Transcript

Clintons Dodge Congressional Subpoena, What's Next? | WHOLE HOG POLITICS

From The Hill · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 47 min · 7,912 words · 92 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "Clintons Dodge Congressional Subpoena, What's Next? | WHOLE HOG POLITICS", an episode of The Hill published January 23, 2026 (47 min, about 7,912 words). It mentions 13 people, works and ideas, including Donald Trump, Chris Stywalt, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Bill Salmon, Whole Hog Politics.

What this episode is about

The discussion centers on the Clintons' evasion of a congressional subpoena and the political implications of their actions. Analysts speculate on potential legal repercussions while highlighting the dynamics of voter-politician relationships in the current political climate.

Key takeaways

  • In a political circus, voters wield the real power, yet politicians remain mysteriously afraid of their own shadow.
  • Billy Ocean's transformation from 'European Queen' to 'Caribbean Queen' proves that sometimes the wrong path leads to the right hit.
  • Nine Democrats siding against Clintons highlights a rare instance of bipartisan contempt—a plot twist even Hollywood would envy.
  • Ignoring the Clintons' contempt charge? Just Google 'new distractions' in the news—America’s attention span moves at lightning speed.
  • Defying subpoenas is a one-way ticket to prison; irony strikes as politicians trade lawlessness for political capital in plain sight.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 5:00: Bill Salmon, Chris Stywalt, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton
  2. – 10:00: Bill and Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Al Franken
  3. – 15:00: Donald Trump, Al Franken, Whole Hog Politics, Wholehog Politics
  4. – 25:00: Donald Trump
  5. – 30:00: Donald Trump
  6. – 35:00: Donald Trump, Whole Hog Politics
  7. – 40:00: Donald Trump, Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Whole Hog Politics
  8. – 45:00: Gordon Wood, Donald Trump, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Whole Hog Politics
  9. – 47:02: Chris Stywalt, Whole Hog Politics, Wholehog Politics, Gordon Wood

Notable quotes from "Clintons Dodge Congressional Subpoena, What's Next? | WHOLE HOG POLITICS"

  • Let's find out in this week's edition of Whole Politics. I'm Bill Salmon, joined by my own pal, Chris Stywalt. we both work at the Hill and News Nation, but only you, Chris…
    about Chris Stywalt · at
  • For a moment because, this week the House Oversight Committee voted to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress for defying subpoenas because they had been issued…
    about Bill and Hillary Clinton · at
  • It's punishable for by up to a year in prison. When they defied subpoenas to testify before the January 6 select committee, which by the way, the first witness, the star…
    about Sean Bannon · at
  • Bill Clinton. And if we only had a kind of Bill Clinton and then two things happened. His wife failed to win the presidency in two different elections.
    about Hillary Clinton · at
  • Yeah. and they and a lot of those Democrats regretted their haste in throwing Al Franken overboard. and we'll see whether that happens with the Clintons. It's interesting to me you I think you summed it up so perfectly the.
    about Al Franken · at
  • Course it all heck broke loose. But you know the president we just to recap you know was threatening basically military force to take Greenland.
    about Donald Trump · at
  • Just throw one other thing up on screen and that is a wonderful summation that you have in today's whole hog politics, which by the way folks, if you want to get a look at…
    about Whole Hog Politics · at
  • Gordon Wood is the foremost scholar of the American Revolution. He is the foremost scholar of the founding. He is the goat. his book the radicalism of the American Revolution is a Pulitzer.
    about Gordon Wood · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Donald Trump — Person · Primary referenced political figure · 16 mentions · first at
    Central foil in multiple threads: Epstein scrutiny, contempt/subpoena comparisons, and the 'Greenland cycle' negotiation style.
  • Chris Stywalt — Person · Co-host / analyst · 3 mentions · first at
    Provides the episode’s main analysis: Democratic incentives on Clinton contempt, Trump negotiation credibility, and midterm strategy framing ('reform').
  • Bill and Hillary Clinton — Person · Primary referenced subject (contempt/Epstein thread) · 9 mentions · first at
    Discussed as a former president held in contempt over Epstein-related subpoenas and as an example of diminished influence within today’s Democratic Party.
  • Bill Salmon — Person · Host · 3 mentions · first at
    Leads the conversation, frames questions about media attention, Democratic behavior, and Trump’s political impact heading into midterms.
    Let's find out in this week's edition of Whole Politics. I'm Bill Salmon, joined by my own pal, Chris Stywalt. we both work at the Hill and News Nation, but only you, Chris, are the author of Wholehog Politics, the simply awesome,.
  • Hillary Clinton — Person · Referenced political figure (contempt/Epstein thread) · 2 mentions · first at
    Discussed alongside Bill Clinton regarding contempt votes tied to Epstein subpoenas; used to illustrate the Clinton brand’s reduced leverage after election losses.
  • Gordon Wood — Person · Referenced expert / upcoming guest · 4 mentions · first at
    Presented as a premier historian of the American Revolution and teased as a featured guest on Chris’s Sunday show to discuss America at 250.
  • Al Franken — Person · Historical analogy figure · 3 mentions · first at
    Used as an analogy for party sacrifice: Democrats discarding a prominent figure to gain advantage (Roy Moore race), paralleling willingness to abandon the Clintons.
  • Barack Obama — Person · Referenced former president (comparative standing) · 5 mentions · first at
    Invoked to illustrate how former presidents’ influence fades over time and to recall Obama’s characterization of Bill Clinton’s communication skills.
    Right? Bill Clinton's currency in the Democratic party, which was once so epic, so mighty. what did Barack Obama once call Bill Clinton? something about like the secretary of explaining things or whatever, right?
  • Sean Bannon — Person · Referenced comparator (subpoena contempt enforcement) · 2 mentions · first at
    Paired with Navarro as another example of contempt consequences, used to question why Clinton contempt receives less press attention.
  • Peter Navarro — Person · Referenced comparator (subpoena contempt enforcement) · 1 mention · first at
    Cited as an example of real penalties for defying congressional subpoenas, contrasting media attention and enforcement narratives around contempt.
    Department of Justice. and remember, defying congressional subpoenas is a serious matter. As Peter Navaro will tell you, as Steve Bannon will tell you, they found out when they…

