on the Power Market podcast every Thursday to talk about more of the current events sort of stuff that's going on as opposed to the usual economic theory that we generally talk about here at the Mises Institute. If you haven't been to our website recently, you want a lot of good content that touches on these issues and also provides some some stronger, more academically rigorous type of work as well, come to mises.org. That's mises.org. And also, we've got an event coming up, our annual supporter summit, a place just for our donors, uh, will be coming up in a couple of weeks. And, uh, th what what what's the story with that? >> Yeah, the topic economic freedom, the key to liberty. I think all three of us are going to be there. Beautiful Delray Beach, Florida at the Opel Grand Resort. We'll also have Jim Board Classic giving the keynote talk. We'll also have Gito Hollesman is venturing across the pond. Joe Solerno, Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, but most importantly, us three will be there. So, if you want to uh complain or talk about how great this show is, we'll be right there in person. And uh if you watch the show, let me know. I'll buy you a beer. How about that for a commitment? >> That was like the only time William F.Buckley ever made me laugh was when he was uh saying something about his magazine and he said, "And if you don't like it, you can send me an angry letter." And uh just his clear disdain for his own readers. I thought it was very Buckleyite. Did you ever >> It was remember when when Buckley got a letter that resulted in him like getting a a murderer uh out of jail and who then went on to murder more. So like letters to Buckley sometimes had consequences. >> Just throwing it out there. >> I don't remember that story. Oh, yeah. >> But sure, I believe it. >> Uh everything that guy touched was destroyed. All right. Well, let's just get right into it. Issue one. The president continues to promise to send federalized National Guard troops to American cities. This is a thing that was brought to my attention by another colleague and it's been featured on a number of uh podcasts, a lot of them that cater to conservative groups. And so there's this thing going on now where the president of the United States is essentially using federal troops to accomplish either political or policy ends, maybe both, at the same time. So, the way it's manifesting itself lately is uh supposedly, you know, I don't even pay attention to these cities in any sort of local or close way. There's riots in these cities, Portland, Los Angeles. Certainly nothing that affects my life and nothing that affects like national GDP or anything like that. Nothing that is a national interest. And yet, the president has declared it to be of of national concern and so is sending federalized National Guard troops. also even in the case of Los Angeles, straight up US military forces of the US Marines in the Los Angeles case. Uh but also now threatening to send troops to uh Chicago, to Baltimore perhaps, uh to other locations as well. And now the Washington DC has done that as well, but that's a separate case because Washington DC is federal land and >> fake city. That's yeah, it's a fake city, which we covered I think in an earlier episode. I Washington DC doesn't count. So, whatever. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about these cities that are in states that are just like sovereign states supposedly according to the US Constitution and have their own military forces uh that are the National Guard. The National Guard is supposed to be the military forces under the control of the state government, specifically the governor, and they're supposed to have the final say, at least in the spirit of the law, in terms of whether those troops can be deployed within those states. But Trump has been saying, "Tough luck. I'm just going to deploy them within the states anyway." And that's where we are right now. It seems to be kind of a way of getting around what was longer uh established constitutional relationship between the states in terms of the use of state troops. Um and I I I've noticed that a lot of conservatives think this is great uh that basically I guess the ends justify the means. It's fine to ignore uh age-old prohibitions on the president just simply using state troops for his own political ends. Um, but being a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, much of which was designed to keep uh state militias out of the hands of the federal government, which we'll talk about in a minute, I think it's an alarming development, and I I think conservatives make a mistake when they support it. Uh, I don't know if you've heard anything or seen much about this though on this issue or if you get a reading on on how people feel about it. >> Well, I definitely know Portland has arisen as kind of a focal point there. I think some of this probably comes into some of the the violence that's been around ICE enforcement in particular and this is kind of an escalation to that. Um, you know, I I think that, you know, if I were to project if I if I were to predict our audience, I think there's probably two responses to this. One is like, yeah, this is this is pretty bad. Like, yeah, this is, you know, moving troops there. The other one is probably an element of Shod and Freud on like, you know, why should I care about Portland? You know, must the cops and like, you know, I I certainly understand that. Um I I think to me the you know you obviously there's there's a variety of issues whenever you have the federal government uh uh you doing this sort of stuff and like what can happen in the future things like that. Um obviously there's there's tons of traditions things like that. I I think there's the angle of this that I think is fascinating is this broader recognition. This is going to play into you know debates over the debt sealant will come here later. It's the fact that it's a recognition really of just how unfunctional this country is, right? like like the the entire aspect of it like this is an attempt right like you there there has been this idea that has motivated a large large aspect of like the traditional right even the online right you whatever you want to call the you know the conservative movement in its modern form right is that national elections can solve the underlying fraying that is going on and that therefore federal power can come in can be the heavy-handed force we can use the federal government for conservative means and therefore we'll put these you know godless leftists back in their place and you know then we can go back and live in 1960s America or early 1960s not late 1960s which is kind of resembling a little bit. Um and and I think that self is the problem here is that like you know I saw some people talking about you like oh after like the Charlie Kirk stuff like oh any any idea of national divorce or or you disillusion like you know this is this is this is a dead letter we've got to get all together and to me like you see what's going on in this last month or so and you've got people you know cheering for the death of one side uh uh you know violence increasingly erupting in the streets like this is exactly why we we aren't two nations like like everything is trying to band-aid over what is the real divide is that there's absolutely no common point of of you know that you can appeal to in terms of what you know Portland looks like what Alabama wants like what what either of these things desire and so this in gradual escalation which you know is it going to matter in the grand scheme are you going to have like a demonstration here or there we've seen a little bit of this stuff pop up back and forth at times again we've seen it play out most notably yeah most most recently with the the ICE stuff but at the end of the day does anyone expect a lasting order to come in if you really have