Transcript: Donald Trump: Evaluation of the First 30 Days

 

Date of recording: February 27, 2024, The Savvy Street Show

Host: Vinay Kolhatkar. Guests: Ruth Papazian, David Harriman, Ed Mazlish, Roger Bissell.

 

For those who prefer to watch the video, it is here.

Editor’s Note: The Savvy Street Show’s AI-generated transcripts are edited for removal of repetitions and pause terms and for grammar and clarity. Explanatory references are added in parentheses. Material edits are advised to the reader as edits [in square brackets].

 

Summary

In this episode of The Savvy Street Show, an expert political panel discusses the recent executive orders issued by Trump, their implications on various policies including energy and foreign relations, and the Ukraine and Gaza conflicts.

The panelists express their views on Trump’s approach to governance, the significance of energy independence, and the potential for a new order that could reshape global power dynamics, taking into account the roles of China and Iran. They explore the significance of rare-earth minerals, the concept of civilizational self-confidence, and the potential for Canada and Greenland to play pivotal roles in US strategy. The discussion also touches on the controversial topic of presidential pardons and their implications for political accountability. The conversation delves into various political themes, including the accountability of public figures through congressional hearings, the implications of pardons and the separation of powers, and the concept of truth trials. The discussion also touches on the importance of speedy trials, constitutional rights regarding presidential powers, and the political dynamics of spreading the MAGA movement beyond the White House. The participants briefly express their views on cabinet appointments.

 

Takeaways

1. Ruth Papazian and Roger Bissell emphasize the speed and number of executive orders.
2. Ed Mazlish highlights the importance of the DOGE executive order.
3. David Harriman discusses the transformative potential of energy policy.
4. The panel agrees that Trump’s approach to foreign policy is unique.
5. The panelists believe Trump would have prevented the Ukraine war.
6. Papazian mentions the significance of rare-earth minerals in national security.
7. The discussion touches on the need for a new geo-political power structure that contains China’s influence.
8. The host expressed skepticism about Zelensky’s reliability.
9. China’s Belt and Road Initiative poses a threat to US interests.
10. Trump’s vision includes restoring US dominance as a global superpower.
11. Civilizational self-confidence is crucial for Western nations.
12. Rare-earth minerals are vital for national security and economic strategy.
13. Canada’s trade dynamics with the US could shift under pressure.
14. Greenland’s resources could be strategically beneficial for the US.
15. Pardons do not undermine the rule of law in the US.
16. Limits on government punishment are generally beneficial.

 

Sound Bites

1. “DOGE is definitely the star of the show.”
2. “Energy is the lifeblood of civilization.”
3. “The Left had an opportunity to stop this war.”
4. “Greenland could become the 51st state.”
5. “Trump’s ideas shake up the status quo.”
6. “Canada has significant rare-earth reserves.”
7. “It’s better that 10 guilty go free [than one innocent prosecuted].”
8. “Fauci committed perjury in front of Congress.”
9. “I think Vivek Ramaswamy has a good chance of winning [the Ohio governorship].”
10. “I’m most thrilled by RFK Jr’s appointment.”

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Good evening and welcome back to The Savvy Street Show. We have our political panel yet again, and if you recall, they’re the ones who perfectly forecasted the 2024 election results, and, post-election, we had a pretty good session as well on the initial appointments that Donald Trump had announced.

So, first up, I have Ruth Papazian. She is an award-winning writer who became a political consultant to help centrist Democrats unseat the leftist ones. Welcome back, Ruth.

 

Ruth Papazian:

Thank you. I am thrilled to be with all of you tonight!

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

That’s great. We have Ed Mazlish, who ran for political office in New Jersey, and in 2016, he was a delegate for the presidential candidate at the time, Ted Cruz. Welcome back, Ed.

 

Ed Mazlish:

Thanks, happy to be here. Good to see you all.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Okay, and we have Roger Bissell who is a philosopher and a political libertarian. He unsuccessfully ran for the US House of Representatives in 1976. Welcome back, Roger.

 

Roger Bissell:

Oh, I think it was very successful. I didn’t win. That’s the success. Thank you. Good to be here.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Thank you. That was a bio supplied by you, by the way. And last but not the least, we have David Harriman who is a physicist and author, and he brings the perspective of Ayn Rand’s philosophy to politics. Welcome back, David.

 

David Harriman:

Oh, thanks for having me on.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Okay, let’s jump in. It’s been a little bit more than 30 days. Started with a lot of executive orders (EOs). I think the first one was about restoring freedom of speech, but then there were three in a row on education, and I was absolutely thrilled by that. Pretty much all of them are thrilling except one [sovereign wealth fund], but let’s go to Ed first. Which EO thrilled you the most and are there any so far that you were not expecting, any that you were disappointed by?

 

Ed Mazlish:

I would say that the DOGE executive order is the best one. Musk and his team are exposing a vast money laundering program that’s taking money from the taxpayers, funneling it through third-world governments, and money disappears.

I feel like it’s Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner and everything looks good. And if I had to pick one that I thought was the best, it’s a hard call because there are so many that are so good. But I think I would say that the DOGE executive order is the best one. The free speech stuff sounds really good, but those are really just directions to the executive branch that can be reversed going forward. It really needs congressional legislation. But what DOGE is doing, we can already see, a month in, how much fraud and abuse they’re finding. I’m not even going to say waste because I don’t even think it’s waste. I think it’s fraud and abuse. I think that Musk and his team are exposing a vast money laundering program that’s taking money from the taxpayers, funneling it through third-world governments and NGOs, and money disappears. We learned in the last week or so that Zelensky can’t account for about $100 billion that the US gave him. I have no doubt that that money wound up back in the pockets of the politicians who voted to send it to him, and Musk is revealing that. I would say that if I had to pick one executive order that I love the most, it would be the DOGE executive order.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Okay, Ruth?

