 to understand the base here on American Issues Take Two. I'm Jay Fidel. This is Think Tech, and I'm joined by Tim Apichella, my co-host, and Stephanie Stulldolph, a regular contributor to our show. Thank you for joining us, you guys. Thank you. So here we are trying to figure out what's going on. And yes, it was really terrific that we had some powerful conservative witnesses in Congress before the select committee on January 6th yesterday, and some others from the Department of Justice today. But what is troubling about it, and I wanted to cover this with you guys, is Rusty Bowers, and maybe the others too. He says Trump did bad things to him, made unreasonable, unlawful demands on him, asked him to compromise everything in his life, and he refused to do that because he knew it was wrong. Okay, good, like that. That'll bring a tear to your eye. He was a very good witness. But then, as a postscript, he says, but I vote for him again. Now, this is very troubling, and this is kind of a keyhole into what's going on with the base. They may not like what Trump does, like Bowers, they may not agree with what he does. But at the end of the day, you know, vote for him again, or his, you know, endorses. So I'd like to make some analysis of that today, because I think that is really central in what is going to happen between now and November. So, Tim, your thoughts, you watched it, and you watched it today. Maybe you can update us on, you know, how much that counts, and what it means in our analysis. Thank you, Jay. Well, for I could talk about today, I really have to talk about yesterday, and Rusty Bowers, the secretary, excuse me, the Speaker of the House for Arizona, in a very poignant and eloquent way of describing his faith and his belief in his oath to office, that it's, you know, an oath before God. And he, you know, I actually did bring a tear to my eye that, you know, he felt strongly that the Constitution had some divine inspiration upon it as it was being created. And then he said, under no circumstance could I break my oath to office, no matter how loyal I was to Donald Trump. And under no circumstance would I do so, certainly without any evidence, which they promised to give him. Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump said we have mountains of information and evidence and they never produced it. But if, but let's look at, let's look at Rusty Bowers and what they did to him. I mean, my God, they had a loudspeaker on a task to a truck, roaming through the neighborhoods, his neighborhood, belting out phrases that Rusty Bowers was a pedophile. I mean, day in and day out, you know, how would you like to be called a pedophile in your own neighborhood or that they're harassing his terminally ill daughter who's dying of cancer or they're, you know, trying to pick fights with his neighbors, some with a gun attached to his, you know, holster. These are horrible, horrific things to have happen to you by the person you're loyal to Donald Trump. And yet he stood his ground and he did not, he would not break his faith and break his oath to office. Yet by the end of the hearing, afterwards he said, but I'd still vote for him. Really, after things I've just described, Donald Trump did to him and through, you know, Rudy Giuliani did to him, he's still going to vote for Donald Trump. Should he run for in the 2024 election? Are you kidding me? So what does this tell me? It tells me one of three things. One, which we've talked about in this show before is Donald Trump truly is a cult personality. And as you know, in a cult personality, when you follow him, you, you, you basically check out on all your rational powers, all your thinking, critical thinking powers, you check out on that. And you follow just out of loyalty and you're part of the cult or number two, Russi Bauer's desire to stay in power as Speaker of the House in Arizona is so great that he had to kind of now balance great back to the great fearless leader, Donald Trump. Or last but not least, I think the psychological attraction that we cannot dismiss for all human beings who wish to belong to a group and do not want to be cast aside or be considered or defined outside of that group. And I'll tell you right now, GOP group is a lot stronger and their identity is a 10 times stronger than any democratic identity. They don't call it identity politics or nothing. And the GOP has a monopoly on, on walking in lockstep and staying on the points, you know, talking points. So I think it's one of three things. And I, I, I cannot explain Russi Bauer's behavior other than what I just mentioned, why he would want to have Donald Trump back as President of the United States. Thank, thank you, Tim. You know, it reminds me of a couple of things. One is, you know, there's a phenomenon in psychology where if you are in prison, and you're, you're guard, you're interrogator does terrible things to you. You actually start forming a relationship with that person over time. And you admire him and you actually have a kind of affectionate relationship. I'm not sure why that happens, but that's called a comb syndrome. Why don't you describe that to us? Well, you just did. Well, number one, Stockholm syndrome takes place because you're in such fear for your own safety. And so you try to ingratiate yourself with your captor. And you do so any way you can, you start talking about your family, you start talking about their family, and