« Commentary Magazine Podcast

Commentary Podcast: The Deep State Rises

2019-01-14 | 🔗
The New York Times reports that the FBI opened an investigation into Donald Trump’s personal ties to Russia under dubious circumstances. Does this demonstrate the truth in the claims made by the president’s defenders about the arrogance and recklessness of the permanent bureaucracy? And, as this becomes the longest government shutdown in history, is anyone “winning” the messaging?
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Welcome to the commentary magazine. Podcast today is Monday January Fourteenth twin, Nineteen. I am John Paul towards the editor of Commentary magazine these seventy eight year old, monthly of intellectual analysis, political probity and cultural criticism from a conservative perspective, we invite you to join us a Cometer magazine, dot com. We give you a few free reason: ask you to subscribe, one thousand nine hundred and ninety five for a digital subscription and twenty nine. Five for an all access subscription, including our beautiful monthly magazine in your mailbox eleven times a year steam Rosen is still out with us. Now
Rossman associate editor. I John I I am happy to report that we have the first hard bound copies of no as first book unjust, Coming out, I believe in two weeks I can't believe early, did it. They did it at its beautiful and its exciting, and we have we had an article based on the themes of the book. Are December issue, and we had, with December January, December September, and then we have a a chapter from the book excerpted in The coming February issue, which should be out on the into webs, however, this we're so all very sailing a lotta, though Aigner often meant a pre order. The order on Amazon com. This priority changes, everything about book publishing by the way cause it used to be a horrible thing where you would run a book someone but run a book or view of your book,
would be early like six weeks early and there was literally nothing, they could do except go to a bookstore physically and order it and they wouldn't do it, and this happened to me with my my first book. I got a rave review two months early and, and you know it was bad for book sales cuz. It was two months early now we could just go to Amazon and hit order. Just same way. You would, if you were buying it, that second, I don't know what it was like back in the day, but a good selling book today is has tilted vanishingly small units know it wasn't. There was people, don't buy books. Don't say that our readers Bible arbiters, you invite me to buy books, but I will, but I have a feeling that books, her coming back books are coming backers of there's been an ad there's been a. It is true that the world- of the best seller is more particularly in the world of nonfiction. The world of the best seller is is a much change thing and books have
a much shorter shelf life than they once did, because you know book could sell for three hundred and forty five months and now basically a book sells for three hundred and forty five weeks. If it sells it all and then a just disappear so that, but that was even happening in the nineties when I published my first book anyway, Also, a green mauled I see you are gender hype. When I have had the communal experience of watching a Netflix theories, science fiction: Netflix here is called travellers which I have just finished, watching three seasons: ten episodes precision Abe said you gotta watch this star watching it as I had that whole thing where people and then he said the people I say to you about tv that you tv in their streaming era that you know like, which is what really gets better Five or six episodes answers like WWW gotta commit like six hours this poor, but I did
I might need her she'll like this cuz, it's science fiction, so it like doesn't engage my emotions that much and- and I it's like junk that just passed through my consciousness and then really grabbed me. It's a fantastic show, right, wonderful, yeah, of course. Now I was so hyped up on. It ran the time that I recommended you the now I've, because my memory problem forgotten? Most will, of course, of course, of course, but I was widely enthusiastic young. It is a time travel shown. I ordinarily hate time travel plots, but it is an incredibly ingenious application of the time travel theme and the character questions and moral issues that are raised by F efforts by the future to try to recalibrate the present to fix the future, which is really what it's about it is that it is a genuinely great show if you dont, like science fiction