Books & papers

  • Wholehog Politics — Book · Referenced work · 3 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as a political newsletter authored by Chris Stywalt, published weekly at thehill.com.
    By my own pal, Chris Stywalt. we both work at the Hill and News Nation, but only you, Chris, are the author of Wholehog Politics, the simply awesome, to quote Billy Ocean, political newsletter that is published each week at the hill.com.

Products & tech

  • Whole Hog Politics — Product · Business focus · 7 mentions · first at
    Described as a political newsletter that is published each week at thehill.com, with promotional context.

Places & events

  • Davos — Place · Setting · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as the location of a summit where the president made statements regarding military action.
    Going to take military action off the table. In fact, I think we have a sound bite of him telling Davos that we're not going to be using military action. Let's listen to that and then talk about it.

Full transcript with timestamps

We live in a country where politicians are more afraid of voters than voters are of politicians. That's how we want it.

That feels filthier. That feels like a a grosser part of rock and roll, but not what I think. And you know that.

Over to you, Chris. Like, I don't know. What if he's still around? Cool story, comma, bro. Are the Clintons headed for the clink? Let's find out in this week's edition of Whole Politics. I'm Bill Salmon, joined by my own pal, Chris Stywalt. Um, we both work at the Hill and News Nation, but only you, Chris, are the author of Wholehog Politics, the simply awesome, to quote Billy Ocean,

uh, political newsletter that is published each week at the hill.com. Chris, you're probably too young to remember Billy Ocean or his one hit wonder.

Come on. But you know, a lot of stuff about a lot of topics. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. One hit wonder. Billy Ocean. Wrong. Profoundly wrong. the end of the end of Billy Oceans's career with uh Get Out of My Dreams, Get into My Car to Toward the end,

I'd forgotten about that of of his career for the uh two Cory's smash hit movie License to Drive.

Cory H and Corey Feldman teamed up. Uh that was right in the sweet spot of my movie going uh young people. I picked the wrong topic for for the I I thought this would be the rare topic where I knew more about something than you did. And I'm obviously mistaken.

When when uh I was when I was a boy, uh you just went to the movies. Uh you would just what are we going to do on Friday? Let's go to the movies. You uh you get you have a date with a girl. What are you gonna do? You're gonna go to the movies. What you did not say usually was which movie you were going to see. you were just going to go to the movies because you were going to go to the moon because it was an activity to do especially on a Friday or Saturday or maybe a Sunday afternoon and License to Drive was right in the sweet spot of films that Hollywood was cranking out um Can't Buy Me Love. There's a whole like kind of romcomy whatever barfy movies and Billy Oceans's Get Out of My Dreams was in that. Later in life, I would discover that Billy Ocean was awesome.

Uh and but Simply Awesome. Simply awesome. Simply awesome. What song is that from?

I don't know. Well, I mean, what what was his big hit? Get Out of My Dreams, Get Into My Car. What do you say?

His his original big hit was Caribbean Queen. Oh, Caribbean Queen, of course, is awesome. I didn't know that Simply Awesome is a line in that.

Well, he starts off this he starts the song off by saying, "She's simply awesome." Oh, yes. By the way, I'm going to give you one bit of trivia about that song that was originally titled European Queen. Believe it or not, it was recorded that way. It didn't sell. And so the the record company started issuing different versions of it. European Queen, African Queen, and Caribbean Queen, which stuck. People liked it. It went to number one in the United States.

And he is a Jamaican. Yeah. Trinidad somewhere. Yeah. Yeah. He's British, but he was born in the Caribbean.

And and let me give you the my favorite Billy Ocean song, which is Love Really Hurts Without You, which is a jam, which is a it, as the as the youth would say, it slaps. Or as youth probably said 10 years ago, it slaps.