you try to form a relationship and unbeknownst to you, you become persuaded by that your captor, that their cause and their mission is right. And you are not right. And you start, I'm thinking of Patty Hearst was where the Stockholm syndrome term came from during her kidnapping. And it is just that it's a transformation. It's a brainwashing of your ideas for those who have captured you. Okay, and I'm also thinking of a phenomenon that I have seen in talking with somebody I know to be a Trumper. And, you know, he said to me in the course of the conversation, trying to convince me that, you know, Trump was a good person and worthy and so forth. He said, quote, would you rather have Hillary Clinton as your president? And my answer to that was, of course, I would. Of course, I would. Absolutely. But what he was playing on is this notion of moral assassination and repetition of that assassination. And I think it's part of this, this cult thing you describe. If you keep on running someone down, and you repeat that, and you have your acolytes, repeat that over and over again, then, you know, a group at the receiving end begins to think that Hillary Clinton is a bad person, even though there's no evidence of that. So I think that's part of it too. What troubles me, Stephanie, is at the end of the day, if I'm an ordinary Joe Blow watching Rusty Bowers yesterday, I come away with, you know, his analysis, which is, yeah, Trump did some things personally, because he was on the phone with me personally, asking me to do this, that, and the other thing. And he was wrong, dead wrong. And then he caused his, you know, his base to attack me and my family and my friends and call me names. And even when my sister daughter was dying, really gross things. But after all those gross things, gross things, I'm going to vote for him. And what is the message then to the base that is watching? I mean, even assuming they are watching, because it's not clear the base is watching these hearings. The message is, you know, he did some bad things, but you should still vote for him like me. Because at the end of the day, there's nobody better than him. He can fix it. He alone can save us. This sort of really bizarre, twisted thinking. So do you agree with that, Stephanie? What do you think the ultimate effect is of Rusty Bowers testimony on the base? Well, I'm most grateful. Thank you for the complicated question, Jay. It's a considerable question and one that we all are grappling with, I'm sure. I mean, I am and I have a great deal of respect for Rusty Bowers, as you and Tim have commented on. And he's an upstanding person and a major leader for the state and therefore for the country. But as far as his and we are dead and deaded to him because he put, he did not go along with it. So he is a moral man and knew where he drew his line and he acted on it. So these other questions have to do with some of the other foibles that humans have to cope with. And I guess we call them now today's psychological personalities. I mean, we've got people who are narcissists. Now, with the Rusty Bower, if that's an indicator of narcissism, or if he's about being an idealist, like Plato's ideals and that the most important thing to him, of course, in addition to the things he told us about in his point of speech, is that, you know, his idealism is such that the Republican Party is overriding who it is that is that the foibles of the nominee and so some shortcomings in the nominee would not necessarily preclude him from going with what the party says is their their choice and what the party wants people to align with. So so there's there's that kind of affiliation kinds of things going on. And as I Tim alluded to that early and also being an insider and not being locked out of the group. But yes, he we're dealing with some psychology that has been demonstrated. And I, I kind of lost myself on exactly what your question was. Let me go a step further. Now, you have talked to us about education many times on this program. And you have suggested that if we could only educate the people in the base, then they would use their critical thinking. And they would, you know, not not not support Trump, or the things that Trump is doing to destroy the democracy. But but the reality is, you so often see these legislators, these people in positions of power, who, who are very well educated lawyers, who are well informed about the Constitution, about democracy, about the free and fair voting, and so forth. And yet, they come out for Trump. Now, this is an unfair question. But I, I, I don't think that education is always, you know, the solution. You could educate them at Harvard and Yale and still find out that they they they don't make it to a logical conclusion. So how do you feel about that, Stephanie? I mean, are we still on the right track by suggesting a new look at education would help? And of course, education doesn't help right away. It takes decades for it to sink in whatever it is. But are we are we really will we really benefit by a new look at education? Well, we'll take that that is just a fabulous question. As I've been watching and thinking about things through this along those lines, and here emerge Holley's from the con from Harvard and Harvard has many graduates that have been participating this on what we believe is the wrong side of the one that is denying democracy. And Eastman, the lawyer who came up with