probably won't like it, but you might, because it really is a show about the characters are not really about. The situation of the situation is ingenious anyway. So that's a Ayman. My communing on that Noah's excited cause. He's got his book in hand course the world of politics is riven yet again with the haunting question of whether or not Donald Trump is a russian agent, stimulated by Friday Nights New York Times revelation that The FBI had secretly Emmy, basically immediate action- hours or first day or something like that after the firing, of James Commie and may twenty seventeen had launched a purse investigation into Donald Trump, their boss, the present United States. As part of that somehow come,
I and the two faces of the FBI, the criminal and the counter intelligence faces of the FBI to determine whether the firing of co me was a data point to reveal that Trump was acting as a knowing. Agent of Vladimir Putin that we can discuss? The first interesting about the story and about the liberal reaction to the story scene. To be that the fact that the FBI launch this investigation would is being taken by some as proof that Trump is a russian agent, not that the F b I may have erred or done something untoward in launching said:
astrogation, using as its main piece of evidence of the fact that the president exercised his lawful powers as the head of the executive branch to dismiss an executive branch official, that's number one and then We're too, is whether or not I think it raises the question of whether or not the you know the narrative on the right that has been so easily discredit advice, so many people,
who, I think the narrative on the right is being has been laid out by people who are just looking to defend trumpet all costs, often. But this idea that the permanent arms of the federal government might indeed have improperly use their authority what authority and prerogatives they had to do what they could to extirpate trump from the political life of the United States. It may still be doing it. Ah, I think Europe are potentially bolstered by this story, which raises real questions about who exactly was who had the authority to authorize the FBI to launch an investigation into Trump and How- and it turns out that the three leading officials who seem to be involved in this are Andrew Mackay by Peter, struck and LISA Page, all three of whom have been fired from the FBI.
And all three of whom came under really savage criticism from the FBI Zone Inspector. The department of Justice, his own inspector general, in a five hundred page report, released last fall. I think that said that their behave you're toward Tromp and Hilary, and in twenty sixteen and twenty seventeen in their private communications and stuff revealed biases and unprofessional and a lack of professional, shocking lack of professionalism, and they were the ones who had taken it upon themselves to start this investigation. That is my summary Noah well. I suppose I should say at the outset that our only I only have questions and this kind of frustrating for people to hear the you're just asking questions line as people who are just asking,
genes are usually advancing a conclusion and are shy about stating its. I should say at the outset that my conclusion is that I don't know what this investigation has: the investigation, with special councils investigation to the president, stemming from the investigation to the twenty sixteen campaign that was launched in twenty, sixteen, which we didn't learn about until well, into the trap. Administration? The first question, I suppose, and by the way we should we should step. We should make clear that whatever wasn't the F B, I was doing was superseded supplanted when Robert Mahler was appointed as independent council. So this is a brand new investigation on top of all those investigations. Nato mowers, Brando investigation
investigate write another word about right, so just to just to break this up them, so there were three or four investigations into Russia meddling. The F b I was conducting in twenty sixteen into Carter, page George Papadopoulos, various other thing then came. Then there was the investigation into Michael Flim Unclear how that worked. Then there was This which followed commies firing in May and then come whenever this was that we're talking about was supplied. TED and overridden then taken over by the Mahler investigation, which began, I think, ten days after commies fire.