some sort of you know massive surge right I mean yeah we've got a great history of the military surges you know working in and you know creating peace and and and harmony across the world right now um the last you know 20 years but like does anyone actually expect us to deal with the the underlying you know conservative concerns about rule of order when obviously there is no localized you know it's you're going to have entrenchment from local authorities how this going to lead to prosecutions it's like even if you were going to give the benefit of the doubt and say well these these you know barbarian heathens, whatever, deserve whatever is coming to them. At the end of the day, like to what end? To what end? Because again, at the end of the day, all of this is trying to use a national election, a national political sphere to to paper over what is the real problem is that there's absolutely no point of common civic unity that you can discover and, you know, America 2025. >> Well, and they're trying to impose a unity. Yeah. Right. using the most old-fashioned means available, which is force of arms. So, these people won't do what I want, so I'll just send in a military detachment and force them to do what I want. And I'm sure politically it'll all work out. Now, of course, the cynical interpretation, which is probably the correct one, is that Trump's just he's just making a show for his constituency. Now, obviously, he doesn't expect to win over constituents in either of these state, any of these states where he's sending these troops. He doesn't expect to win Illinois or California or Oregon or have a bunch of grateful voters there who are going to turn out to vote for him. What he's doing is showing, hey, let's hand it to these these Antifa commami types that are in these states. And then a lot of people are cheering for that. And like you though, I totally understand the initial emotional reaction. Right? Screw those guys. I don't care what happens to them. Right? That is the initial emotional reaction. However, unlike the people who think that the military is just a play thing of the president, I do care a little bit about the rule of law. Uh I don't just say I do, which uh seems to be a common thing among uh right-wingers. Now I actually care about not just what the constitution says but also about the philosophy underlying the constitution and this is clearly contrary to that. I mean Connor when when you look at what did you have the same reaction we did the same initial reaction? Uh but as you see more of this just the the sending of troops does I mean to me it just sends the issue of if you're at the point where you have to do this >> that's that well you it can take you back to this is this was like polyai 101 sort of stuff. Hannah Rent which almost nobody talks about anymore except in a polyai class. Henna Ren was a writer, a mid- 20th century writer and she made an important distinction about where does political authority come from and she was contradicting Mao. Mao said the political authority comes out of the barrel of a gun and Mao was like look if people don't do what you say you go and just shoot a few of them and then they do what you say. Uh Aren's point the more western point was that actually if you have authority you don't have to use coercion. If you enjoy a position of authority and legitimacy, you don't have to send troops. And I think that's the more nuanced correct position is that if the federal government exercised authority nationwide, you wouldn't have to do this sort of thing where you're you're contradicting basically 200 years of established law about the the state militia coming in, making it your own, putting it under the president, and saying, "Screw you, local um commander-in-chief of the militia, which is the state governor. I'm gonna take your troops and do whatever I want with them. Which, by the way, goes way back. This goes back to like English Civil War stuff where they they wanted to take the militia out of the hands of the English king for obvious reasons during that period. You know, this is about the time they cut off the head of uh of the king and all of that. We want militias now under civil authority that the king cannot easily access. That's where our modern militia national guard system is supposed to come from. But now Trump is just trying to undo that. the whole philosophy behind that. I just use the militia as I see fit. I I mean, have you heard anything on your side of things uh any commentary that where has anyone said anything convincing on that this is necessary? Because again, I just don't see how it's even a national issue. >> No, I think bringing political authority into it is is right because that's sort of one of the things that's been bothering me with this is the Republican party especially, they're not the Democrats. They don't really turn to democracy as much to legitimize what they're doing. They turn to the Constitution, but then they do things like this that are just so obviously against the Constitution. And it's like, okay, I mean, I I sort of still have that kind of Lysander Spooner spirit. Like, I don't really personally buy into the idea that like it is legitimate that like some people signed a document hundreds of years ago and that I'm therefore like constrained by it. But it's like but if they are um legitimizing their own actions based on this and then going against that it's like okay well then like what is what is the actual legitimacy for this move and I think a lot of the rhetoric I'm seeing is it's just kind of talking in terms of practicality. It's sort of a this is a problem and like they'll point um to violence in these blue cities uh which is a problem and it's a problem I agree with. I think it's interesting, not to get sidetracked, but like I don't really see the political calculus here too much like why the MAGA movement is trying to clean up blue cities like these strongholds of the Democrats is I mean I I guess I could kind of see well okay there is an interesting somebody made the point I don't remember who it was I saw I think on Twitter that um the MAGA movement or the the new right right now is a little different in that um sure the Republican party it's always kind been the party of like the uh the internal states kind of middle America, the more rural parts of the country, but the MAGA leaders specifically are actually more from blue America and blue cities and specifically and Trump is obviously a big factor there. So like I I do understand that the loud parts of the MAGA movement might movement may have a personal stake in cleaning up some of these places certainly DC for the foreseeable future. But I to me it's like it surprises me that it's clearly this much of a priority here. >> Well, and I want to touch on like I can think of two examples where you kind of get something closer to this particularly as a southerner, right? And I think these two are are informative to this moment. One is uh you know we can look at the uh the Eisenhower sending the National Guard in for uh integration, right? But like that that was part of a larger you can you have your you know debates on on the policy there but like that that was part of a a larger federal pushed resettlement of kind of norms and whatever. And so there there was much larger to it. And so the force there was to kind of like establish order and there was a a infrastructure again you can argue good or bad that came into that in terms of what was going on in terms of a broader federal policy. I I don't really see that larger component to it outside of again theoretically, you know, some of the ICE stuff and like immigration changes, right, as a federal level thing. There there seems to be like a clear sort of policy objective there and therefore this is to I don't know reinforce again with with some of the violence that's emerged from that. The other one though, and