 

Ruth Papazian:

Well, the number and speed of the EOs is breathtaking. If this were a movie, it would be Trump-Part Deux, with a Vengeance. So, in preparing for the show today, I went back to our [previous to the] last podcast, which was just before Election Day, to review my Day One wishes. So that was withdrawal from the WHO and the Paris Accords, check; restart permits for Keystone Pipeline and other pipelines, check; pardon the J-6 political prisoners, check; reinstate Stay in Mexico, check; resume construction of the wall, check; deport criminal aliens and those with fraudulent asylum claims, check. So, it’s all thrilling. But if that wasn’t thrilling enough, then Trump did exceed my expectations with the creation of DOGE, as Ed mentioned. Also, rescinding rules and regulations and actions by the DOJ and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that restrict our Second Amendment rights. And of course, just keeping biological men and boys out of women’s sports. And that one was actually preceded by making the official policy of the United States to recognize just two sexes, male and female. Like Ed said, it’s Thanksgiving, Christmas, Fourth of July, everything all rolled into one.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Okay. Roger, any single one?

 

Roger Bissell:

Sure. DOGE is definitely the star of the show. I liked it a lot. Ayn Rand had a word for the people who are squealing and complaining, and it was “looters.” The looters have been caught. And when you hear people in the Republican party clutching their hankies about, oh, I don’t know if this is a good idea, well, you can probably figure that they are not far from being exposed themselves. I agree with Ruth that what excited me a lot about his executive orders was just the sheer number of them. Steve Bannon said that he was flooding the zone with, I’ll say “crap” because we may have a censor here, but he was flooding the zone with these things. Well, what have they been doing to him for the last eight years? They’ve been flooding the zone with attacks on Trump, and I don’t have to go through the litany. We’ve all talked about it before, and so this is a counterattack, a very strong, vigorous counterattack, and it’s overwhelming the Left. It’s putting them severely off balance, which they richly deserve. The other thing that excites me about these executive orders is that so many of them are already leading to court challenges. You might say, “Oh, they’ll stop Trump now.” No, it’s almost like Brer Rabbit in The Song of the South, which some of you may not have seen: “Don’t throw me in that briar patch,” which is exactly what he wanted. He wanted to be thrown in the briar patch because then they couldn’t get him. Well, go to court. Okay. I think the Supreme Court is going to come through on at least some of these. They have some longstanding, bad legal precedents that are going to be revisited, and some of them may be ripe for overturning, and we’ll have to see. But in general, this is stuff that Trump campaigned on, and so it’s promises made, promises kept, and not just empty promises, because I think the Court is going to back them up on this.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Great. David?

 

David Harriman:

One issue that is going to be really transformative for this country is the energy issue, because energy is the lifeblood of civilization. Trump is shutting down this nonsense about climate hysteria, and we’re going to get back to producing our own energy. Trump is fighting for freedom.

I’m astounded at how well this thing was planned. I mean, all these things were written in advance, and he was ready to go on Day One, and the speed at which he’s moved is beyond anything I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. I mean, way beyond. Now, if you want me to pick out one issue that I think is going to be really transformative for this country, it’s the energy issue because energy is the lifeblood of civilization, and the Left had launched a full-out attack against it. Trump is taking the exact opposite view. He’s shutting down this nonsense about climate hysteria. “Drill, baby, drill.” And we’re going to get back to producing our own energy. We’re lucky, in the sense that the United States has more energy resources than almost any country in the world. Saudi Arabia and Russia maybe can rival us, but we have an amazing amount. We can be not only independent, but energy exporters, if we just free up the industry, and that would make a huge change in our economics, in our standard of living. Trump is fighting for freedom. He got shot that one time. He stood up, put his fist in the air, and said “fight.” That’s what he’s doing. So, he’s not going to back down.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Excellent. I’m going to move now to US foreign policy, particularly two very big issues, but we’ll start with Ukraine. Ayn Rand had a huge, paragraph-after-paragraph [invective] against the draft. Unfortunately, it’s not just Ukraine. Russia and several European countries have a draft, Ukraine’s from age 25, Biden tried to [get them to] reduce it to age 18. They were dragging people, kicking and screaming, into the army. They have banned anyone between the age of 18 and 60 from even leaving the country. I’ll start with Roger on that one. What’s your view of the Ukraine-Russia war and more particularly of how Trump has reacted to it?

 

Roger Bissell:

If you want to bring someone to the peace table, the last thing you do is publicly condemn or humiliate them. It does not move the process forward to tell Putin what a rotten SOB he is. It doesn’t work in psychotherapy or in marital counseling or in peace negotiating.

Well, what concerns me currently about all of that, and it’s a very interesting issue for a number of reasons, is all this posturing that’s being done by the UN and by the Beltway crowd. I mean people at Cato Institute and people on the Wall Street Journal and so on. The UN’s vote to condemn Putin may be just virtue signaling, but I suspect it’s also an attempt to undercut what Trump is trying to do. They want him to fail. They want to get rid of him, as the saying goes, “by any means necessary.” He’s trying to make a deal. That’s his thing, to make deals, and I see a lot of resistance to that. I see a lot of people wanting the war to continue. Now, if you want to bring someone to the peace table, there’s a basic rule. The last thing you do is publicly condemn or humiliate them. I know some people say, Putin doesn’t care because he’s a sociopath and nothing’s going to faze him and he’ll do what he’s going to do, and it doesn’t matter [what you say about him]. Well, it does matter. Anything that undercuts Trump undercuts Trump’s flexibility and credibility for driving this negotiation process. It does not move the process forward to tell Putin what a rotten SOB he is. It doesn’t work in psychotherapy. It doesn’t work in marital counseling, and it doesn’t work for peace negotiating. You just don’t do that. I think the timing is extremely suspicious. As they say, timing is everything. In this case, this big virtue signal by the UN is more than a day late and a dollar short. Where were they three years ago? Two years ago, one year ago? Why now? Well, the reason now is that Trump is trying to get something done, and they don’t want him to succeed. I know I’m mind reading, but their minds are pretty easy to read. I think it’s just disingenuous, it’s a coverup. I know there are a lot of innocent, well-meaning people who don’t realize that they’re shooting Ukraine and themselves in the foot, but I just say, look more closely behind the scenes. It’s like in The Wizard of Oz. Who’s pulling your strings? Don’t play into their hands. Look behind the curtain while we still have time to get clear about what’s going on.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

I saw David nodding his head. I was disappointed a little bit in the way Trump abused Zelensky, but most of it is going to come out all right. Somewhere between 200 and 500 billion dollars of rare-earth minerals. So, let’s move to David.