I'm shook. Um, Chris, let's talk about uh the Clintons for a moment because, you know, this week the House Oversight Committee voted to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress for defying subpoenas because they had been issued these subpoenas to give depositions uh in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. And they blew off these subpoenas, did not show up for the depositions. But what's remarkable to me is it wasn't just the Republicans who voted to hold the Clintons in contempt. Nine Democrats on the House Oversight Committee joined with Republicans to hold them in contempt of Congress. Now, it could soon be headed to a full vote by the House, and if they vote to to continue down this road, it could get referred to the Department of Justice. Uh, and remember, defying congressional subpoenas is a serious matter. As Peter Navaro will tell you, as Steve Bannon will tell you, they found out when they went to prison,

it's punishable for by up to a year in prison. When they defied subpoenas to testify before the January 6 select committee, which by the way, the first witness, the star witness in that committee was you. Um, but here's my question. Actually, I have two questions. Why is the press paying less attention to this story about a former president and and his wife who's a former, you know, presidential candidate being uh charged with contempt of Congress than they did about the Navaro and Bannon cases? And secondly, what is the significance of the nine Democrats voting to throw the their former president under the bus?

Well, has there been anything else going on in the news this week? Have you have you seen there there any stories come over the transom?

This this whole showdown with the Clintons has been building for a week or 10 days or something and it hasn't just gotten a lot of attention. Well, I I was I was for one surprised at the number of Democrats who joined with Republicans in voting to hold the I think there were nine Democrats who voted old Bill Clinton in contempt and four Democrats who voted old Hillary Clinton in contempt.

I think yeah, three or four. Yeah. And so I was I was genuinely surprised by that number. Um so I think the the surprise of the story is Yep. We saw it coming for a long time of their so for for context the the idea of the oversight committee the Republicans on the oversight committee was pretty obviously oh yeah you want to go after Donald Trump on Epstein. How about Bill Clinton? What if we did Bill Clinton? And I think the assumption was that they would hear from Democrats. What they did end up hearing from Hakee Jeff uh at the end of the a after the votes were in in committee, which is this is outrageous. You can't do this.

You're just trying to hide Donald Trump's involvement with Jeffrey Epstein, and this is this is outrageous. Um because what the old rule of Washington politics said was if it's your own ox that's going to get gored, both parties will retreat into their silos and Republicans were going to increase the opportunity cost for Democrats in going after Donald Trump on a very obvious weakness for the president, which is his long association with Jeffrey Epstein. And the Democrats said, "Uh, you know what?" Or those nine Democrats said, "No, go ahead. Uh, throw Bill Clinton to the wolves. I don't care." And that was to me profound, right? Um, Bill Clinton's currency in the Democratic party, uh, which was once so epic, so mighty. Um, what did Barack Obama once call Bill Clinton? something about like the secretary of explaining things or whatever, right?

And for uh you know, 15 years, Democrats were like, "Oh, only we could have somebody who was as good at talking as Bill Clinton." And if we only had a kind of Bill Clinton

and then two things happened. His wife failed to win the presidency in two different elections. Uh and the Clinton magic was non-transferable. And number two, me too came out and recast Bill Clinton's asignations with a 21-year-old White House intern in a very different light. And younger Democrats were they said, "I'm sorry, what did we do?" Yeah, well, we had to protect the president because, you know, sex is sex and, you know, get out of the bedroom, right? Blah blah blah blah. It was like, I'm sorry. The 50some year old president was doing what to a 21-year-old intern?

That's disgusting. And so Bill Clinton's stock among Democrats plummeted over that period of time. Uh so he was a less valuable object to protect. But also um Democrats want Donald Trump on Epstein so much. They want to they want to just put it right up his nose. Uh so much that Bill Clinton becomes a disposable entity. And the hubris of the Clintons, this is this is notable to me, the the sin of the Clintons of among their sins is always hubris and the hubris of the Clintons to say to a Democratic party that doesn't care about them, doesn't need them, to whom they do not matter as fundraisers or communicators or anything to say to them, you need to eat this because it will be unpleasant for the president, former president's legacy to be dragged in front of James Comr's committee and forced to answer questions about his gross personal life. And Democrats said no. And I'm reminded of the um Al Franken Lefair DeFranken when

uh Republicans insisted on nominating Roy Moore for Senate in Alabama, which was a a wild choice.

And Ten Commandments. That's right. And it was a wild choice because of the allegations that came about him allegedly grooming adolescent girls when he was a prosecutor in Alabama. And uh Me too was in full swing. And Al Franken was who had been in the entertainment industry for a long time was accused of things that now probably wouldn't force his removal from the Senate. But Democrats said, "Well, if the cost of getting Roy Moore, defeating Roy Moore is throwing Al Frank into the wolves, throw him to the wolves." And Tina Smith, who is now going to who is not running for another term, was right there to be appointed to be elected. Minnesota is a safe blue state. And so that's what they did to Al Franken. So that's what they just Democrats those Democrats just did to the Clintons.

Yeah. and they and a lot of those Democrats regretted their haste in throwing Al Franken overboard. Uh, and we'll see whether that happens with the Clintons. It's interesting to me you I think you summed it up so perfectly the way it's a combination of the the political expediency of the moment, which is to say the thirst for going after Trump on the Epstein files, and also the the the the longer term, you know, he's just faded from favor for the reasons you laid out. But it's it's you know it's true with other president former presidents too. You know look at the look at the current um Republican party's uh opinion of George W. Bush or at least the MAGA wing. Certainly they don't like him. Look at even Barack Obama. Some of that luster has faded a little bit. Not as much as as the Clintons, but it he's he's starting to be seen a little bit as sort of like a relic kind of like from a different era.

and it, you know, they're still polite to him and nice to him and everything like that, but he doesn't quite cut the ice like he used to, like any of these guys did. Chris, uh, we need to talk about um I think we've decided it's called Greenland, not Greenland.