I think this is a it's it's not going to be as serious as this, but it you could look at post civil war reconstruction, right? We had federal troops literally going in there occupying the south and what did you get from that one? I mean, obviously that lasted very long. That was a very unique period post-war. You still had the just the the the raw emotions that come with, you know, a war of conquest and dealing with there afterwards. But that was responded to with terrorist violence from locals against it. And so that whole dynamic of okay, we're going to come here, we're going to reestablish order, like what do you expect to happen from that, right? Like you it's going to put Antifa and those sort of stuff on on steroids, right? And and may maybe that is the larger goal, right? like maybe that you know we're you throwing out the larger theories or maybe that is the goal. Um but but even at the end of the day like there there's you know the south you know it took decades for the south to like ever you know you know forgive like that you know domination of of the region to the extent that it has been forgiven. I've talked to some people and they still have not forgotten that. Um and but but again there was there was a clear uh kind of kind of you know overbearing energy to both those things at the federal level. That's that's very different than you know a weekend in Portland and and posting some social social media content and texting about you know Patriots you know go you know you go Patriots right and and again like that's was trying to figure out like what is the the real balance here? Is this for shock value in the short term? Get the media spinning around, right? Or is it something bigger? And what we've seen from Trump, again, like you the the worst depictions of Trump, right, typically are a facade for what is really, you know, like typically it's a lot of a lot of big, you know, a lot of big optics for something that doesn't have a lot of follow-through, including like the the federal takeover of of DC and the prosecutions, things like that. And so like that's where like and you could perhaps look at a few of these examples where you had massive shows of federal force that had you know some in particularly in the case of uh civil rights integration had some lasting impact but there was a much bigger project there rather than just hey we're we're going to a hot spot for this temporary period and again obviously we we don't like that like there's there's a lot of problems that come with that but even from that argument there's much larger at place there than just sort of a temporary show of force. Yeah, there are definitely times and places, I mean the Civil War being chief among them, but other cases as well >> where presidents have sent in troops uh to carry out what they viewed as federal judgments, federal edicts, federal laws, federal acts of those sorts of things. In all cases, I think those were very sketchy and generally contrary to the spirit of the American Revolution. And they were all they all when when president takes control of troops and descends them around without local uh permission and leave of the locals cuz here's the way it's supposed it was supposed to work under the original constitution. And then I kind of want to just throw this out there and move on um because it's a complicated issue but we got a couple other things we want to talk about but I have an article on this that's on the front page today. It's called Trump's National Guard deployment centralized power and undermine federalism. And I avoid the legal arguments which is you can get into all these arguments about posi commitatus. Does it apply? Is the president engaged in law enforcement? Is he engaged in uh carrying out some sort of federal judicial decision? You can also debate the issue on that. I don't think he qualifies any of those either. I think all of those issues are against the president's current use of troops in say California and Portland right now. However, the larger issue is philosophical. uh because after the revolution there was a huge push to make sure that the United States did not create a standing army that could then be used at the pleasure of Congress or the president to go around and implement the wishes of the federal government. And uh we I quote a paragraph here from a surprisingly good guy I'd never heard of before uh a historian named Griffin Bove uh writing at the Journal of American Revolution. And he his his sentence with the with his article on this begins this way. Few ideas were more widely accepted in early America than that of the danger of peacetime standing armies. And then he goes off into more detail. This was at the absolute center of the second amendment and at a lot of other discussions around ratification of the new constitution which gave a lot more federal control over an army. And and one of the big debaters against ratification on this was Patrick Henry. Patrick Henry noted and he was very sophisticated in his thinking, right? He wasn't naive enough to think that some written documents would protect local autonomy from federal tyranny. He said, "Look, if we're going to protect federal autonomy, if we're going to weaken the federal government, we have to make sure the federal government has no standing army that the president can just use at his pleasure to to enforce laws that he likes." And the idea then is that there would be no standing army or if there was it would be tiny like a couple thousand people which is was what was the case right up until the mid 19th century. There was basically this tiny tiny army. Uh you had a big navy but army was virtually non-existence and you certainly didn't have this huge marine force that was around. It could be sent anywhere by presidents either. So all of the founders uh with the exception of guys like Hamilton opposed a centralized standing army of this nature. and the second amendment which talks about militias. Yes, part of that was to ensure that private citizens could not be regulated by the federal government, but the larger issue is to make sure that there would be people who could use guns against the federal government. That was the idea that you would have these people ready for the state militias. And that was the tradition right up until the late 19th century. And it was only in 1903 with the creation of the Dick Act, also known as the Militia Act, that they started to really chip away this idea of the state militias being totally independent from federal control unless the state government, that is the governor, signed off on it. And so over time, throughout the 20s and 30s, they gradually brought the militias under the federal government like they did with so much else. Gradually taking control of everything the states used to have sovereignty in and then handing it over to the central government. So that's what happened with the National Guard and that's where we are now and it's just been eroded so much that now it seems normal to as a president come in and take control of the National Guard. >> Well and I think that's something that is worth just really hyperfocusing on and just pointing out. I think Connor uh mentioned that you know historically you know the right has been the one that you points to the Constitution as the legitimacy of you know the federal operations. And I think what we're seeing right now is that a the massive shift within the intellectual side of the right is postconstitutional. And and you can have a we can have a larger conversation about the extent to which the political norms the act the actual structure of government over you during the 20th century has gotten so far away from the ideas of the American founding. And so therefore this is just a reaction to that. It's like we're got to play by the same set of rules and and yet we can have different conversations about the impact of that. But