 

David Harriman:

I don’t think this Russia-Ukraine war should ever have started, and I don’t think there was ever any reason for it. If Trump had been president, it never would have started. And this is one of the first things people need to understand. The Left had an opportunity to stop this war at the very beginning. If you look back at Putin’s demands, they really weren’t unreasonable. He did not want Ukraine to join NATO. Well, I’m not sure Ukraine deserves to be in NATO. He didn’t want Ukraine to take Crimea. Well, nobody in Crimea wants Ukraine to take Crimea. He didn’t want Ukraine to have dangerous weapons that could be used against Russia. Well, okay, and we were helping them develop those weapons. So, this war could have been shut down right at the beginning, and the Left—Biden being their puppet—refused to do that. If Trump had been president in 2020, the way he should have been, there’s no way this war ever would have started. The same goes true for the war in the Middle East. So, we have two horrible wars going on right now. Neither one of them ever would have happened if Trump had been in the White House.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Ed?

 

Ed Mazlish:

Well, building on what David said, of course the war wouldn’t have started had Trump been president. The war started because Kamala Harris, at Biden’s urging or Biden’s approval, said that Ukraine could join NATO, or that that’s something that we could consider, and that was a red line for Putin. Putin had signaled it was a red line, and he invaded I think it was five days later. Also, building on what David said, not only did Biden and the Left have the opportunity to stop this war at the beginning, they had two-and-a-half, almost three, years to stop it once it started. They did nothing. All they did was throw more fuel on the fire.

 

David Harriman:

Including blowing up the pipeline, right?

 

Ed Mazlish:

Including blowing up the pipeline, that’s right. They did everything they could to make this war bloodier, longer, and just more deadly.

As far as Trump’s policy is concerned, I think one of the really interesting things that’s happened since Trump became president is that they accuse him of trying to run the government like a business, and in the case of this Ukraine minerals deal, it’s almost the reverse. In business, if Biden made a crappy deal, you’re stuck with it. You sign a contract, if it’s a bad deal, you’re stuck. But when it’s governments.… Trump is acting like a statesman. He’s acting like a diplomat. Ukraine has no leverage. They have no bargaining power. Russia has bargaining power in these negotiations, and the United States has negotiating power in these negotiations, and Trump is using that leverage to say, no, no, you don’t go and repay as loans the money that the Europeans gave you and just take our money and not give us anything back. We’re going to renegotiate that. That’s more of a government, sort of realpolitik kind of move than a businessman’s move. A businessman would be stuck with the bad deal that his predecessor made [executed by a corporate entity], and that’s just not the case here, and I find that really interesting.

I think that Zelensky needs to be taken down not just one peg, but multiple pegs. The guy is a dictator. The guy hasn’t had elections. The guy is imprisoning political opponents. He’s had martial law since the war started. This guy is not Thomas Jefferson.

As far as humiliating your opponent, I think that when Trump humiliated Zelensky, it was proper and good and borderline necessary. Zelensky has this inflated view of what he’s entitled to and what he can get. He’s not taking any responsibility, for even today he continues to offer to join NATO, completely ignoring the fact that that’s the primary cause of the war in the first place. I think when Trump humiliated him and said, you’re not going to get these things, and when Trump called him names…I think that Zelensky needs to be taken down not just one peg, but multiple pegs. The guy is a dictator. The guy hasn’t had elections. The guy is imprisoning political opponents. He’s had martial law since the war started. This guy is not Thomas Jefferson, and I’m glad that Trump is willing to say that. [Editor’s note: the above comments were made a day prior to the White House meeting in which President Trump and Vice President Vance put Zelensky in his place.]

 

Roger Bissell:

Let me just piggyback on that about the mineral rights and all that. You talked, Ed, about what a statesman Trump is being, I think it’s genius [at work]. When they’re wondering, how are we going to have peacekeeping forces in there? Are there going to have to be troops on the ground? Trump says, no, no, we’re just going to have an American business in there, working with Ukrainians, pulling out the mineral resources, and Russia is going to leave us alone. It’d be really incredibly stupid for Russia to attack those people in the mineral region, working on those resources. This is perfect. This is like using a non-military security device. It’s brilliant.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

It is indeed, and there is another thesis actually from George Friedman about not specifically why he was trying to not include Zelensky, but what he was trying to do, [which was to] create a New World Order. So, of all the places, he chose Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to meet Putin. Everyone expected he would go to Hungary. And I suspect they discussed Gaza as well besides the mineral deal. And in so far as the mineral deal is concerned, Marco Rubio, and JD Vance has backed him up, together had a conversation with Zelensky a while ago on the minerals, and they both insist he agreed to give them the rare-earth minerals; 49% or whatever the deal is, and then he suddenly backed out. So, he’s not necessarily reliable either, Mr. Zelensky. But the question is, is Trump trying to create a New World Order as such, pivoting to Russia to isolate China, which is kind of seen as a bigger threat, because this new deal will contain Putin once and for all? Or is that just “horses for courses”? Let me start with David.

 

David Harriman:

The idea of our taking over Greenland, making Greenland a state, is brilliant. Remember, Trump used to be a real estate guy. He has that ability to look around the world and make deals that are consistently in the best interests of the United States.

Well, I don’t want to call it New World Order because that already has a connotation that’s pretty bad, right? But is he trying to shift the whole global power alignment? Yes. And I think he’s going to be able to do that. He’s going to use the US leverage in a way that our past leaders have not been using to any advantage. Let me just mention one thing that most people have strongly disagreed with: the idea of our taking over Greenland, making Greenland a state. Okay. I think it’s brilliant. I mean, think about it. Denmark has control of Greenland right now, right? Okay. Greenland is more than four times the size of New York state, and it has a total of 60,000 people living on it. Basically, it’s uninhabited. It has these tremendous resources. Nobody’s using them. And the few people in Greenland would be 10 times better off if Greenland belonged to the United States. So, it’s a win-win, and it’s national security. This is the kind of thing that Trump is doing. Remember, he used to be a real estate guy. He’s looking around the world. He’s saying, this is a total loss for Denmark. It’s a huge plus for us. He has that ability to look around the world and make deals that are consistently in the best interests of the United States.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Okay, let me go to Ruth. We’re sort of combining the previous question and this one, which is on Trump’s strategy for the Ukraine war and whether he’s trying to create a New World Order.