It's more um Yes. Um because so much happened. And by the way, we look like geniuses last week by leading off our broadcast with the topic of Greenland and and then of course it all heck broke loose. But you know um the the the president we just to recap you know was threatening basically military force to take Greenland. Everybody got into a panic. He went over to Davos for this summit and then he surprised everybody by saying uh he was going to take uh military action off the table. In fact, I think we have a sound bite of him telling uh Davos that uh we're not going to be using military action. Let's listen to that and then talk about it.

We probably won't get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be frankly unstoppable. But I won't do that. Okay, now everyone's saying, "Oh, good. That's probably the biggest statement I made because people thought I would use force. I don't have to use force. I don't want to use force. I won't use force. That was sort of what that speech was like. And Chris, I want to I want to just throw one other thing up on screen and that is a a a wonderful summation that you have in today's whole hog politics, which by the way folks,

if you want to uh get a look at Whole Hog Politics and get it for free, you can do so by scanning the QR code that's going to be on your screen any moment. There it is. That big beautiful QR code. Many people are saying it's the most beautiful QR code. Um, but you can scan that and get Hull Hog Politics. But I want to read what you wrote about this, which I thought was so so on point. You're talking about the Greenland, you know, the the, you know, the the the buildup and then the climb down. And then you talk about how this happens a lot with Trump. Quote, "The narrative arc among Trump officials and core supporters was a familiar one. One, he's only trolling. two, he's actually raising valid points. Three, actually, he's deadly serious and very much correct. And four, out of the deal, suckers.

Um, that's, you know, that's the cycle. Uh, tell me tell me uh what the significance of that cycle is and whether that we'll be that we'll see more of these Greenland cycles. Um, one of the core parts about so I don't know whether Donald Trump was bluffing or not bluffing about taking Greenland by force. I don't know whether he thought it or who who could say what his arc you know the the the challenge with Donald Trump one of the challenges with Donald Trump covering him is he is uh unchanging only in his changeability right his uh what is it today that he will care the most about and take to the m there there are some long arcs in his life about trade about immigration now about elections but you don't know from day to day what what is it going to be that has the president going volcanic. Um, and so it's it's hard it's hard to say, but the if you are part of the Trump administration or you're part of sort of

the broad uh elite of the Republican party of people who influence the people in elected office and people who have influential positions in the media and and all of that, if they come to believe taco that t that Trump always chickens If they believe it that it that it's a bluff, that it's a ruse, then the bluffing doesn't work, right? Because the way that the if it is a bluff, the way that the bluff works is that the people around the president, including his familiars, including the people right around him, have to think that it's a credible threat that the United States would end NATO and go to war with little old Denmark over control of Greenland, which is, of course, an insane proposition. It's a it's a it it is as insane of a proposition as you could you could make in world geopolitics.

Um and they have to kind of believe that it might be true and or at least they have to be willing to demonstrate fully fully fully to the president that they are in. They're down and if it's a scam it's a scam and if it's not a scam that's good too. In order to get that response from both his adversaries and from the people around him, Trump really has to commit to the bit, right? He really has to commit to the bit. And the problem of I guess I put it this way. If you came into the office every day and you said, "If if you don't shape up, if you people in here don't shape up, I'm we're cancelling all the holidays this year and there'll be no more holidays for anybody." If you did that right every day and it didn't happen, eventually people would say, "Ah, you know, Bill comes in and he says that about the holiday thing, but we had Christmas and New Year's and we did we did all of that and it was fine." uh he is not going to

cancel the holidays, then your threat produces no result. So what do you have to do? You have to eventually cancel a holiday or you have to eventually do something. So the problem that Republicans face right now is in order for Trump to get what he wants out of his unique negotiating tactic, which is to make maximalist demands and pair them with maximalist existential threats to the people he's dealing with, including threats that are harmful to himself. Right? The credibility of of Trump's menacing negotiation is rooted in I don't care. And what we saw was the president amped it up, pushed it, pushed it, pushed it as far as he could.

Markets opened on Monday and they said, "Oh, this might be true. Trump might not chicken out here." And the price of borrowing went through the roof, which would be which was debilitating for a already struggling housing market. The stock market crashed. All of everything went kabooy. And the president relented from his threat and and didn't just say, "We'll see what happens." He said, "I won't." I think the clip you chose to play is very revealing. He didn't do the Trump thing, which is, "We'll see what happens. Maybe I'll invade you later."

He said, "I will not do it." He took it off the table. He took it off the table, which is rare. Which is sort of like what he did when markets uh responded to his initial efforts with the Federal Reserve. I'm going to fire the Federal Reserve chairman. And markets were like, "Oh boy, here we go." The oh boy, here we go. and Trump had to come out and say, "I will not fire the chairman of the Federal Reserve. I will continue to harass the chairman of the Federal Reserve, but I won't I won't fire him."