I think that is at the core of what a lot of what drives some of this sort of stuff right now is that the the a lot of the the leading figures in the intellectual right are not concerned about justifying what they think is necessary with from a constitutional lens. Like they they a lot a lot of them are inspired very much by uh continental European thinkers rather than the the the Anglo uh American tradition. Right? There's there's a lot of different sort of influences that are at play there. Um but I think and and that is it's it's it's that is an aspect of again this this massive change in norms. It's always been there on the left but there's a massive change in the norms in terms of the way the intellectual right is seeing some of these questions and that's what's leading to I think to you I'm not saying oh that's translating to policy and you know these policy wonks are all you know have their pulse on like all the power lovers in power and and and whatever but I think that is is definitely shapes the way a lot of these things are being seen and that that's going to open up a whole different range of issues and questions as politics continues to evolve. Um, and again, in ways that are just absolutely crazy. >> So much of that comes back to them, like them being in power now. Like you go back only a few months and you there was a lot more sympathy on the right with these ideas of like freedom of speech like we talked about last week, but decentralization, any kind of rolling back of federal power. The right is when they're out of power, usually completely on board with that. And at least they talk about it in terms in these sort of terms like we just need to go win an election and then we can start rolling all this back. But the second they get in, it's what I said last week. They they are deluded into thinking that they've won now and that they're just going to control things going forward. It's the same. It's the classic like we just have the wrong people in power. And um like it's it's basically this idea that like the problems we've had in this country are not institutional. They're not systemic. It's just that the individuals in power are making the wrong decisions. And if we can just get the right people in, like now that Trump is the one running the National Guard, then we don't have to worry about this stuff anymore cuz he's one of us and he's on our side. When like that's something that we've obviously been talking about week after week and as an organization. Uh, one of our mantras or a mantra you hear around here a lot is this idea that like when you're a young kid, you sort of learn that we have this powerful federal government, but it's powerful because it's this system that like gives us freedom and, you know, keeps us safe and helps us, you know, attain prosperity. And then you kind of grow up a little bit and you realize, well, wait a minute, people are not very free. They're not very safe and not very prosperous. So you think, oh, the system is not working here. that there there's a problem, there are issues there in the system. And then hopefully you grow up a little further and start to realize, well, wait a minute, things aren't, you know, generating the results that we're told to expect, but they're getting, you know, the well-connected, very rich. They're getting more and more powerful year after year. So eventually, hopefully, you realize that, oh, actually, the system is working working perfectly here. And it feels like the MAGA movement now, like they may have talked this way before, but especially now that they're in power right now, they've been um seduced by it. And they just have this uh sense that no, like if we just go in and make the right decisions, all these institutional problems are going to go away because they weren't actually institutional problems to begin with. The right people are in charge now and we just need to trust the plan. Well, I think the calculation is even more more serious than that is I think the calculation is we must use extreme powers in order to stay in power. >> You like how how you know if if the goal is red FDR then we have to use power like red like like FDR in the other way, right? And again I I like again I can objectively like step back and I like I can understand that calculation but the problem is though is at the end of the day is that like this is this is a a unrelenting system. Again, like we're going to see with the economic side of this is that like you're not addressing like in order to deal with mainstream America and and the core foundational base that makes up, you know, the the people that MAG is supposed to represent, right? They're supposed to be small business people and people jobs and that sort of stuff, right? They're the ones that getting screwed the economy. The economy is screwed because because of the size of the federal government. You need this you need a large federal government in order to be red FDR, right? And so like that's where that's where the the the ultimately the the the issue is there. But it's it's very d but like this escalation comes from the extent that they think they have to use these extraordinary measures in order to maintain power because if not we're dupes and like the left's going to do it anyway, right? And that's that's an arms race. That's again this is a very unstable political environment and at the core of that unstable political environment is that we are not one nation. Like there's and it's like everything else is just trying to paper over that that dynamic there. It's again this is a yeah born in interesting times. Well, most Americans of the founding era weren't that shortsighted. Like, they understood that you could use the central government to carry out things you wanted to do, but feared what would happen when they weren't in power anymore. And that was the point that Patrick Edri was making, right? Is he's he's saying, you can say you're for decentralized government. can say you're for a weak central government, but if you're going to hand all the military power to the central government and leave us with no independent military uh power, no independent military recourse, no way of defending ourselves with arms in a way that is separate and independent from the central government. Well, just don't pretend to be in favor of a weakened central government because he's saying it comes these guys were really practical, right? They didn't they didn't live in this fantasy land where we wrote down this law so now the federal government can't hurt us. They're like no we need to have first of all no powerful central military and we need to have our own military in the states. And so he was he was very clear thinking on that. But boy did we give all that up a long time ago. >> Well and that's will be the the interesting thing on this is how robust is truly the Democrat governor's response to this. Right. It's one thing to send tweets and, you know, be like Gavin Newsome on social media and say like, "Ah, Trump's asking the fascists." Like, what what you know, when do they actually start trying to mobilize their law enforcement, their people with guns against federal people with guns? >> And maybe that's not going to happen, but like like but like that that it can, you know, a a lot of the most successful, we've talked about this a lot in a variety of different ways. Most of the a lot of the more successful like state- driven efforts to go against uh a federal homogeneity has has come from leftwing states more than right right-wing states. um you know, particularly up before COVID. And so I'm I'm interested to see like is that a an arena here where if this this continues to be a point of emphasis, does that end up sparking a an actual state response in a way that is something meaningful? Um again, that's a dangerous situation. Yeah. You know, but I'll be interested to see how that goes. >> Yes, me