 

Ruth Papazian:

As far as Ukraine goes, Trump wants Europe to take responsibility for Ukraine’s security mostly. And he also wants American taxpayers to get paid back the—what is it now?—$300 billion spent on the Ukraine-Russia war. And it must be said that even Zelensky says he doesn’t know where a huge chunk of it went. So, this rare earth minerals deal that Zelensky will be in Washington tomorrow to formalize, after initially rejecting, that’s about recouping some of our money. He’s using trade as a way to bind Ukraine to us in some sort of a security arrangement, but it’s not going to be boots on the ground. And he signaled that to Europe. He basically said, “Ukraine is your part of the world, you are responsible.”

Now, Trump correctly considers access to rare earth minerals to be a significant national security issue because China has the world’s largest rare-earth reserves. I think it’s something like 44 million metric tons. In comparison, the United States has only 1.9 million metric tons. This is the reason why we rely on China for critical components. They manufacture for the military, medical, consumer technology, because they require these rare earth elements. So, over the course of his term, I do expect Trump to reduce the rare-earths gap with China by cutting deals with Greenland, as well as Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Vietnam, and other countries that have large deposits of these rare earths.

It’s unacceptable that China has actually gotten a foothold in our own hemisphere with roads, bridges, and infrasturcture in the Bahamas, Grenada, Panama, among others. Trump needs to stop this, and calling out Panama for giving China effective control over the canal was a good start.

As far as the New World Order goes, yes, we need one. We need a New World Order that isolates and diminishes China and Iran. Now, for me personally, and I’ve been posting on Facebook about this for years, it’s unacceptable that China has actually gotten a foothold in our own hemisphere with the Belt and Road Initiative that has built roads, bridges, and infrastructure in the Bahamas, Grenada, Panama, among others. This is not a no-strings-attached altruism. China wants ports and military bases in return. Trump needs to stop this, and calling out Panama for giving China effective control over the canal was a good start.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

I’ll move on to Ed. Is this [still] the New World Order, or “horses for courses”?

 

Ed Mazlish:

So much to respond to in all these comments. I like David’s comment about resisting the term New World Order. I won’t use that either. I do think Trump wants to go back in time to when the wall [the Berlin Wall] fell down in 1989, and the Soviet Union fell in 1991, and the US was the unipolar superpower. We were the big guy in town. I think from Trump’s view, every president since that time—from Bush 41 to Clinton to Bush 43 to Obama and then to Biden, skipping over the Trump years—every one of those presidents has been committed to destroying the United States’ preeminent role in the world. I think Trump is seeking to restore the US as the preeminent and unipolar hegemon of the world, like we were when the Wall fell. I think that’s what that’s all about. Having a meeting in Riyadh—I think that’s more about the Gaza proposal and getting Russian support for the Gaza proposal and getting the Saudis on board with it, than it is about including the Saudis in any kind of revision to the world power structure. As far as Greenland, Canada, Panama Canal….

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Okay, we’ll move to that in the next question, if you will. Roger, New World Order or not really?

 

Roger Bissell:

Well, I see this a little more like Ruth does. I think that the real problem we have is with Iran and China. Unfortunately, it’s not just a realpolitik issue. It’s a realeconomik issue [to coin a term]. [It has to do with] the BRICS nations. You’ve got Iran and China in with the Saudis and Russians and so many others. This may be a brilliant move, or it may be just a lucky accident on Trump’s part, but it looks to me like he’s trying to drive a wedge between the Saudis and Russians on one side and Iran and China on the other. Who is involved in the Riyadh discussions? Well, China and Iran, they’re big and powerful and bellicose, but they’re not there. Instead, the Saudis are there, and Russians are there. It’s not just because of oil. I think he doesn’t regard them as inherently adversarial. Everybody says, gosh, no, not adversarial; in fact, Trump is a stooge for Putin. No, he just sees that’s where it makes the most sense for our security to be aligned in all of this setting up [of] the way things are going to be going forward in Ukraine and Israel. Vance’s speech and Stefanik’s speeches that she’s likely going to make to the UN are going to drive the wedge even deeper because they’re both very good speakers. So, if the rare-earth minerals are so vital to our security, and they are, we need to keep Russia closer to us, so that they say, sure, go in there, and you guys can exploit that stuff; that’s fine; we’ll let you do it. Whereas if we’re slapping Putin in the face and saying, you brutal dictator, you brutal monster, he might still say, come on, let’s just make a deal, or he might say, screw you guys. So, I think everything about how Trump is handling the Ukraine thing makes a lot of sense to me.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Instead of an armed peacekeeping force in the Ukraine rare earth minerals area, if you have civilians and businessmen and engineers and workers that are American and British, and they get hit by a drone, it is an attack on our citizens. I don’t think Putin will throw a drone over anywhere near these things ever again.

Okay. There was a point I think Ed made, and you made as well, which is very important, and it had escaped me, I must admit. I wrote about Ukraine, and I wrote about a peacekeeping force, and Sir Keir Starmer as soon as he heard of the minerals deal, he was suddenly, even though he wasn’t invited to the party, saying, “Well, we’ll also provide British troops,” because you know there’s some money in these minerals. But instead of, say, an armed peacekeeping force, if you have civilians and businessmen and engineers and workers that are American, British nationalities…whatever, and they get hit by a drone, it is an attack on our citizens, and that too, not military, on civilians. I don’t think Putin will throw a drone over anywhere near these things ever again.