the whole plan that Trump followed, he's a University of Chicago lawyer. Oh, there's been guys from Yale. Actually, and so, you know, I so it's led me to really think about this. This is really important. And so it turns out that some of the things I was thinking about initially with the way Trump has leashed or unleashed the the part of America that I have maintained is not really part of the population in America that I've maintained hasn't really been enfranchised over the decades. And those are the people that are in Trump's base. And so a lot of those people I mean, they they have been the data has said some are not college graduates and also they're not employed, you know, that what are they doing that they're very interested in their own ways of life that are in cultural sub context, you know, around the nation and out of the, you know, Ruby Ridge kind of thing and the, you know, the places in the states where people are pretty extreme and in in enacting their beliefs. So there's a lot of that that we're not taking into account. And what Trump has done for us brought all those people up and into his base, and they're going to support him. And that's what he knew that's still 3040% of the country at least. Well, let me jump in on that point, Jay, if I may. Let me just make one more point and tie it back to the first part of the question, which is I've come to see that. No, it's not that no college degree. It's just as you said, Jay, is that, you know, everybody is a lot, it, you know, has the same chance of falling into this depending on their makeup and their values and their ethics and their morals. Not me, not me, Stephanie, and not you and not Tim. Tim, what did you want to add to that? I wanted to add this. I mean, even Governor Newsom has jumped in on this very issue. And that is the Democrats have lost the culture war. Thanks to Fox channel, I won't call him Fox News anymore. Thanks to Fox channel Trump and his ability to pump up cultural wedge issues. He has painted the Democrats as a bunch of socialists, a bunch of woke, be wanting members of society. And that's not where America wants to go. And he's painted Democrats in a very, very negative light. And guess what? It worked. It has worked completely. And until we address the cultural issues that are being painted against the Democrats, these so called very well educated people are going to vote for Trump because they don't want to be associated with the negativity that has been painted upon Democrats. And until we address that, we will continue to lose. We're going to lose seats in the house. We're going to lose seats in the Senate. And until we start standing up on the cultural issues, as Governor Newsom suggests we should, and he's right, we will continue to be defeated. So why are people still hanging onto Trump? Because he's won them on cultural issues. And those are those are what? Well, number one, okay, let's go down the line. You know, stop taking away statutes in the South because you some woke thinks it's inappropriate and quit taking away our statues. Stop teaching. And it doesn't happen. But critical race theory in school, again, a wedge issue that never took place, but is now understood has taken place everywhere in America. So there's the power of propaganda. Stop taking away our rights to own guns. Again, no one's saying you can't own a gun. But again, that's been painted so beautifully and masterfully against Democrats that they want to take away your guns. So those are just three very quick examples of how the Democrats have completely lost the cultural war. Yeah, somehow this relates back to the thing I was saying about Hillary Clinton, you know, moral assassination of not one person, but a number of people and a number of cultural concepts, if you will, keep doing it, you keep doing it. And after a while, people begin to question, you know, I have a friend just like your friend, Jay. And he admitted, yeah, we trampled all over the Constitution. But what's more important, that or getting rid of Joe Biden? And that's a direct quote. And as a friend, I respect and I like, but he acknowledged that over 245 years of a free, a fair election and the transfer of power be damned if it gets rid of Joe Biden, so be it. Wow. Okay, all right. Now, fortunately, I just have to say this because finally, actually in an interview, the Fed chair and Janet Yellen, they were actually asked, what does the president have to do with inflation? And they both said nothing. Nothing. Nothing he can do about that. What does that president have to do with the stock market going down? Perfect example, Stephanie, of how that has been painted against Democrats and Joe Biden. I couldn't have that. It is the perfect example of losing a culture war. And they had no trouble answering that question. I was such so grateful and I haven't seen it on the loop. It should be on a loop because that's a part, I guess that's what's drawn me to the education part of it because we should know that. But of course, none of us know that. But you have to remember Chairman Powell and Yellen, they're woke. Yeah, right. They've been attacked and their credibility has been undermined and so forth. Yeah, this reminds me of a comment that I heard this morning, an hour ago, on today's proceedings in the select committee. This fellow, Jeffrey Rosen, who Trump was endearing himself to elevating and making him, for a time, the acting