too. All right. Well, let's move on to issue when it comes up, >> right? We may need to return to the issue. Uh well, I mean, we we're in some similar ground with issue two here, which is the indictment of James Comey uh just in terms of people using um federal tools uh in ways that some think are uh extraordinary, contrary to the Bill of Rights, all this sort of stuff. I I view this differently. So, let's than I view the uh the National Guard issue. Let's let's just look at uh at some of the details here just so we our audience knows what's going off. So, James Comey, former uh basically federal apparatic uh was indicted this week. Um now the usual he was indicted for making false statements and I think for lying to Congress was the other >> the other false statements to Congress specifically. >> Okay. Okay. Comey was Comey was indicted on charges of making a false statement as well as another for obstruction of a congressional proceeding in connection with testimony he gave before the Senate in 2020. And then the this is the Hill article I'm quoting. And so he was indicted and he was very much involved in the whole Russia gate thing. uh he ran all sorts of interference to make sure that Hillary Clinton did not get indicted for anything when she was storing classified emails on her home personal computer. Uh and really nobody could possibly be more supportive of the regime than James Comey in his position as uh former FBI director. I mean, this guy uh was just the very embodiment of turning the federal government into the personal play thing of the ruling class. James Comey, by the way, he's beyond just like a government employee. He's very wealthy. Uh he's he's been running in these circles for a long time. Uh so he's really just sort of, if you had to describe the guy, right, Pluto, >> I think is a word that would that would come to mind. and then he gets on the inside of the FBI to make sure that he can enrich himself and and his heirs as well using that power. So, he's been indicted now. But what the media immediately starts to do is talk about how uh this is a matter of Trump just targeting his enemies and this is unprecedented and uh the rule of law is being destroyed. How dare people go after this meek, humble public servant, James Comey? And we're also supposed to be very very worried that there's no longer any rule of law. I find this to be a very different situation than the National Guard thing. Um, and so I'm just not that worried about it. Uh, because of course for normal people, normal people have been attacked for decades for these sorts of crimes, for obstruction of of a congressional proceeding, for making false statements. This is the sort of thing that Martha Stewart got nailed on, right? even though she wasn't guilty of any real crime. This is the sort of thing which James Comey was involved in that prosecution. By the way, this is the sort of James Comey would use against normal people all the time. James Comey, who's a real true disgusting piece of garbage from the federal government, gets caught up in this web of lawfare that he created and I'm supposed to be real concerned about it? I don't know. Uh so though, should should I care? Should I be concerned? Is is this inter Nissan battle here a potential problem for the free people of America in the future? What what do you think? >> You know, this is the best type of shot and Freud because it's guiltfree shot and Freud. Uh cuz like Comey is someone like if if you ask AI to generate an image of government stoogge, it's James Comey. Uh he just has all the optics. Um, and and to me, like, you know, it it even though it hasn't impacted the the uh net value of my Bitcoin holdings, this is my fa I think this is the single best thing Trump has done. >> And my my argument for that is that ultimately if you actually want to look at what what meaningful ch like like reform, you know, whatever word you want to word you want to use in terms of federal that the number one thing was trials of people that held federal power and abused that power. And yes, obviously there's a political dynamic, right? Obviously, this is Trump in these beasts list. All that's you know, all that's fine. All that's you know, let's acknowledge the obvious there, right? But it doesn't matter, right? And I I want I want a whole, you know, I want I want a whole wing at Gitmo with with with Comey and Fouchy and Brennan and Clapper and all of these these these sinister villains that were in these positions of of of real power that that, you know, abused their power for for petty, vindictive reasons and have had no problem using that power to victimize normal average people. demonized anyone that said a damn thing about it and and now are actually you facing their own comeuppets and how long that lasts, right? Like you know that's a whole you that's a secondary thing. We'll worry about that later. But I I think there's there is no thing like to me the most important thing that can happen and this this is true on both sides, right? Is that you actually have the threat of prosecution. You have the threat of being treated like any other American would if you're in those positions, if you have that luxury DC job and you do what they're doing and if you do what they have done habitually for a long long time, right? Obviously, this is much bigger than than Comey, but it's also including Comey. And so, I think this one particular thing, well, we'll see again. Is this one is this a one and done? Whatever. The media is going to say, whatever. But this sort of stuff, trials and accountability personally, targeting people that have done that. That to me is that's that's that's the best single thing that's come out of Trump 2.0. >> And also, I mean, relating back to the whole National Guard thing, too. We should note that Comey is a federal employee. This isn't even a case of the federal government getting involved in state politics, right? There have been problems in the past where you had the FBI targeting uh say state officials and this is a matter of the federal government then asserting control over local state policy issues in those cases. That doesn't apply here. Comey's a federal violence a federal employee, right? It's federal violence. Couldn't care less. Now, I want to get both of your reaction to this because this is just like so you could have written this ahead of time though this won't surprise you in the slightest bit. So, all the worst people are coming out defending Comey. So, I want you to read the I want to read the first paragraph from a different Hill article. Senator Lisa Marowski of Alaska, a moderator, >> right, raised questions Monday about the independence of the Justice Department, pointing to the political pressure from the White House that proceeded from FBI Director James Comey's indictment. Okay. Um, boy is the the independent Justice Department losing its independence here, Connor. What do you think? I mean, right, because the the they have no connection to the presidency, right? They the Justice Department has always just done things wholly in accordance with the uh the proper and moderate and uh uh rigorous application of the rule of law. I can only assume here based on Marowsk's comments. Um, so, so what are we to make of this this departure from former independence? >> Yeah. So, I I wrote an article about this this week and it was sort of motivated by this exact point. This is a pet peeve of mine. I've probably brought it about brought it up on the show before where people will talk about an institution being non-political when what they actually mean is it is nonpartisan. It has been, you know, this thing that is respected by both parties, the worst parts of both parties. And uh you know obviously the Fed has been a topic we've talked about a lot here but like the Supreme Court um to to a lesser extent you hear this all the time these non-political institutions