On Gaza, and we’re moving over to that now, I do think the Saudis are the most critical people, more than Egypt and Jordan. The Gulf countries as a whole, at any given point in time, have 20 million migrant workers, some of whom don’t speak Arabic. And the Gazans are 1.7 million [only]. And 10 out of the 20 million [migrant workers] are in Saudi Arabia, far away in the sense of you can’t have these rocket launches and invade Israel suddenly, because they’re not bordering on Israel. The Gazans speak Arabic, as far as I know. The religion is common, the culture is common. Any Gazan over 16 is likely to find a job in Saudi Arabia. It’s not a burden. They’re actually getting, and they always want, more migrant workers. They house about two million pilgrims during that big festival, the Five Pillars Festival. The two holiest shrines of Islam are in Saudi Arabia.

So, back to Gaza, Greenland, Canada, I want to throw that all into one question. We’ll start with David. Were they diversions? Are they serious? I mean, Canada?

 

David Harriman:

Well, I don’t know how serious he is about Canada. For whatever reason, the people there seem to be more or less, most of them anyway, loyal to Canada and reject being part of the United States. Now, I don’t doubt that they would be better off being part of the United States, but they don’t see it that way, and I don’t think that’s a serious proposal. Greenland, I think, is a fantastic idea for becoming the 51st state. Remember, everybody thought that making Alaska a state was ridiculous back when that happened. It turned out to be one of the best deals in history and the best possible outcome for the Alaskan people. The same thing is true of Greenland. Now, there’s almost no people in Greenland, but the fishing industry is great. They have natural resources. They’re in a strategic location. China and Russia, if they could, wouldn’t mind basing aircraft carriers and submarines off the coast of Greenland, which is very close to our eastern shores, very easy to hit us [from there]. So, it is a national security issue. Better for Greenland, way better for us. Win-win. I’m 100% in favor of that.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Ed?

 

Ed Mazlish:

Well, I’m going to separate out the Gaza piece of the puzzle, because I think that is a separate issue, although it’s also related to the point I want to make, which is: even if the Canada thing is just trolling on Trudeau, even if the Greenland people don’t want to become part of the US, and even in so far as the people of Panama want to enforce the agreement that Carter made and keep the canal themselves, even in so far as none of it is going to happen politically, to me the most important aspect of it is that Trump is asserting civilizational self-confidence. That is something that has been sorely lacking, not just in America but in the West, for a long time. To me, that’s even more important than all the strategic goals that David correctly pointed out. How long have we heard from people on the right that Islam wouldn’t be a threat if only we had civilizational self-confidence? And here we have a guy who is asserting civilizational self-confidence, saying, yes, we are better than Canada, and Canada, you would be better off if you were with us, even if you don’t realize it. That alone makes the whole proposal worthwhile to me.

Trump is asserting civilizational self-confidence and saying, we can fix anything, and we can do anything. That is something that has been sorely lacking, not just in America but in the West, for a long time. To me, that’s even more important than all the strategic goals.

Now, the Gaza proposal, I think, is tangentially related to that, but I think it’s also related to trying to end the wars in the Middle East. Every time there’s a war, we get not peace, but a truce and a ceasefire, which is just a time-out until the war restarts. I think Trump is trying to figure out a way to just end the wars. Vinay, I know that you talked about the Gazans maybe getting jobs in Saudi Arabia. Nobody wants them. The Saudis don’t want them. The Jordanians don’t want them. And there’s a reason for it. It’s not because they’re racist or prejudiced against them. It’s that everywhere these people go, they cause trouble. They caused trouble when they went to Jordan. They caused trouble when they went to Syria. They caused trouble when they went to Lebanon. They are trouble-making people. Trump is saying, we need to get them out of Gaza. We need to get the Saudis and the Jordanians and the Egyptians and others in the in the region invested in a business venture in Gaza.

So, part of it is what I was saying about Greenland and Canada and Panama, namely, that Trump is asserting civilizational self-confidence and saying, we can fix anything, and we can do anything. But part of it is a genuine attempt to try and end the wars there. That’s my take on it.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Okay, Ruth?

 

Ruth Papazian:

Okay, just like Ed, I want to deal with Gaza first because it’s kind of out there, not connected to all the other things. So, first, I just want to say that when Trump said that we’d own it, he didn’t mean we would literally own Gaza. What he meant was we would own the responsibility of ensuring that Gaza is rebuilt without the construction materials being diverted by Hamas to rebuild their tunnels. That’s what I think he meant by that. Now, I think it’s a stroke of genius to encourage the Saudis and other oil-rich Persian Gulf states to do the actual construction. I think that after working on this project together, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar—they might join the Abraham Accords, and Iran’s influence in the region then will be greatly diminished. I think that is part of Trump’s thinking. There’s always layers and layers behind what he says. I mean, what he says sounds sometimes bombastic, sometimes fantastical, but it’s an onion, and when you peel back the layers, you see that there’s depth to his ideas. He has bold and unconventional ideas, and what he’s doing is, he’s shaking up the status quo and expanding the realm of what is possible.

When you peel back the layers, you see that there’s depth to Trump’s ideas. He’s shaking up the status quo and expanding the realm of what is possible. There’s much more to the things that he says and does than meets the eye initially.

So now, getting back to Canada and the rest of those: almost 60% of Canada’s trade is with the US, and that’s about 40% of its GDP. So, with more terrorists crossing the border into the US from Canada than from Mexico, Trump can literally collapse the Canadian economy with tariffs if the border isn’t tightened up. He has this leverage. And again, I kind of alluded to it earlier, but Canada also has significant rare-earth reserves. I think it’s like 15 million metric tons, something like that. So, Trump could actually use tariffs to pressure Canada to give us access to those on very favorable terms.

Now to peel the onion back a little more: you know, the Canadians have already lost confidence in Trudeau. Their economy is really bad. I think that the individual provinces do more trade with the US than with each other, if you can believe such a thing. So, they’re really in a bind, and I think by calling Trudeau the governor of our 51st state, by ridiculing him like that, I think that was the final straw for his political career. So, even if Canada will not become our 51st state, his tariffs can sour the Canadians on the Liberal Party, and I think that Canada might end up going rightward, like so many other countries have, and Trump will be there giving them that push. I do believe that we will not be purchasing Greenland, and it’s because Denmark doesn’t need the money. They are awash in money from American demand for Ozempic, so they don’t really need money from us to buy Greenland. But Greenland could again cut a rare-earth minerals deal with us, in addition to beefing up their defenses against Russian and Chinese incursions into the Arctic region.