Yeah took at some operating theory here is that I don't know what they know. We'd all don't know- and I am disinclined to prejudge this investigation, which a lot of people appear to be because every two weeks sound seems like we have Republican comes out after some silence on the special council's behalf and says: look they have nothing and then the special council drops bombshell and everybody has to run around to position and negotiate around that bombshell and then comes back to the original inclusion. The cycle starts over again, so I'm gonna start a real thirty thousand foot perspective. The conclusion that I have read from on the part of the globe and quote trumped offenders who are bolstered by this, whose case against the clinical deep states has been bolstered by this. Let's start at the top, does how does this investigation stay the president's hand? How does it tie him up and does the f b I have
the authority in any possible case to investigate the president for anything at all. Ok, so let's there's a quick answer to that by starting investigations. The president that at some point takes in the president, the president is brought in and told which was never the case in this case but was the case in the other case, is told that he's under investigation and there's investigation. He is distracted. The argument against all these things is that the present, as it has the hardest and most important job in the world, he doesn't need to spend four hours a day and with his lawyers, trying to figure out what he should be saying about something when he's being investigated. Now that could take that as it comes, you can decide that that's a fair and free thing to look at in the president, should have to face the same kind of scrutiny than anybody else would in american life. But of course, sets out what happens is no one's looking into us to see if we're colluding
Russia has wooden. However, here, unlike especially councils office, the president would not be aware of this FBI investigation right, however, it does met. This is moods because the investigation ended right before it was practically before it began, because a smaller the question is the behavior. What this might conceivably reveal about that? What was what was going on inside the FBI? That would bolster the claim in the case the trump makes that the permanent bureaucracy of the United States government had it in for him and was gonna use its authority to the extent that it was possible to get him in there to other stories as weaken that that offer some supporting ballast to that. One is this:
story about how he never shared information about communications that he had with bloody, mere Putin. Now get. We don't know what that means that you know instead of briefing he has conversational Putney doesn't have anybody listening in only has the interpreters and then he doesn't tell his underlings what they talked about. Ah now we only know about this. Could somebody leaked at Inter to the Washington Post, and you know absent. When do you can say about this? Is that absent any information? The president has the total right to have to have you no personal conversations with anybody that he wants to include in the present a Russia and he doesn't, he is under there's nothing in the constitution that the sea then has to tell his deputy there
scary, visor for russian affairs. What they talked about, he doesn't have to do it. National Security Council doesn't exist, in the constitution. He is the president. That's you Oh, he is representing the people he can. I would ever conversations he likes. No, no you're not satisfy without, but I'll just go on from there to say then there's that story, and then there is this story about John alarming the permit of bureaucracy in the United States, either it's state or defense, because he wasn't. He asked about what the plant what military plans there were if we needed some how to have a military confrontation with a r on which we told we were told, existed in twenty fifteen when there was a big dude. Over the IRAN deal that administration official said look if IRAN goes really row. We know we have plans to deal with that. So Bell, Bolton came in became necessary visor little last year and said. Can I see the plans please and apparently just
say: guy see the plans. Please was unacceptable to a bunch of people who then told the Washington Post about it at the rulings are totally distinct them now, but I'm say their people. League against the administration from inside the permanent bureaucracy. So here's my thought about in this relates to nose question about to what extent these investigations can hamper the president. I think Now the first I mean the obviously, if you investigate the president- and you find evidence of some of some wrongdoing, then yes, obviously, the president is, it is in trouble. His his his ability of governance is impinged bonds ITALY's, but I think the second best thing that you could do if you're hoping to tie him up is investigate and leak, because that and that and that is the path that we seen so if you investigate and league then politically, he is of course undermine. I think what,
Trysting, here, though, is that these actors, whether we call them deep state actors or or or or not, It's not entirely tactical what they're doing, there's an earnestness to these efforts. I think that from from everything I've read, they they have believed at every step of this at every stage of this, that what they have seen. There is the matter. To let trump poses some some threat, because he may have indeed been some sort of russian agent. I don't know if that is sort of up Ben. Or worse, because I think that's result of of hysteria that that that sees the country after his election look had. This goes back a little bit and first of all, the jumble thing really doesn't apply, because obviously there were plans fur, never where on earth right I mean that's the cliches that
have more plans for at least just about every possible threat, and unless there are security adviser asking for those things, isn't scandals just the fact that John Boldness, John Bruton and people get nervous around him. I guess that than the other aspect of this, as you said, goes back to my question. National does the f B. I have any authority in any case ever to investigate this president, because, as the New York Times during notes. Its investigation was spur by the firing of James call me and part of the reason why the President said he fired James coming was the rush investigation. He was, he was engaged in the rush investigation. He wouldn't ex. We wouldn't come out publicly and exculpate exculpate me and so I I've- I fired him as a result of that, and that is the resultant obstruction of justice probe, which means that the FBI has Authority to investigate this prisoner. They were either acting or they were acting in a rope. Fashion is sort of black and white one or the other of its work.