Yeah. And that's the problem. You you've laid out the cycle so well, but let me let me um ask you this. I was watching uh former EU ambassador Gordon Sunland on CNN the other day

and he was saying he was basically saying if I could summarize what he said he he said look

Trump tried to ask nicely of Europe and they blew him off and yet in his first term when he came to you know Greenland so this time he causes this huge crisis really you know this thought of, you know, invading the military and breaking up NATO and all this kind of thing. And Europe pays attention. And in Sunland's argument, Trump sort of got what part of what he wanted, which is to say we'll end up with more military bases in Greenland that we will build. And those pieces of land within Greenland will be sovereign US territory. We're not going to own Greenland, but we will use those those bases in part to to develop this, you know, Golden Dome, this extension of the what we used to call the Star Wars under Reagan uh missile defense shield.

Um and and and moreover, it will it will serve to box out China and Russia from exerting their influence over the strategic piece of real estate. And so in a way Trump sort of in a very messy way kind of got what he wanted. Now you can argue uh as ambassador former ambassador Bolton uh also said on CNN a few minutes later that that was an idiotic take and that you know that was that was the word he used. That was an idiotic take. and he said, "Look, I as the national security adviser to Trump during the first term tried to explain to him the 1951 treaty that talked about the US role in Greenland, but it didn't really work." Um, so I guess my question to you is, is there any validity in the argument uh from Trump supporters that it wasn't just this messy, embarrassing debacle that but but that Trump got something out of it or no? Well, look, I I I I don't know the the counterfactual uh to what would have happened if the

United States would have done this in a in a normal way. If the United States would have said, "Hey, look, uh we've got the 51 treaty. We have broad access to Greenland. You guys basically gave us squatters rights on Greenland and we can do whatever we want there. and we've been closing these military bases for years, but we want to re we we're going to we're coming back. Um I I don't know how it would have gone and we don't know how it would have gone because we didn't do it. Um so it is true that critics of the president who say that you got nothing that you didn't already have. I don't know. I can't say that that's true because I don't know what would have happened if the administration would have gone about this in a way that was dignified or treat treated our allies with dignity. I don't know.

Um because they because this was rooted at its core in domestic political theater for United States consumption, right? uh JD Vance's trip to Greenland, all the flexing, the changing the maps and all of that stuff was for an American audience that of course on the taco front, Americans have learned over time, Donald Trump says a lot of things. Don't pay too much attention to what he says, uh but do pay attention to what he does. And that's something that Americans now in a decade long relationship with Donald Trump as a national political figure, a constant presence in our politics uh have learned. Europeans weren't too sure. And so all of the what he was doing for domestic consumption to own the libs and rile people up and blah blah blah blah blah uh hit differently in Europe. So we don't know what would have happened if he would have done it the other way. So I don't know about the ambassador's point of view. I do know

a parallel here is uh Federal Reserve. The the most recent macroeconomic numbers for the United States tell a really favorable story for the Trump administration and the Republicans. the promised collapse because of tariffs, the the the promised collapse because of mass deportations and the upward pressure on prices has not materialized. Now, that's not to say that there won't be consequences later and that things will always be like this. But if you look at the the big picture numbers for the previous year and for what's going on now, the economy is remains healthy. economic growth is not massive, but the economy has continued to grow. And while the job market has softened, we're basically still at full full employment. And this is despite AI, this is despite all of this stuff. Inflation is still a problem. Prices are still a problem, but the rate of inflation has come down.

Now, in a normal world, what you would say if you wanted to be successful in politics is look at this economy. You hippies, you said that we were going to have a catastrophe. We're making America great again. Where's your recession now, losers? Um, but the and you would also say, gosh, the Federal Reserve seems to have land be landing the plane. We don't know what will happen in the long run. Uh but the Federal Reserve seems to have be be landing the plane. The economy is healthy and inflation has continued to come down.

the president's desire to control the Federal Reserve that we saw play out in the hearing uh over his effort to fire Lisa Cook uh member of the Federal Reserve Board spoke not to the the justices say you can't fire over policy differences. You can fire for cause, but you didn't show cause. You didn't have a hearing. There was no process. You just fired her. Um the the Fed is doing basically what the president from a political standpoint should want it to do, which is inflation is basically controlled and employment is high. And that's what if you're rep I'll shut up by saying if you would have said to a Republican on liberation day on April 1st or April 2nd of last year, this is what the macroeconomic numbers are going to look like going into the first quarter of 2026. You'd say, "I don't know. We may get away with this. We're probably going to lose the House, but maybe by only a seat." Well, hold on to

the Senate. This is actually really good. But I think for the president, it isn't the policy of the Federal Reserve. In fact, I don't think it's actually policy. I think it's who's in charge here. and any solution for Greenland that was predicated on now you have to be nice to the Danes and you have to say nice things about the queen whatever and do whatever and you have to tip your cap in this particular way and once you say and do all the nice things then you can have anything you want then you can have anything you want and for Donald Trump it's just unacceptable because any any

ind any indication if anybody tells Donald Trump I'll give you what you want but you're not the boss of me. Donald Trump says, "No, both things are true." And as my as my old daddy used to say, you can be right or you can be happy, but not usually both. Uh, and Donald Trump always wants both. And it's a very expensive way to go about it.