Trump, they say that he plays 3D chess, maybe he plays 4D chess. There’s much more to the things that he says and does than meets the eye initially. And I personally think that this rare-earths thing is going to be the thread that connects everything. Everything will be connected by this one thread. Time will tell, but that’s what I’m thinking right now.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

I don’t have the power to do this, but I’m going to make an offer, Roger. Before Canada moves, let Australia become the 51st State. And we have to move on to you, anyway, on Canada, Greenland, and Gaza [Riviera].

 

Roger Bissell:

I like it, I like it! [On Australia]. I’m going to build on what Ed said about civilizational self-assertiveness. Is that right, Ed? Did I get it right?

 

Ed Mazlish:

I said civilizational self-confidence, but they both work.

 

Roger Bissell:

Civilizational self-confidence. Right. Ruth was talking about these good, creative ideas. I see creative thinking, especially startling ideas, as part of what really moves civilization forward, gives it that oomph and that fuel to move forward. What the Donald is doing is—and I’m sure he has people helping him [that] say, hey, why don’t you suggest this? He throws all this stuff out there to get people talking, to get things moving forward in discussion. So, for instance, the 51st-state thing with Canada would be electorally a disaster for the United States, whether it was Canada as a whole, which makes no sense at all as a state, one state or 12, or however many provinces there are, 12 states, most of which are liberal. It’s just going to really mess up whatever chance we have to maintain some sanity, electorally. So, obviously he didn’t mean that. He was tweaking Trudeau, rattling his cage, and good riddance I say to that.

Now, Ruth mentioned the rare-earth minerals in Canada. I think there are also a lot of them in Greenland, which is another reason for national security being tied to some sort of deal, whether they become another state or we just work out an arrangement like the Donbas region or wherever the stuff is in Ukraine. There’s more than one way to skin a cat. We can get what we need one way or another, and if you don’t like that way, how about this? So, I think it’s brilliant.

I’ll just close it off by saying about Gaza, it might not have been a smart idea to whoever made that video showing the big golden statue of Donald Trump in the new Gaza. But otherwise, it’s a glowing vision of the future, and at least some people have to be excited by that. Others probably are horrified and think it’s neo-Nazi. But I think something wonderful is going to happen there, as soon as they get those people out—and they need to get them as far away from Israel as they can, because they’re just homicidal troublemakers and they applaud the death of innocent people. You need to get them somewhere far away. Maybe Greenland—put them in Greenland. Maybe that would be good.

 

Ruth Papazian:

Hey, what do you have against the people of Greenland? Hey!

 

David Harriman:

And there’s only 60,000 people in Greenland, they don’t deserve that.

 

Ed Mazlish:

Maybe put them on the Titanic.

 

Roger Bissell:

The Titanic. I love it! The Titanic.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

I mentioned Saudi because they love migrant workers in Saudi. They have a need for at least 10 million every year. There was only one thing in the Gaza so-called ceasefire deal which actually started negotiation in the Biden Administration and that did disturb me, which is: the last deal is the ratio of 150 to 1, sometimes 50 to 1, of prisoners to live hostages. This time it was 600 prisoners to four dead bodies. I can’t see why that keeps going. Maybe they knew, and maybe Trump is just going to say to Netanyahu, unleash the force. Ruth, anything more on Gaza?

 

Ruth Papazian:

Well, I agree with you. I don’t know why Israel enters into these kinds of deals with these terms, but it’s probably because of pressure from its own citizens. They basically wanted him [Netanyahu] to do whatever it took to get the hostages back. And this is what it took. I think the dead bodies, though, will stiffen the backbones of the Israeli liberals, and I think maybe Netanyahu will be able to negotiate tougher terms in the future.

As for Trump, Trump obviously loves children, and I think he was shaken to the core by the Bibas children who were strangled to death. He’s not going to put US boots on the ground, but I think unlike Biden he’s going to give Netanyahu a freer hand to unleash all hell on Hamas. Again, he said there’ll be all hell unleashed. He didn’t say we would do it. He left that vague. I think he’s going to give Netanyahu the green light to do what has to be done.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Okay, let’s move back to domestic policy—or really, this is legislation. We find it quite odd out here outside the US [that] the president has this option of pardoning people, and a lot of pardons take place either at the beginning or at the end [of a presidential term]. I think Lincoln pardoned 100,000 Confederate soldiers after the Civil War because he wanted to unite the country. But now we have Biden pardoning his own son and then preemptive pardons of Hillary [Clinton] and [Anthony] Fauci. Roger, can you throw any more light on that? Should it be there, or should it be pardons provided the Senate majority agrees as well? There is a proposal [out there] that instead of the president having unilateral power to pardon just about anyone, he would have to go through the Senate in addition.

 

Roger Bissell:

No. I don’t have any comment on that except a raspberry, which I won’t do. I think that first of all, legitimate pardons don’t put you or who you pardon above the law, and they don’t break the rule of law. They are part of the law. They’re part of the Constitution. Now, if somebody wants to say the Constitution is defective because of that, well, okay. The problem is, the Constitution doesn’t spell out the limits on the power of the pardon. Is it unlimited? Can you pardon anybody, period, no matter what they’ve done? And also, can you go backwards in time to what someone has done but not been charged with? It seems perverse and dishonorable to give out blanket pardons for crimes that haven’t even been charged. I think that’s going to come before the Court. So, I’ll just let that lay there.

The 14th Amendment says that if you’re guilty of insurrection that can be removed by the Congress voting to pardon you, because the Congress represents the people. Well, in effect, the voters of the United States pardoned Trump, if he was even guilty of insurrection, by electing him president, as surely as if the Senate had done so.

I do think there’s more than one way to skin a cat, like I said before. Suppose the Congress or Trump through an executive order says Fauci or Liz Cheney or Adam Schiff cannot hold any future position in federal government. Well, that would certainly be challenged, but I think it would be a real kind of justice for what they deserve, and it would raise the issue and say this is why we’re punishing them. The optics would be delicious, even if it weren’t upheld.