and uh really like they are very motivated not by the greater good but by their own interest and the interest of the people that are well connected to them and the justice department absolutely uh that absolutely applies to the justice department and it has applied to the justice department um going as far back as I'm you know aware ware of Justice Department activities. Certainly the FBI, that's a history I know more and from the beginning, it was always a very political animal. It just wasn't a pure partisan um animal. It didn't fall neatly into Republicans versus Democrats. And so then when you have Trump doing things, you know, which uh and there there's a dynamic here too where Trump is in a lot of cases kind of going up against that sort of permanent government, that unelected kind of bureaucracy. Um and so but his sort of push back against them is then framed as you know this is the Republicans coming in and politicizing something that wasn't political before. But the point I was making in my in my longer article is that there has always not always but um really going back to the 1880s um since the Pendleton Act was signed I kind of talk about some of the the legal history there. the the president's authority over the executive branch was rolled back a little bit with that act. They're not able to come in and just fire all of the federal workers and appoint, you know, people that are on board with their agenda. The the president is hampered by that. And I go over some of the history as to um how that came about. But what that has created is this sort of I call it the permanent government. you know, people call it the deep state, but it basically this non ideological class of um well, it's the class of like federal um employees themselves, but then also, you know, the people that are well connected and really over like the last 150 years, whatever it is, that group has been acting chiefly in their own interest. And I think Comey is just a pure embodiment of that. And so it I'm I'm completely uh with you on that though. Like there needs to be consequences to what these people have done. Like that so much of how they're acting, they're only acting because they feel untouchable. And I completely support Trump coming in and turning the target back on them. Yeah, I I do actually believe these people are guilty of crimes and deserve um to have the government, you know, crack down on them. However, I do worry though with this specific case that um it's a little weak the way they're going after Comey, if I remember correctly, specifically, he made a statement in I think 2018 or 2017 um about a leak related to the Hillary Clinton investigation. And then in 2020, September of 2020, uh there was another hearing and Ted Cruz asked him if he stood by his initial statement. He said he did and the statute of limitations was going to run out on Monday, I believe, for that. So, they sort of scrambled together an indictment. I I guess what I worry about is um if this doesn't work um then does it pour cold water on this entire effort? That's right. >> Yeah. No, I I do agree with that. The worst case scenario, Harris, Comey is not jailed. >> Um I I uh what else I I did have to double check and uh when when Trump was arrested, Lisa Marowski had no concern about the independence of the uh the DOJ. Um, she she she did she did say that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but these are serious charges that should be thoroughly investigated, >> right? As I mean, of course, she's going to say that, right? The the people like, >> "What are you doing?" >> And those people are always described as moderates, right? Oh, she's a moderate. She has no dog in this fight. She's non ideological. All that means she's a cynical power mad creature of Washington DC. I I'm not sure that's being non ideological does not win you any points in my mind. It just means that all you care about is numero uno is usually what being non ideological means. And uh I'm not sure that that's exactly who we should taken our cues from in Washington. But you're right with the prosecution, right, with what they decided to actually make the indictment for. This is how it always seems to happen, right? These people are guilty of countless hor horrible things and they they only get indicted for some tiny little piddling thing that occurred on the side and and then that's what you get the big trial over like Bill Clinton with uh having sex with an intern in the White House, right? That was the best they could come up with even though that guy's activities worldwide were appalling in terms of foreign policy, in terms of starvation blockades, all of that stuff, right? You got Maline Albbright saying out there that yeah, I think uh starving to death 300,000 children was worth it and all all we can get Clinton on is some sort of minor thing about lying about his affairs or whatever. So that just seems to be the way Washington works. And yeah, you're right that it will be awful if he just gets off on this and then I have to listen to James Comey gloat about it for the next year. >> Well, and I I assume that any I mean assuming there's a trial, I assume there would be a DC jury and like Yeah. Yeah. Well, you know, it was fun. >> That's even worse. Yes. Right. >> Can can you move into West Virginia? >> Like change a venue? >> Like seriously, like a real part of America? Yeah. >> Yeah. A real city. >> The uh the the fun part of this though is it looks like it's going to set McCabe up against Comey. It looks like it's specifically McCabe's lawyers made an argument that McCabe leaked some information about that uh Clinton trial and Comey knew about it. So therefore, it was like authorized as far as McCabe's lawyers were um concerned. And McCabe is was the deputy director. He's I think a um like a mainstay on CNN now. He's just the worst. And it would be it that could be a fun element of this is if they have to kind of go to battle with each other. That could also be kind of cathartic. >> Let them fight. Well, this takes us to our third issue for the day, which is the shutdown in uh in the federal government, which apparently a thing I completely forgotten about until I got into the office on Monday and then I realized that this was a thing. Um, however, I get the feeling this one feels a little slightly different. Now, I've been through many shutdowns and they always follow the same script. The Republican gets blamed for the shutdown because they just they want to cut payments to orphans and stuff, right? They want to starve widows is usually the narrative around why there's a shutdown because Republicans want to cut money, which boy, if Republicans are always slashing the budget so much, how did we get to where we are? So, that's a bizarre part of that narrative. And so, then there's a shutdown for a while. What always happens is we call it the Washington Monument uh syndrome or effect where immediately then all the federal workers who of course we all know where whose side they come down on. Ideologically, federal workers tend to lean very much to the left and they immediately start closing down often under the orders of the of the president, but even they take it upon themselves sometimes because sometimes a Republican is the president and the the federal bureaucracy starts closing down everything that the taxpayers like and everything that the taxpayers don't like keeps going. So if you want to go to a national park that weekend, you'd plan a family vacation. Oh, we had to we had to close the national park. Really? Well, have you closed down the CIA? Oh, well, of course that's a that's a a important >> for essential workers, Ryan. >> Right. Essential. So, of course, we would never shut down any sort of federal um agency that's hard at work oppressing Americans or causing chaos worldwide. That's always essential. But anything the federal government provides that