I would argue that uh I don't take anything away from your argument that he wants to be the boss. He wants to be in charge. she wants to be controlling and in in in in certainly in the case of of getting rid of the the Fed chairman uh and any other Fed board members. But I also believe that part of him is driven by policy. He believes in his mind that the interest rates are not low enough that they could be coming down lower and faster and that that would unleash an even greater economic uh set of benefits that you know people would be able to buy housing. would solve some of this housing uh affordability crisis and so on and so forth. So, I think it's I think it's a little of each. I think it's his ego, but it's also there's policy reasons, too.

You're no you're no doubt right that um and I think it's rooted, you know, um it's sort of like the jobs numbers, the the frackus over uh the jobs numbers when the president fired the uh bureau the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And this also goes to his efforts to overturn elections. If you believe that the Federal Reserve is crooked and helps Democrats and hurts Republicans, if you think that it's a scam, then the next logical question is why shouldn't it be a scam for me? If I'm the boss now,

then you all should be cooking the books for me. If you if you if I claim that you were cooking the books, if Ben if you believe that Ben Bernani and Janet Yellen were cooking the books and this is this speaks very much to the Justice Department also.

Yeah. Donald Trump's fundamental claim and the origin of his success in many ways with the electorate is it's uh it's a dog day afternoon situation, right? Uh I'm I'm not that's dog day afternoon, right? Not Serpico. Uh I'm uh I'm not out of order. You're out of order. This whole court is out of order.

Yeah. Right. So what Donald Trump says about politics, about Washington, about institutions, they're all crooked.

They're all a scam. And it's all a ripoff. The elections are rigged. The Federal Reserve is rigged. Everything is rigged. And I am It's not that Donald Trump says, "And I will restore and cleanse these institutions." Donald Trump says, "I'm going my way.

I'm right. I'm going to get them by the neck and I will crush their windpipe because I am as he as he said in 2024 about 2024, I am your vengeance. My support we're they've been rigging it for these people. We're going to rig it for you and I'm I'm your guy." Chris, I want to talk a minute about midterms and the domestic uh front and and campaigning for uh for Republicans and all that kind of thing. But before I do, I just want to point out to our audience that next week, this is exciting.

Next week, for the very first time, you and I are not only going to do this whole hog politics broadcast live, this podcast live, but we're going to take live questions from from our viewers. So, um, if you are interested, uh, as a viewer in asking a question or just sort of being part of the conversation, you can scan the QR code that's on the screen right now. Another big, beautiful QR code.

And that will give you the link to get into this uh, Whole Hog Politics podcast next week. And you can ask Chris whatever you want.

You can ask me whatever you want. I might even be able to answer you. And if you are if you are a subscriber to the note to the newsletter, there's a link right at the top of your note too that you can just click on to take you to the sign up.

I cannot wait. This is going to be a huge deal for us. Chris, let's talk about, you know, Susie Wilds was uh telling reporters the other day, the White House chief of staff, that now that all of these foreign affairs have been sorted out at Davos, uh Trump is going to turn his attention to campaigning for Republicans. Now, you and I have talked a lot about how it's looking like it's going to be not a great year for Republicans in the midterms coming up in November. And Trump is gonna start, I think next Tuesday, going giving a speech in Iowa about affordability or, you know, whatever. Uh, and he's supposed to be doing quite a bit of this right up through the midterms. Um, will that help? Um, you know, does it generally help when a president, an incumbent president does that or or is it different with Trump?

Well, um, if in the note today, I laid out presidential job approval at this point for Donald Trump now, uh, Joe Biden in 20 at the beginning of 2022 and Donald Trump in 2018. And Donald Trump is it's they're the same, right? It's it's within two points, three points either way. uh all unpopular. Um the problem for Trump with the numbers now and I'm going to actually say the numbers so that I am not making them up. Uh that is a a benefit that I will give to the internet. Um so Trump job approval in January 2018 37% according to Meerist. uh Biden job approval in 2022 40% according to merist and Trump job approval 2026 40%. The difference the the one the the way in think think about it this way Trump's approval in 2018 was three points lower than it is now but his numbers with independence now are four points lower than they were then.

Okay. So Trump is more he's got probably got more Republican support and less independent support.

Right. And the problem is that the the the continu the continuum is for 40 years with a slight hiccup for 9/11 the the trend in America has been away from the two parties. And the most recent Gallup numbers are clear. 45% the highest share ever of Americans describe themselves as unaffiliated or independent and both of the parties are at 27%.