Why that's? What's emphasising aid gets at the fact that either you can either view this as hysteria or you can view it, as you know, sober a sober effort to deal with an unthinkable reality that trumped got got elected. Nobody expected him to get elected and then a whole bunch of people were worried and believe that his refusal to condemn Putin, his weird acceptance of Putin's agree, aggressions awe and the fact that we knew that he had been trying to
make a real estate deal in Russia for years, and all that that the these I mean this was ongoing alongside their aunt pain investigation, that twenty sixteen campaign, which, by this point, had turned up Carter Pages Ties Portmanteau force ties. We saw the Orient Sea change the platform, but they knew about the Trump Tower meeting. All that stuff was while the trunks hollering was late. I think, was a June informed sure the term terror meeting was found out, lay discovered publicly, but it doesn't that right and then ran. Finally, just a brief note, the notion that leaks are of this grave sin and offence against good governance is applies only in so far as you are the party and control of the way
ass, when the the only reason why we are aware the IRS scandal that the J scandal fast various are leaks from people who think they're doing the good working of the republic by getting the sort of thing out there and your view of that sort of situation is generally coloured by your partisan affiliation. So I'm right or not. Client. If you leaks, ok as the grave threat to democracy, I am not saying they are as an ally and I'm not everybody, everybody who wait. If you support the party in power, you hate leaks against the party in power. That's the way it is. If you're a balmy, you hate lease against the bomber. If your turf euro, supportive trembled at least its trump same with Bush, they with cut you everybody, that's how leaks work note. So I think the question that was raised is this came in May of twenty seventeen. After seven or eight months of concern,
drawing on hysteria about the ties between the President and Russia that ended up nailing national Security, Visor Michael Flynn getting fired and then eventually him pleading guilty to one charge of misleading the FBI. That led to you know the very behaviour by the the unmasked behaviour of the Obama administration trying to figure out who was having phone calls with Russians, which is not illegal. We're out of war with Russia you're allowed to have conversations the russian ambassador, you know and then just all that everything that was going on that that that raise these red flags. The trump himself has said from an o early on in twenty seventeen onward and its true that he a say Ex whimsie about Putin, but
Ministration has been tougher on Putin and Russia in terms of the sanctions that have been levied as a result of miss behaviour in Ukrainian Crimea. Then Obama's was so he's. If he's a, if he's a tool of Putin, he certainly is doing many favours as his two whole. Well yet, and So we know the president really wanted to withdraw from Syria for a very long time, but was thwarted by his conventionally republican administration, and the present was surrounded by conventional republicans, none of whom are particularly friendly to Moscow, its ambitions, regional, so I'm disinclined also to give the president the whole time credit for that he's run an administration. That's been conventionally republican on foreign policy up until pretty recently, so we can't necessarily via residences response right, but he didn't. But it look if you work since you know, cats, Paw and Putin, doesn't want American Syria could pull them
our God of Syria is a year and a half ago may he could also be a weak, slash and competent president. Now those or yet whatever. I'm just saying that the case that there is a there is an objective case to be made that trumps behaviour as planned That gives the lie to the idea that he is a potent agent, because actually hasn't served Putin's interests. As president, I mean handle talks. Trash about NATO talks about is nicer, men to the EU is nicer them to put men, are allies in conversation, but in terms of the application of the magnets key act, the application sanctions and and in de the fact that we were until a month ago, an enemy of Putin's own goals in Syria? That's that
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If he's present, you know also, as all of these stories of investigations mention at some point. You know, however, many paragraphs down in the text, including this one, that the broken there is yet to be any evidence that that the Trump is russian agent some version of vehicles. That we're talking about. Mrs. This is an element of the story that we should make sure it is, is in this discussion. Some version of that story, it still live in that when the story broke. You saw among liberals, all among liberal twitter advantage from Twitter there, the treating this as if the and the fact of the end of this enough FBI, investigation itself was somehow evidence of up see there. You go look at this. Even FBI was investigated him as as as an agent as