But go to the 14th amendment just briefly. They say that if you’re guilty of insurrection, that can be removed by the Congress voting to pardon you, because the Congress represents the people. Well, what about if the people vote for you in an election like they did for Trump? In effect, in my opinion, the voters of the United States pardoned Trump. If he was guilty of anything, they pardoned him by electing him president. They said it just as surely as if the Senate or the Congress had pardoned him. If he’d even been found guilty, which he wasn’t, he was never charged. No one has been charged with insurrection.

So, I hope that the new Attorney General, Pam Bondi, is going to look at the options for getting at some of these people who have been pardoned and see if she can’t get them to still flip on people higher up that were tasking them for their bad deeds. They might be able to find some leverage with them, but I don’t know what that would be. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Actually, Ed is a lawyer, and I want to add to that question. Fauci has been kind of preemptively pardoned for anything and everything he did [in the past], as I understand it. Does that prevent the US from putting on a show trial on national television? And yes, even if he’s found guilty, he can’t be imprisoned, or are we prevented from even putting Fauci into a congressional hearing or on trial?

 

Ed Mazlish:

Well, I would resist the phrase “show trial.” But what they can do is, they can subpoena him to testify in Congress, and he either defies the subpoena, in which case you can go criminal contempt of court the way they did with Bannon and with that other advisor whose name escapes me right now, or if he does testify and he lies, then you can prosecute him for perjury, and if he testifies and tells the truth, that’s your “show trial,” right? That’s getting the facts out there, and I’m all for that. I think they should do that.

As far as the pardons generally, I’m probably in the minority on this one, but I think of it as akin to jury nullification. In both cases, you might have a guilty defendant or might not. You might have a guilty defendant, and we’re asking for a limit on the power of the government to punish. In both cases, I’m okay with it. I also think that in the case of the pardon, you have a separation of powers issue. I don’t want Congress and the President to have to work together on very much. Lawmaking, okay, but punishment, I think, is an executive function. I don’t believe it’s a legislative function, other than to set what the law and the limits are.

I think that if the Executive Branch wants to exercise discretion on who to charge, who not to charge, when to prosecute, when not to prosecute, that’s an executive function. We’ve got the Eric Adams case pending right now where the Executive has decided we don’t want to prosecute him for whatever reason, and we’ve got a judge saying, “Well, I’m going to appoint somebody to file a brief as to whether or not there’s a case against them.” That’s a complete violation of separation of powers, too. We have separation of powers for a good reason. And we also live by the premise that it’s better that ten guilty go free than that one innocent man goes to jail. I think that limits on the power of the government to punish are almost always a good thing. I won’t say always because I can think of instances where they’re not, but I think that I’m fine with the pardons.

As far as the preemptive pardons, Jimmy Carter preemptively pardoned all the draft dodgers. You know, if we had a better governor in New York or in Georgia, Trump might’ve been pardoned before he was charged in any of these cases. So, it kind of works both ways. I don’t think that we should be selectively picking or just saying, well, we don’t like these particular preemptive pardons, so we should get rid of the pardon power, or we should get rid of preemptive pardons. I think it’s a political question. I think that it’s a separation of powers question. Those two issues, separation of powers and political question, are far, far more important than the particulars of any individual case that’s involved.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Okay, let me call it a “truth trial.” I’d like to see one on Fauci. Instead of like dodging the draft because it was [at the time] a specific crime, I understand any of his actions from 2017 to now are all pardoned. David?

 

David Harriman:

In regard to the January 6th protesters, the Constitution gives a right to a speedy jury trial. Was that right observed in any of their cases Some of them spent so much time in jail without being charged for much of anything. That’s a great reason for Trump to say, “Let them all go with time served.”

Preemptive pardons for someone who has obviously committed perjury in front of Congress—that is so obviously a cover-your-ass move by the Left. They know these people lied in their testimony before Congress, and if the truth comes out, it’s going to implicate them, too, so they’re trying to avoid that. So, no, you can’t sit there before Congress on an issue like COVID and just lie your ass off the way Fauci did.

Now, in regard to the pardons of the January 6th protesters, I wanted to say the Constitution gives a right to a speedy jury trial, right? So, was that right observed in any of those cases? Some of those people spent so much time in jail without being charged for much of anything, and I think that that’s a great reason for Trump to say, “Hey, whatever, let them all go with time served,” right? Even that is much more of a punishment than they deserve. That’s an issue I haven’t heard much talk about, which is: what happened to speedy trials?

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Ruth?

 

Ruth Papazian:

I am not in favor of any proposal that would change a president’s Article Two rights, including the right to pardcon people before or after trial, before or after verdicts. We’d have to amend the Constitution, and I don’t want anybody’s mitts on my Constitution. Just leave it alone. It’s perfect the way it is.

I agree with a lot of what Ed said, and I think that because it’s a political question, in part, Roberts might not even want to get involved at the Supreme Court. He’s loath to get involved in any political questions. That might end up being a very unsatisfying route to take. I am not in favor of any proposal that would change a president’s Article Two rights, including the right to pardon people before or after trial, before or after verdicts. It seems pretty broad, and so I’m not in favor of changing that. We’d have to amend the Constitution, and I don’t want anybody’s mitts on my Constitution, okay? Just leave it alone. It’s perfect the way it is. That’s how I feel about that. But we might have leverage that people have not considered, and this is because some of these things are way back in the mist of time. For example, Fauci. Yes, he committed perjury in front of Congress regarding his actions during COVID, but the pardon, I believe, would cover that. But was he pardoned for the original sin of funding gain-of-function research when Obama’s directive had forbidden it? Was he pardoned for that? He might possibly be tried for that. And was Hillary pardoned for Benghazi? She certainly committed perjury.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Ramaswamy’s bid for governor of Ohio is a really good move, even though it’s two years out. While Trump is strong, the party is strong, spread your wings and let people go for county or bureaucratic appointments, Congress, Senate, or governorships with the anti-Deep-State movement people.