Yeah, that's amazing to think about from just the turn of the century. If you had said the uh the Democrats uh have 27% of the electorate, people say, "Well, the Republicans must have 70%. It must be amazing." No. Uh, and so the the number of politically homeless Americans continues to rise. Um, it's a long way of saying Donald Trump's deficiency with independent voters, which include a lot of persuadable voters, uh, makes him a bad choice this fall. But, you know, you put them out if if good or bad depends on

it depends on where you send them, I suppose. Well, it depends on where you send him and it depends on so the time if you're going to use Trump, the time to use him is to win your primary, right? If you're a candidate, you're like, "Do I want Trump or not Trump?" If you're in Iowa and you want to win your primary,

yes, get the president to come here and stump for you and then uh tell the president, tell Susie W to lose your number uh uh after the primary and say, "So, I want your help to lock up the primary because Trump is very powerful in the Republican party and then not come. Do not come." As Kla Harris said, do not come. And for the for the president, this is um from it's it's helpful for the White House to keep him busy and ha this is a this is an old trick with presidents, right? You got to have something for them to do. Uh because you can't say, "Ah, you're got you're you're dragging around a 40% approval rating. Uh let's not have you out on the campaign trail." Presidents don't like to hear that, especially Donald Trump doesn't like to hear it.

So, it does keep them busy. it gives them something to do. And with Donald Trump, it's important that he stay busy because if he has time to ruminate and tweet and get into trouble, uh so they got to keep him moving and I think that's to the benefit. But yeah, Iowa now, great, right? Do it. Do it. He'll he'll help his preferred candidate win in the Senate race and for governor. Uh Republicans are still strongly behind him. And then later it gets harder. and and and you know, you wrote in today's whole hog politics something I found really fascinating. You talked about how uh once upon a time Democrats tried to use democracy as the word against Republicans and you know and and to rally the American people to their side. Trump's a threat to democracy. And you make a pretty persuasive argument that they've now stumbled onto a more effective political term, which is reform. Why is reform a better word than democracy when you're

boiling it all down to one word in terms of the Democratic perspective or making their case for the midterms?

Um Rahm Emanuel um called for an age limit at 75. I believe I was I I called I well for presidents, for Supreme Court justices, for cabinet members, for everybody 7. He said 75 is enough. I've in the past written and invade uh in favor of an 80, like just make it 80. Emanuel says no 75. And he says that if he gets elected president, which is unlikely but possible, uh if he gets elected president in 2028, he'll only serve one term because he would be over 75 by the time right the second term came. Um

I wonder if he would adjust his thinking if he got in. I don't I don't know. But and they often do, right? Uh only only the good one only really good ones abide by term limit pledges and the worst ones ignore their term limit pledges and say I'll stay forever. You'll pry it out of my cold dead hands. Looking at you, Joe Biden. Um but the that move or how about Alyssa Slotkin uh senator from Michigan who says let's eliminate the presidential pardon power

which when she first said it last year Democrats are like I don't know about that and now Trump every day is like which massive fraudster there was a woman who Donald Trump pardoned in his first term for fraud who recommitted a very similar crime and he has now I this may be a First, uh, a president has now he whether it was some some lenience, some clemency that he showed her, whether it was

he pardoned her twice, two times for the same basic offense. Yeah. Um, so the the the Trump pardon stuff is just the widening giant.

Well, these are reforms. You know, you're talking about examples of reforms, limits, age limits. Uh,

that's right. And I think the Clinton Epstein stuff is part of it, which is we're going to clean house. And if you if you think about how Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, what was who somebody I forget who it was that he had been in the Senate for a cup of coffee.

He had accomplished nothing. It was one of his fellow Democrats. May have even been Joe Biden. I don't know. Um but the what was the center? Do you recall what the center you wrote the book? Uh, do you recall the centerpiece legislation on which Barack Obama pinned his 2008 candid candidacy, his Senate the the the capstone of his brief Senate career?

Um, I no, I don't remember. Well, he he liked to say that he took a trip with Richard Luger on nuclear nonprololiferation.

Oh, that's right. That's right. But number one, Zuger was co-sponsoring with the very conservative Tom Coburn ethics reform.

Oh yeah. Reform. Ethics reform. We're clean. We're going to clean. We're going to get the old people out. We're going to clean, as do what did Donald Trump like to say? We're going to drain the swamp.

We're going to drain the swamp. That's a universally appealing idea politics is to reform.

That's right. Term limits remain. Congress will not talk about it, but term limits remain hugely popular. How did Republicans run in 2010? What was the basic pitch for Republicans running against Barack Obama? We're going to clean it up. Remember John Boehner? Read the bill. Did you read the bill? Hell no you didn't. John Boehner said, "We're going to hold these bills. We're going to clean House. We're going to fix things up and we're going to make it better." How about the um uh White the Congressional Post Office scandal? How about Rick Santorum standing on the steps of the Capitol calling out I believe it was Dan Rostenowski. Yeah.

But but saying like this place is a shambles. This place Mary Rose car my hometown Cleveland. Yeah. The check kiting scandal and the and all the scandal and all of that.

Those were big. Those were big. And there is an there is a an appetite in a Congress that cannot even effectively the the failure to effectively ban stock trading and speculative investment by members of Congress in the administration is this like ulcerated soar on the arm of both parties and if Democrats can f democracy is abstract doesn't mean what my definition of democracy and your definition of democracy what Democrats were surprised to learn when they kept talking about democracy, democracy. The Washington Post famously said, "Democracy dies in darkness." Democracy means different things to different people. And Democrats were surprised to find out that when they said, "Well, are you for democracy or not?" Republicans said, "Yeah, we're for democracy and we think you have subverted democracy." And they said, "No, no, no, no, no. You're the democracy subverters around here."