attorney general after Barr's resignation, which I question that resignation, by the way. I mean, the bona fides of it, the intention, the sincerity, the genuineness of it. But anyway, and this whole discussion was what in the world does Jeffrey Rosen know about, what was the subject you recall? The subject they were asking him about. I guess it was voting. Yeah, it was about the the accuracy of the vote count. It was about free and fair voting. And in his job in the Department of Justice, then he was down several levels. He had nothing to do with voting, nothing at all to do with this issue, never investigated it, never charged with anything. And it was like a whole, it was a lie to use him, to elevate him. And it's sort of the reverse of talking stink about Hillary Clinton, as you take somebody who is absolutely unqualified and you elevate that person. The other thing that comes to mind is Deborah Bricks, is it? Deborah Bricks was really quiet like a mouse, sitting on the sidelines while Trump was talking about using bleach as a way to deal with COVID. And she never said anything. She knew it was wrong. Only now, really, is she coming out about that. It's just so interesting. And it goes back to Ann Applebaum's article about how this evolved in Eastern Europe after World War II. People were just simply afraid, they were cowed. Okay, but here I want to go to another question to both of you. Tim, let me pose it to you first. We are going to see, including right now, as we speak at this very moment, new evidence coming out against Trump. Evidence we haven't seen before. Evidence is just as shocking as yesterday, just as shocking as last week. Evidence of bad acting, evidence of criminal conduct. We talked about this on your show yesterday. To me, Trump was engaged in felonious criminal conduct and I see that beyond a reasonable doubt. I think he should be tried and convicted and sent to jail. That's just my view. You probably don't want to put me on the jury after I've said that. But there's going to be more evidence that comes out from this committee, from the press, over the next few months. And the question I put to you is, now that we know what Rusty Bowers is saying, now that we understand a little more about how the base reacts through information about evidence, about how Trump conducted himself in this and violated the law, what can happen, what will happen when the evidence mounts up further? There's every indication that it will. And then we'll find out stuff about him that makes him the central conspirator, the traitor who tried to bring our government down. How will the base react to that? Well, it's the old mantra, if not this, then if this isn't worthy of an indictment and prosecution, then what will it take? And I'm afraid of the message that occurs if they don't indict Donald Trump, what future senators and future House representatives, it's going to be a free-for-all for their ability to say, well, I could break the law and no one's going to do a darn thing to me. But I understand that the DOJ, a president's never been pursued criminally before. So I understand that if you're going to go up to bat, you better be 99.8% sure that you're going to get a conviction. And if you're at 80% or 90%, maybe you don't take that risk. Well, Jay, can I just say that there's another issue here coming from my viewing of the hearings today. There are so many that are complicit here, even though these Republicans who are in, testifying right now, live and on tape, and are being cheered on and gratitude is given for their heroism. But there have been those that have made the point that Pence should not be lionized or considered a hero for what he did, because he did, he finally did the right thing at the last moment. But what was wrong with telling somebody about this on December the 6th when he knew that train was coming down the track on him? He knew that. And so I'm sitting there today listening to these guys again. And it's the same thing here, the entire White House. In my mind, I thought those guys were all complicit. Now these are not the uneducated, not the ones without jobs. These are the highly educated lawyers and very successful and competent people. And they were all in the midst of this mess developing. They could see the train coming down the track and yet not one of them peeped up. Not one came out and did their duty, even though they were talking about it at the Department of Justice, they all knew and they were all working even together to try and convince Trump that he didn't have a case. But they never informed the public or informed the media or gave anything out to this. Meanwhile, the media is just running around picking up on the Italian problems and the spaceships and the machines that weren't working on much lower level kind of evidence. And then you end up. So I think the Justice Department has so many people to pick from. They've got a smorgasbord. You saw the article about how, for the first time, Eric Garland was actually calling witnesses who might in his investigation, DOJ investigation, who might testify against Trump. First time it was in the paper yesterday, I think. Does this give you some comfort? Did anybody step up? I didn't see the article. I don't know who the witnesses are. And I don't know if anybody stepped up or they have to now because they're on tape. OK, so he's got you don't know exactly what he has to require them to