if he was a russian urgently, as as, if that were evidence of guilt in and of itself, where it will. I think that's. The ultimate problem with with what's going on here is that you know the the. It is pretty clear that the three leading FBI agents involved in this effort- were very seriously anti Trump Mikhail struck, page they were like seriously worried about Trump, as president didn't like him I didn't want him to be president, and you know and have our have all been banished from the agency in part, as a result of their heavy had the heavy handed application of their their Idi ology about Trump to their job performance. Though, in some ways you could say that this report is a vindication of the what I would describe as the federalist we have a Byron York Devon,
this view of the mouth of the investigation into Trump being a russian sir it until we get more evidence that, such until we hear more evidence that would suggest that there were better reasons to do this, I mean: don't, doesn't the evidence to suggest that there are better reasons to do that, at least in part, fulfilled by the fact that we ve indicted now and secured the convictions of six or seven people dated thirty others. All related to extra legal illegal out of your going campaign and corn quote collusion with Russia advancing russian interests. But none of the Again, the collusion with Russia. Events in russian interests falls apart in the behaviour of the administration towards Russia. In my view, but, secondly, that
people around him were russian polluters, and you know, and involved in that way, doesn't mean that he is never has never meant that he is that don't live in a I was we're saying before the show it's like now, we are in a position where we want Herbert Hoover too began bring files on the present the United States. We don't live in a country in which our legal system says the guilt by sensation is proof of guilt. Paul man afford hi Palmer for it it was a bad move. For it is some kind of ITALY aimed at least stay proxy. Russia was literally a proxy russian agent, as he was an agent for the Pro Putin government in an and political faction in Ukraine, but an investigation does an alleged galton. That's what the devil in his faction goes a step too far there suggesting that the investigation itself is, as this vast chilling effect and is an abuse of state power, could
B. But it goes back to question what does the F b? I have this authority, nobody mower mowers, investigation and the and the investigation that newness supposed to be leaving as head of the House Intelligence Committee right, any investigation into the President by Congress or by you know that it's not that is out in the public and open means he's got em communication strategies gotta, be brief. Daddy's gonna spend time thinking about it and that's where the question arises as to whether or not that's how you want your president. Spending is time, particularly if the charges are curious, because you can throw a charge of anybody about anything and that's worth getting back to the guilt by association point You're the one who said but look they're all these cases in his campaign of people in our investigation, who have now been convicted of their relations, herb, convicted in absentia of being russian spies in the United States or whatever
but its guilt by association to then connect after Trump Ire, guilty he's not guilty of anybody Saint guilt, but to open an investigation to open, max boot, why am I not excessively large? But I'm saying let most of the truck there's no thing that you can say about trump of which he is not guilty: crowd gathered there. Have seized on this to say, he's guilty because they were looking at all they have. The FBI doesn't have the authority to investigate the president, and I am sure that there's a theory of justice that suggest that he doesn't add that they don't. Rather then that's the
at the beginning and though the argument, but I haven't seen in Tbilisi, definitively the F B, I does not have this authority and I'd be willing to entertain that argument if it is basically unitary, executive theory, no other fleets flip around. We flip around and pillars president and their investigations by the FBI into her connections to some giant donor to the Clinton Foundation and the FBI turns out the F B. I was so horrified that it was doing. Matt then heard defenders in the press would say the FBI's a rogue, investigate it row. The organisation that is, that has gone into J Edgar Hoover mode. Remember when Rudy Giuliani and twenty sixteen said, the New York Office of the FBI is going after hill in other stuff may be happening there. Nor was I got my god. It's Hoover Hoover's back right, so that would be the case. That's what I will be asking this question,
Well, nobody knows that we're in wherein thank you wherein the friend just brought me a glass of water from our office. I'm very grateful. Wherein unprecedented waters. Here, I hope, hope or a hairdresser. Others. For all we know we're not you know, that's the same thing as the phone goods. The whole thing about how Trump as no right not to tell the assistant secretary of state for european affairs. What he's said to bladder Putin. Of course, he have the right not to say what he said to him he's the pots. It doesn't have to everything to anybody about anything now here boss. It doesn't mean it's good. That doesn't mean it's like a good way. When the government- and I think we can all agree that his way of day to day running of the government has a lot to dead, deserves a lot of criticism. But I mean well that, but that's part of it. He said.