might be of actual use to your and your family, that is closed down. And though you sent me an article saying that that's there's a new variation on this. So tell us about that. >> Yeah, get again this actually I kind of like I really kind of like this is is that like for what I think I think probably an aspect of this goes back to like some of the this on the ground personnel changes from like Doge, but like they're they're actually trying to keep like access open to a lot of like your Washington Monument style stuff. Um, don't overstate it, but like relative to other shutdowns, like that's the number one sort of pressure point there. Like the the the the priority seems to be shutting down like various f federal spinning projects, particularly at blue cities. And so you have you have Democrat, you know, they're they're punishing us. Yeah, they probably are. Um, and and they're actually keeping some public access at like some of like the the things that taxpayers like. And so I think this was obviously kind of planned ahead. Like this is part of the strategy going into it. Um, and we'll see how long that lasts, right? like again this is a flip in the pan whatever because it's going to be a week and now the government's still going to be shut down and like all of a sudden like all the you know they you know they can't do that anymore we'll see but I at the very least I like that there's a little bit of for foresight on that and recognizing that you know usually those sort of like the good things like to the extent there is any good things like you let's find find a way of kind of easing that a little bit uh but at the end of the day though like I remember you know once upon you know I think every libertarian has this you know motivation right like you see the government shutdown coming it's like oh yeah shut down and it's always kind of a disappointing thing, not because the government reopens, right? Because I mean that is always a disappointment, but like at the end of the day, like it's it's usually tends to be a net negative, right? You end up like it ends up actually costing more money to shut it down than it would have been if they had had, you know, whatever deal in place, whatever. And so like, you know, that sort of great like sort of, you know, hi libertarians, you know, posting on Facebook about like, oh, I've survived the government shutdown of, you know, 2024, 2023, 2022. We have a lot of these recently. um you know it's it's you know I've kind of you know it's kind of been there done that now after uh you know as as an adult in in modern political history there. What I do think though is interesting is for one like as you mentioned yeah interested to see how long this lasts. I assume we're going to get some sort of kick the can down the road u you know bridge deal you know that you probably gets us to the end of the year and then we get to play this whole thing again because this is what Washington does. You know they they crank out uh you know sequels the same way that Hollywood does these days. Um, but the the core of this though is interesting, which is that like the major pressure point really involves Obamacare subsidies and you know, it's starting to get picked up on, but like Obamacare is absolutely failing. And obviously like if you if you've seen your you know as a normal person right like if you've seen your you know health insurance prices go up and you get you're getting less bang for the buck like we we've known this but like it's now getting to like a sort of c certain scale with some of the the different aspects of the program and it's early implementation are starting to run out and you're having to do these kind of reconsiderations these and things like that. There's broad awareness that like what Obamacare was is an absolute disaster. Even fans of Obamacare are acknowledging it's it is a disaster. And even those like that generally thought Obamacare was a step in the right direction and didn't just see it like, oh, it's going to collapse and then we can get single pay or whatever. Like not even like the cynical progressive types, but people that generally believe this was a positive policy performance or saying like, no, like this this this this ain't working here. Um, and that does go to another major failing. This is the biggest failing of Trump 1.0 was the inability to do anything on the Obamacare reform front. You had Paul Ryan as speaker and, you know, you had you had King Mitch at the at the peak. And and the two people I do blame for this is is that like there actually was a a a possibility for something that would have been meaningful and actually a real benefit to n the national healthcare scene. Obviously there's going to still be a ton of crap because we built up a ton of crap, but there was an attempt. It was actually uh Lindsey Graham of all people and um the the the Louisiana senator that isn't uh John Kennedy who's such a you know has has a delightful draw and a lot of bad votes. But the other one, the worst one, Cassidy or something like that, uh they had a bill that actually would have block granted out a lot of the federal spending to it and like that would have been like a massive step in the right right direction there just you decentralize a lot of that funding and it was killed by John McCain of course and Rand Paul which is like dang it Rand. Um so so but like that that's it it never got off the board. Trump 1.0 know, nobody's even like there's there's not even an attempt at this point of Republican healthcare reform and it is I think a massive issue because like if your entire thing is like working like like healthcare is a working-class tragedy like this situation that we have right now is absolutely awful. Thankfully, you know, the the only bright spot, the only bright shoots are entrepreneurship, the direct primary care field, free market medical association, you know, love our Oklahoma surgery center folks and Dr. Keith Smith and like you know those that the actual doers of that field and the impacts being made there. The other side is like just the broader holistic awareness of like the Maha movement and things like that. Like those are some I think legitimate green shoots within this complete dystopian hell hole that is modern American healthcare. Uh but there's not even attempt at anything that resembles a legislative solution. And so we're going to continue to get you some form of bandating this problem over until you know next time we have a leftwing administration we're going to try to get Medicare for all again. Um but but that aspect of it, the healthcare component of it, which is so big and complex and nobody wants to deal with that really is driving this and I think it's going to continue to be one of the leading specters behind the scenes of all these big picture battles and I can't you for for government shutdowns yet to come. >> Well, if you look at spending by category, which you can bring up, right? You can bring up White House historical tables and and you can look how is how is spending by each each category right on poverty, on health care, on defense and all that at that sort of thing. Interest interest has been going through the roof, but so is healthcare spending since the creation of Obamacare. And so that just continues to be a big issue here, a big discussion. And that that was of course, as you note, a big part of the current um negotiation because the the sums are so huge now. It's unbelievable. >> Wow. And if and you're right like I I can't I can't say that block grants are libertarian and in the strict sense but as a matter of concentrating power in the federal government they they definitely do that because now just imagine that if like all that if public lands funding were just done by block grant instead of just directly administered by the federal government it wouldn't have any effect on national parks or whatever. uh maybe the