appear. And remember, in the past, he you know, he's been really soft about pursuing contempt charges against a number of witnesses who didn't show up in Congress. Presumably, he'll be stronger if it's his own his own subpoena. Although to me, I don't know what the difference is between his subpoena and a congressional subpoena. But does this give you any comfort? Any solace? What about you, Tim? Does this mean anything that now after a year and a half Eric Garland is stepping up and subpoenaing witnesses in his investigation of what trumped it? Well, I kind of answered that in the last thing. I think there's a lot of being he's being very timid because he doesn't know if he has a slam dunk prosecution. And until he can get to that point of confidence, I think we're going to see more timidity from Merrick Garland. I think he's now feeling a little bit emboldened from what not only what he's seen and his fellow prosecutors are seen, but also now public opinion polls are starting to increase thinking Donald Trump has done something wrong. And I think that helps the Department of Justice to move forward. How much confidence do you have? This is all going to mean something. Because what we've discovered today is that not only do you have a base that continues to like Trump and Trump's endorses, but you have people like powers who will vote for him again, even though they're moderate Republicans. And they have a certain amount of influence on people. So it's like two bases. One base is the unwashed uninformed and the other base is the guys who were in positions of power and who still would vote for Trump. Are they going to change their minds because of additional evidence that comes in in these hearings or possibly in Merrick Garland's hearings? Are they going to change their minds? Because right now, it seems to me, we have a major problem in terms of the public opinion in this country. This country is in a state of divisiveness and a half or maybe more or less than half are completely dead wrong about how we preserve our democracy. Is all of this going to make a Philippines difference when they're all hypnotized in this cult you talk about? Well, it better, Jay. It better. Because the Department of Justice is one of the many spokes of the wheel of our democracy. And there's not much holding our democracy together, it seems like. I mean, look at Congress. I mean, it's completely stymied by the filibuster. So nothing as John McCain appropriately said, nothing's getting done. So we were in gridlock when it comes to passage of bills that help society, that help the common man. That's done. It's not happening. So what's left? Well, when you see these crimes perpetrated against the democracy, against the Constitution, you're relying on one of the spokes, one of the wheel, a critical part of a spoke to the wheel. And if this is not followed upon and acted upon, I'm afraid there's going to be a lot of dismay and discouragement and lack of confidence for our so-called democracy. And I'm one of them. If there are no indictments against Donald Trump, I'm going to say what has happened to our democracy and will it survive? Yeah. Well, and today we had this ridiculous decision by Clarence Thomas about the New York, I think it's the Sullivan law, so you can't carry a handgun. That's been the law of New York for a long time. 100 years. And now they blew it away. Incredible. The Supreme Court, the Supreme Court is broken. Congress is broken. And maybe a lot of the government is broken. Well, your last agency that needs to keep it together is the Department of Justice. You're right. Well, the other thing that's going to keep it together is that there is 60% that are on this other side. We're among the 60%, okay? Or maybe more. So I think that as people begin to see what was going on in the backdrop and that it was purely evil, these people, you know, denouncing their... Is there any indication of that, Stephanie? Well, I think that we're going to have it in the votes because people are going to realize that's what I wake up and hear about New York's gun laws in the whole country now, everybody. You don't know where you're going to get shot now. And by that and with that, I think all protective grace, they give people... All that ought to be removed from everybody. Nobody... None of these people get protected. The Supreme Court people at their houses, no protection. You're on your own. You want everybody with the gun? You're there, out there with... Well, I mean, a lot of people feel we're going to have violence here one way or the other because... Yeah, and let them have it. Don't say that. That could be a surprise for all of us. Well, yeah, but I do think that people are going to get riled up and that we are going to get some people to come around and be more open. But the group that we're in isn't always... They're not paying attention because they have jobs and they're working and they're making money. They're not taking it seriously. That's what Tim is saying. They're not taking it seriously. Let me go to my last point of inquiry with you. Trump may not win. He may not run. There are legal reasons that may bar him from running. Section 3, the 14th Amendment, for example. And people may not think that politically he's the best candidate. But we could have another kind of Trump. And whether we have another kind of Trump in the White House, we still have the base. And Trump's influence