You know the case made by those who are forever suspicious of the deep state working against Trump. They have to also acknowledge. I mean I hate to be wishy washy about this, but this is just simply true that Trump his conducted affair. Very serious varies in ways and others are so reckless that that they would that they at least raise concerns about. His motivations, especially in twenty sixteen twenty seven Timor we hadn't seen anything quite like that. For now that doesn't mean that that, therefore, FBI investigation into his firing of their bosses is justified work, but there there's through something, more too, and that is something more in a sinister way, but I mean he he has not been run of the mill candidate or run of the mill president and it's hard to expect institutions to proceed.
It would be exactly according to their norms. In response to him right. Finally, I feel like that they would then they would probably the guard the argument against. In our side. To respond to you is, would be silver bullet argument is that doesn't matter with president does or how he acts or how he makes you feel you dont. Have this authority beginning middle end but I don't hear people saying that, because I didn't, as you said, is an open question while giving to give a given today because one Hamlet Friday night, there should be a real intellectual foundations to support something
I can't imagine they don't exist if they, if that is in operating theory, if it's not an operating theory, then what are we talking about we're making political political arguments the times itself, not that the times is of the view that the arbiter of all things calls the FBI's behaviour aggressive, says it was an aggressive effort to move on this question, because there are two eight they could do it or they could not do it. They could say And discretion is very much a part of any investigatory organizations system of sorting right. It is discretion, so you say: is it better to investigate or are we raising? Are we doing things that raise worse questions by investigating you know and at that process. In the case of prosecutions, I we call prosecutors. Discretion does prosecuting this case.
Outweigh the does the virtual possibly outweigh whatever cost there might be to prosecuting it like it's not worth the effort or in other crime, is not commensurate with the amount of effort as ethical upon and the same thing with investigations you can open them, are not open them. You can, for example, and I think this is probably what happened you can say well- that the power to investigate the executive branch relies primarily and properly with the legislative branch, which has can that's oversight over the departments right so the judiciary committees, As I said it should be the investigative bodies here, but since Congress was in the hands of trumps party, the Republicans it may well have been that the FBI sat, the official sat there and said we can't trust that these investigations are gonna, be honest or serious or thorough straightforward. So we have to do it and there is the question for you:
no, I'm not whether they have the authority where they have the authority to make a political judgement about whether or not the Republican Party is so tainted that it can investigate the President Now, let me say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and that there was proved that that seems like a good desire to defend more favourable terrain and the one that masking, because, obviously now do they have the capacity to make a political judgement now did not write, however, what, if right. You can't trust the Republicans investigate Trump. It would seem that was kind approved right, but that's irrelevant it should be we're nobody's. I don't think anybody saying that I'm not saying I again, I wearing raising sequestering. I'm sure there are people saying that
on the question of what the follow up is. What the follow up to the story is whether or not their gonna come clean and say why they set it. Let me take a break and talk to you guys about are advertiser lending club, because for decades credit cards have been telling us to buy now paid later with interest, and despite your best intentions, as you know, that interests can get out of control fast with lending club, you can consolidate you're, dead or path credit cards with one fixed monthly payments, since two
seven Lenin Columbus, help millions of people regain control of their finances with affordable, fixed rate, personal loans, no trips to a bank, no high interest credit cards, just gotta when in club outcome tell them by yourself and how much you want to borrow pick the terms that are right for you. What, if your approved your loan, is automatically deposited in to your bank account in as little as a few days Lenin Club is the number one peer to peer lending platform of over thirty five billion dollars and loans issued so go to lending club dot com. Slash commentary check your rate in minutes and borrow up to forty thousand dollars Its lending club, dotcom, Slash commentary, lending club, Dotcom, Slash commentary, all loans made made by web bank member if the icy equal housing lindore, so they shut down, is now in its twenty second day. The paychecks did not go out on Friday,