I want to move on to the discussion [Ruth and I] had about Ramaswamy’s bid [for governor of Ohio], whether he was let go from DOGE. She felt he quit DOGE or was told to quit DOGE because of a tweet, but [I thought that] if he was, Trump would not have endorsed his campaign, which he has. I thought that’s a really good move, even though it’s two years out and all that, and I think that’s a great thing because while Trump is strong, the party is strong, spread your wings. You’ve got a lot of good people. Two CEOs of DOGE would have not worked. Two CEOs never work. And meanwhile, if he became the governor there, someone else for Congress, someone else for Senate, spread the wings. So, it’s a good thing, I think. What do you think?

 

Ruth Papazian:

I think he has a good chance of winning, and fellow Buckeye, Vice President Vance will campaign for him, and he supports the MAGA agenda, parts of which 70% of all voters approved. So, I think he has a good chance of winning. Kudos to him for pivoting that way.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Yes. David, is that a good move, to spread the wings of the White House MAGA movement or whatever you want to call it? I see that Ramaswamy was not sacked from DOGE for a bad tweet because the same tweet was also made by Elon Musk, but as more of a strategic plan for the right side of the GOP to spread their wings and let people go for county appointments or bureaucratic appointments with those who are in favor of the anti-Deep-State movement, the more they spread, the better it is.

 

David Harriman:

I think the RINOs, the Mitch McConnells are already kind of scurrying for cover. If things continue to go the way they’ve gone the last month, I don’t see much of a future for those people. So, if this continues to gather momentum, Trump is going to get genuine patriots who are not taking money under the table and don’t have the kind of corruption that we’ve seen for decades. I mean, the George Bushes, Mitch McConnells—if Trump wins, those people are done.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Ed?

 

Ed Mazlish:

Well, I think it’s a good thing that MAGA is spreading its wings, as you say. I think that Ramaswamy running for governor of Ohio is a good thing. I do think that he was pushed out, though, because he attacked Americans and said that there’s too many of us that are not hard-working enough, not well-educated enough, don’t value education—and more importantly that there are lot of people from India and, well, primarily India, [who] value education better and are smarter and more hardworking. I think he was pushed out before MAGA could turn against him. I’m not sure if he even got pushed out. Maybe somebody tapped him on the shoulder and said, you know, you just insulted MAGA; you need to go, and you’re not going to win the governorship without MAGA. So, that’s why I think that he’s gone. Musk didn’t say those same things. Musk only said that he’s okay with some immigration, which he actually had to backpedal, also. MAGA came out against that, too. That’s what I think. I think that Ramaswamy’s comments were not acceptable to MAGA, and before it could lead to a bigger crisis, he was basically removed from the situation before it could get out of hand.

 

Ruth Papazian:

Yes, my understanding is the same as Ed.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Roger?

 

Roger Bissell:

Yes, Ed, I agree with that. I think that Vivek would have been better off to frame it like: In our federal workforce, we have a cancer of [employees] wanting to collect a paycheck while sitting at home and doing something other than your job, and I don’t want to see this become an epidemic in our country, and we need to include as many of the hardworking, ambitious people from other countries as we can to offset this tendency that has been fostered by bad policies in the government. If he had had the insight to approach it that way, it wouldn’t have been an insult to MAGA.

We have a cancer of federal employees wanting a paycheck while sitting at home doing something other than their job. We don’t want to see this become an epidemic in our country, so we need to welcome hardworking, ambitious people from other countries to offset this tendency fostered by bad government policies.

Now, as far as running for governor, I’d prefer to see him in the Senate. I think his verbal talents, his brilliance, would be really good there. He’d be good to have in there alongside Rand Paul, for instance. [Editor’s note: That was Ramaswamy’s original plan, to run for the Ohio senatorial seat vacated by JD Vance.]

I’m glad that he quit DOGE. I think Elon is the better person to head the group. They might’ve been sideways with each other, going forward. And I think that there’s an issue with the ethnicity and the accent and the high energy level because he’s very intelligent and articulate, but he sounds like a high-pressure salesman and he sounds a bit condescending. If you remember from the debates, he was saying, “Hey, I’m not beholden to anyone, and every one of you here on the stage is on the take.” He’s so blunt that maybe you need somebody that’s not so blunt in DOGE, and it’s just bearing down and getting the work done, finding the corruption, and not being on the soap box and saying inflammatory things.

As governor, he’s going to have to work with establishment people because I don’t think he can get elected with votes just from Trump-leaning people. He’s going to have to get a lot of moderates too, so he’s going to have to figure out how to talk to the people back in Ohio.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Yes, I agree with you. There was a bit of a condescending way of speaking [by Ramaswamy] during the early part of the campaign. Absolutely.

Okay, we have time for just one last question, if people can be brief. So, name one appointment, only one, that Trump has made to his cabinet that thrilled you the most. We’ll go with Roger first.

 

Roger Bissell:

Oh my, one pick? Well, I liked Rubio out of the barrel when he stood up and was talking. He’s going to be an outstanding secretary of state. I’m really surprised, but he rose to the occasion and there are so many of them are good, but he was the first one to impress me. I thought, man, we are heading off on the right foot.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Ed?

 

Ed Mazlish:

Trump’s best pick in my view? Probably Kash Patel.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

David?

 

David Harriman:

Does Elon Musk count? I mean, bringing in a businessman like that to investigate the corruption with that attitude of looking at government like it was a business and saying, okay, what can I get rid of? How can I manage these people? and okay, you’re accountable now. What did you do this week? In private enterprise, you don’t get away with the kind of stuff that people do in government. Musk knows that, and he’s enforcing the kind of standards that most Americans live by.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Ruth?

 

Ruth Papazian:

Well, I was most excited by RFK Jr. He’s going to do great things at HHS. One thing that he will absolutely do is wring out the fraud, waste, and abuse of taxpayer dollars to NIH for research. I think he will also restore the pre-COVID standards of proven safety and efficacy before FDA approval. And I think that he will also rescind approval of SSRIs and other drug classes that have serious side effects found after they have been rolled out population-wide. And of course, rethinking the number and clustering of vaccines given to children. These are all huge things, and I’m most thrilled by his appointment.

 

David Harriman:

Yeah, I agree.

 

Vinay Kolhatkar:

Thank you all for being here today. I think we had a fascinating and interesting discussion, so thank you again. And to all the viewers out there, keep tuning in to The Savvy Street Show. That makes you more savvy. And good night and good luck.