stuff that's inside Washington DC, but you would have already budgeted that and handed out the money and the states would have been responsible for dealing with all that. By the way, it's the states that suffer when the feds close down a national park because it's the local communities that rely upon that where their entire local economy has become geared around that park and then the feds just decide every now and then to shut it down. And even when the when the local government says, "How about we'll give you money to open the park back up?" The Feds say, "No, forget it." Because the feds are just vindictive, horrible people. That's just basically what what it comes down to. And >> James Comey, >> right? It's a whole army of James Comey's. And so it's basically just resting the local economy from from the locals, whereas that would be mitigated somewhat with the idea of block grants. And then on this issue of healthcare as well, right? We've got to sit around waiting for the tiny minutia of the federal government to be handed down to us to figure out what the health care situation is. And so it's bad enough that they steal all this money from us and then dribble it back in tiny pieces. They also don't even let us decide what to do with that money at the more local level in a way where the locals actually know better how it would be spent. And so it's just it's like the worst of all possible worlds that the Feds control all this stuff and then they shut it all down. And the answer of course isn't to just spend freely so we never have a government shutdown. That's that's a completely horrible idea in its in its own way. Um but this is just the natural outcome. If you if you let the government have all of the money, make all of the decisions, then you are held hostage by these federal decision makers, even though they don't have possibly the ability to make good decisions for your local community. That's just where we are now. >> Completely unserious federal decision makers. >> Yeah. They know nothing. They're completely out of touch and they have no like we're always talking about, oh, is this Trump appointee qualified for the position? like people working for the Department of Health and Human Services are qualified to spend to tell you how things should be spent in your local community. It's it's an absurd proposition, but that's what we're supposed to believe. Yep. I don't I'm a little surprised that this shutdown's happened, I think, just because I don't expect the Republicans to put up that serious of a fight to like prevent some more Obamacare grants or whatever. I guess the big uh issue that they're sticking on is about immigrants and I like that some of this healthcare might be going to illegal immigrants, but it feels like once they can like get a little victory on that, this whole thing is going to be over. One of the sort of like potentially kind of exciting, but I'm not really getting my hopes up aspects of this is um as you guys have probably seen some of this uh stuff about how they're just going to start firing um federal employees. It is so obviously just like a pressure tactic. Like it's not like they just have pivoted back to the Doge days of thinking we need to seriously cut down on this federal bureaucracy that but they're like almost treating Russ VA like a attack dog like Thun was putting some comment out like we we can't control him basically. It's all clearly like a a scar a scare tactic which is kind of fun to watch but I don't really I'm not expecting millions and millions of uh of permanent firings here. My favorite bit on that is is Trump like he was spit like the entire like 24 campaign like oh I don't know anybody in project 2025 don't associate with project 2025 and he tweets out here Russ vault of project 2025 frame it's like yeah fooled you guys we're going full project 2025 now like we're we're unleashing the dogs and I'm not expecting it to be nearly that fun but at the very least I can it makes me smile for a for a period of time which if you don't smile you cry >> these days my hopes aren't high I can get maybe >> but it it is it is kind of interesting to the point you made earlier though that the Washington monument syndrome does seem more targeted this time. I guess the thinking is that uh the they should try to focus the pain on the Democrats here because I think like the thinking with that strategy is that you get the population annoyed enough with the the shutdown that they kind of rise up and put pressure on the government. But like I don't know if that really happens in government shutdowns. I do think that's a serious strategy for just budget cuts in general. I was I wrote an article about this uh when Doge was going after uh US aid. I basically I think I called it something like the needy are the human shields of the regime in that they it is clear and Thomas Soul has um he had this great article about uh it was uh Chris Kelton wrote an article about this on misuses.org during the last government shutdown I'm pretty sure where he he made this connection. Um so that's how I found it. But Thomas like he used to use this example in um class that uh he said he he would tell his students imagine there was a government department that has two two functions. It uh builds statues to Benedict Arnold and it gives medicine to needy children. And he said if there was a budget cut what what side would actually get cut? What what would the that agency uh pull back on? and he says the answer is the medicine to need to needy children because specifically that makes it a lot more likely that the budget cut is going to get reversed. And so yes, like during the the the government shutdowns like yeah, okay, they have traditionally closed some national parks, so people are a little bit inconvenienced. Um it it does seem like they're realizing there may be a better strategy here. But absolutely when it comes to cutting government at all like it's no accident that they start going after US aid which is just this complete racket. It's basically a part of the national security state. It's like the way one of the ways that uh Washington helps kind of ferment um these like revolutions in uh countries that they don't are not particularly friendly with the government on. But of course also on top of that it does a little bit of like getting food and medicine to people that are really needy. And so then when anybody comes in and actually tries to roll some of this back, as they should, they can point to these people that like are in seriously bad conditions and say, "Well, look at this. You're just taking the food right out of these poor people's mouth." So this is a very specific a very important concept to understand for anybody that understands that uh we need to roll back some of this uh this crazy government spending. >> All right. Well, maybe we'll have to come maybe it'll be a week-l long shutdown and we'll have to talk about it more next time. We shall see. But anyway, we'll go ahead and wrap up this episode of the Power and Market podcast. Uh be sure and check out our supporter summit. Uh >> maybe the government will still be closed >> for uh >> for for that. We'd have a lot to talk about there, but uh but our supporter summit in beautiful Delray Beach, Florida is on October 16th through the 18th. We've got all sorts of great things planned for you guys. It's not just a learning event. It's a social event. It's a fun event. Beautiful, beautiful venue there. Again, we'll be there. You can find more about that at mises.org/events. And remember, you can still get your free Hayek book as well. Um giving a been we've given out tens and tens tens of thousands of copies and the government shutdown will not affect that. So, also get your Hayek book at mises.org as well. >> All right. Well, thank you everyone out there for listening. We'll be back next time with more. So, we'll see you then. [Music]