They said, "No, you are." and the Democrat suite of legislation that they put forward when Joe Biden took office which was this preposterous we're going to take federal takeover of state elections and we're going to do all of these things and people said I'm sorry what we're talking about election process and they're like yeah because Donald Trump's trying to steal elections and people could reasonably say yes but these are changes that would benefit your party

so you want to change the rules to benefit your party I don't think that sounds correct and it was abstract and amorphous reform, get out the broom, we're coming and what Rahm Emanuel showed his party if they're looking for a way through and forward is he let and much like with Bill Clinton, his old boss, he let his own ax be gourd. He said, "Yep,

I can't serve a second term." Yeah. And it will apply to me, too. This is something that I think is right, and we'll let the chips fall where they may. that is given what's going on in Washington and the feelings in America. If the if a Democratic candidate can put forward an idea about reform and cleaning house, I think they got a real winner. I don't know whether they can get through the primaries, but they got a real winner on reform

in the general. Yeah. Yeah. Chris, uh, in addition to writing whole hog politics as Toot Lemon knows, you you host the, uh, wonderful The Hill Sunday television show on Sunday morning.

And I'm just wondering what your thoughts are, especially given Snowageddon to hit a Sunday morning. Tell me what's uh, what are your thoughts for this Sunday show? Well, my thoughts for this Sunday show is I don't know how to pack my bag correctly because I have to stay in a hotel across the street from the bureau because the the snow the snow the snow is coming. Um, we have Mike Lawler, Republican from New York who's in a swing district and is an influential member. He is politically interesting and policy interesting. Uh, that's good. I don't know if I'm allowed to say the name of our Democratic guest yet because I don't know that that person has confirmed yet. But we do if it if

the the mystery guest is good. Okay. Uh and in a relevant position. Uh but the guest I am most excited about is Gordon Wood. Uh Gordon Wood. Did you watch you remember Goodwill Hunting?

Yeah. And Matt Damon is is burning the Harvard guy in the bar for Mini Driver. Uh oh yeah. And he says, "Oh yeah, you where'd you read that? You you picked up a Gordon Wood picked up one of Gordon Wood's books and now you're just paring his D."

Gordon Wood is the foremost scholar of the American Revolution. He is the foremost scholar of the founding. He is the goat. Uh his book um the radicalism of the American Revolution is a Pulitzer Prize winner for obvious reasons. Uh, but his work surrounding the bsentennial, Gordon Wood is 92 and a a real like I don't if I could be as peppy as Gordon Wood at 92, I might want to actually live to 92. Um, uh, and he is he joins us to talk about America at 250. And you know, my question for him is my question for everybody around our extensive and I'm sure annoying coverage of the 250th anniversary of the founding that is so important to

not at all. Is was it worth it? And this is what I want everybody to think about for 250. America's got trouble, man. We got trouble now. We've had trouble. We've done wrong. uh the uh the genocidal fur against the indigenous peoples of this continent, slavery, uh the repression and oppression of women. Many bad things have happened in the past 250 years. It is true. But the question that Americans should be wrestling with, I think this year is was it worth it? Uh if we had it to do over again, would you have

because many good things also happened. We lit uh the guy the guy standing behind me, Abraham Lincoln, rightly called us the last best hope of Earth. And the hi the story of humanity, the story of the world, the story of everything as we understand it. Ken Burns said of the talking about his uh documentary series on the revolution said that it was the most important event since the since Christ, right? that the the the the the hypocleal nature of the American Revolution and founding of establishing a government of laws and not men and saying that people had the dignity of God-given rights attached to them at birth uh is so profound and we succeeded. It worked. Uh that's a miracle.

Puts it in perspective. It's a miracle and it's a gift. So it so Gordon Wood uh should wrestle will should help you wrestle with the question of was it worth it?

I love it. That's all the time we have for this week's edition of Whole Hog Politics. I want to remind everybody that next week, next week's edition, we'll have live audience questions. We hope you participate. Uh until then, I'm Bill Sammon joined by my old pal Chris Stywalt. We will see you next time on Wholehog Politics.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "Clintons Dodge Congressional Subpoena, What's Next? | WHOLE HOG POLITICS"?

Bill Sammon (Host), Chris Stywalt (Guest).

What is "Clintons Dodge Congressional Subpoena, What's Next? | WHOLE HOG POLITICS" about?

The discussion centers on the Clintons' evasion of a congressional subpoena and the political implications of their actions. Analysts speculate on potential legal repercussions while highlighting the dynamics of voter-politician relationships in the current political climate.

What is mentioned in this The Hill episode?

13 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Donald Trump, Chris Stywalt, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Bill Salmon, Whole Hog Politics, Hillary Clinton. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "Clintons Dodge Congressional Subpoena, What's Next? | WHOLE HOG POLITICS"?

The episode runs 47 min; the transcript is about 7,912 words in 92 timestamped sections.

More from The Hill

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated January 24, 2026.