on the base. As long as he lives, he will have that influence. So what happens if the base is unconvinced by this evidence? What happens in the election? You already kind of answered this, Stephanie, but I'm asking him really the same thing. What happens in November? What happens in 2024? What happens to the country in terms of the vision of the public, of the electorate, the divisiveness, the culture wars? What happens if the base just doesn't buy this result or this evidence that's coming out in the select committee? Well, nothing happens if they win. If they don't win, which I think what you're trying to pollute to, is I think you'll see more challenges at the state houses. I see people showing up now with their new founded Supreme Court decision of packing weapons at their holster and entering into state legislatures, various government agencies, and strutting their stuff that I'm allowed to pack. And by the way, the fact that I'm packing means I have power. So you better listen to me. And you better listen to my crazy ideas about what government should be and how I should be served as a grievance ridden individual. And you better start paying attention to me. Oh, you don't want to pay attention to me? Watch this. Yeah, well, that's kind of what I was getting at, because if Trump wins this thing, either this fall or 2024, it's a kind of mandate, it's an affirmation that he is right. And his base is going to be all the more supportive of him. And the possibility of another insurrection is all the greater. It's like an echo chamber in which these very bizarre QAnon visions and theories about government in the country have have greatest support. I worry about that a lot. It will not be the same as it was in his administration. He has learned his base, they have learned, and they will be trying to be more successful than they were in bringing the house down. Stephanie, so you want to reconsider your thought, your optimistic thought about November? Well, remember that the win that not only Trump, you know, the interest is going away from Trump. They are reporting that he's lowering, his approval ratings are lowering, or the fascination is off. And so he's starting to decline in that kind of allegiance. But remember that the Republicans have managed to get all of these things to happen to voting. So we're gerrymandered and precluded from getting to the polls because there aren't any or whatever or mailing in because we're not having. Anyway, so all of that's going to be a factor too. So I'm just saying that your point about the Trump is really, really good, but he's starting to fade. And I'm hearing this from a number of places that he is starting to fade. And that goes along with the comment that Liz Cheney said, you know, that eventually he's going to be gone. And then they're going to just be left with dishonor. But other things are going to happen like there's Stacey Abrams, she's getting strong. And then this whole Yuvaldi shooting thing with the governor down in Texas has also opened up maybe the door for some changes. So these are some pretty rock rock hard changes didn't happen in the Senate, though that bill is is the lukewarm. Yeah, but but I mean for camp, you know, camp is vulnerable and the other got the Texan. Bebo. Yeah. Yeah, no, Abbott is vulnerable, as is a camp. Both of them are starting to be, you know, eroded in. Okay, we're into we're into final final comments now. Let's see. Oh, we have a viewer question. Let me open it. I can read it. What about pursuing the 14th Amendment section three as a more reliable way to keep him from holding office again, and possibly applying to other election deniers that are on the ballot for applying that the 14th Amendment section three to other election deniers on the ballot. Well, Tim, you and I have discussed this many times. What is your thought about whether that's a viable option? No, the question is, can you proactively prevent Donald Trump from running for office if he hasn't announced his candidacy? And if the answer is yes, then by all means do it. Jane, I've talked about I'm about ready to run for president because I'd like to be at the first act of my candidacy is to attack Trump on the 14th Amendment paragraph three, which I think now is enough evidence to say you shall be denied office. What is that evidence, Tim? Everything that the House Select Committee is coming up with. There is more than enough evidence to say that Donald Trump was up to his neck in conspiracy of sedition. Okay. He doesn't have to be indicted for that. No, I don't think so. Okay. Well, it's that's the question. It's the question to them in section three is there's others that have been denied office in the past that were not convicted. Okay, so you guys were out of time. I love this conversation, but we're not finished with it. It's an ongoing thing, the evidence coming in, the reaction of the base, the reaction of the country in general. And of course, the reaction of the courts, however, however ineffective they may be. We are really swimming in deep water here, and we'll continue this conversation. And Tim, I want to be clear about this. I will support you for president, and I will speak to Stephanie about doing the same. Tim Apachele, Stephanie Stodolton, here on American Issues Take Two. You heard it here first. Aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn, and donate to us at thinktechawaii.com. Mahalo.