a it, turns out that some of the horror stories are bourgeois not, as is to be expected. The USA, for example, reported that, in fact absentees last week, when we were told that airport lines were uncommonly long owing to ts airports, calling were lower this this without weak than they had been that weak the year earlier there, but like a nine points, four cents outage in twenty eighteen, and this we ear was like five point, two percent- some like that. So far, So the sum of the horror stories didn't turn out to be true as we can't be sure these two stories about how people are driving into Joshua Tree National Park and cutting down the Joshua trees. I don't know why that's the fault of the shutdown, it's the monstrousness of individual people. I had to get it any
however, we do have our first serious data on the political back, to the showdown and is not good for tromp bribe? Every pole, taken over the weekend suggests that he is being blamed for the shot down by a margin of either twenty or thirty points, depending on which Paul you look out and there in only one Paul does it does it does? Is it not a majority of Americans? One poles, like forty eight percent, blame him, but in all other Paul's it somewhere between fifty to sixty two percent blame him and not the Democrats game. He literally said blame you for the shutdown, so
To the extent that you have the capacity to not blame him for the shutdown you are a dedicated soldier. So a bit seems to me that what has happened with the border wall is that, as has happened at various points in the Trump presidency. This issue of how you feel by building the border wall is simply a proxy for presidential job approval or support. So the same thing with the Muslim ban. I believe in the course of the you know, what of of its tours in the first six months of the administration. What you see in the polling is that somewhere around forty two percent of Americans say that they support and want a border wall built or say that it's an emergency or something like that and that forty two percent
talked about this on Thursday is now even more true. It's like the last of the lost members to talk about another science fiction tv show was forty. Two trumps approval is at forty two. His support for the wall is it forty to the emergency is forty two you know so it's just now literally a political stand, him yeah. I mean that despite my question is, I know, we ve talked a lot about whether or not he can build out from that. Forty two to get more the support that he would need and twenty twenty to win reelection. Clearly he doesn't act as if he needs are wherever or war as if there is any question that he will
I'm just wondering if there is not a sort of like come a kind of soft trump supporter. That is fine, not being a part of that forty two percent but because because vetted own even agree with these individual things, but but they sort of appreciate him on some. Larger anti norm grounds and that that that they would be there for him when the time comes and twenty twenty nowhere The four who wore the forty two percent, or they like this sort of like the than that the diehards or that it does, that represent. Every one did ever gonna get you can you? Can you be outside of that? Forty two percent, but still sort of be, therefore him when the time comes,
Ok, so the only way will know that is in twenty twenty, in the sense that you know when George W Bush, when two went to the polls and on our people, went to the polls and of ever. Fourth, I believe, two thousand and four his approval writing was at fifty one percent. They got fifty one percent of the love so and I think a bomb was almost exactly the same. Bomber breached fifty percent in the week before the election with Romney, and he got fifty one percent. Also. So so that's an literally unknowable, but it is tractable in the sense that really cool presidential job approval in the election year is a total proxy from where people are in terms of of voting. He is such a polarizing figure that we we would need some other way ingenious way of determining whether or not support for her.
You know whether is whether there is soft support for him. One of the things we know about Obama's. There was a lot of very, very soft support for him. We learned this after the fact and these posts more about the election that when How many pollsters asked people, if they supported obama- and they said yes and then asked on a scale of one to ten, how likely route vote A lot of people would say one two or three out of ten and ordinarily in pulling history. You then assume those people aren't gonna, come out to vote and the Obama campaign had so much money and was so brilliantly organised that it got those people out to vote went when they pulled. They did pulling that with that turned out to be both polling.
Recruiting so when they pulled in someone said it's like two percent or two to attend the people on the. I would say, can we send someone to come talk to you? Can we send someone to come pick you up and drive you to the polls that kind of thing they made. Thirty five thousand phone calls a night. So if you do do do the math over time and if they were doing them largely in the places where a bomber, the twelve states at a bomb are really needed to winter, when the presidency, that work. So I don't know how you do that in twenty nineteen, I'm not a pollster, I don't design poles. So it's just an errand speculation, but he is the most polarizing figure at the top of a tip route, probably in american history. So no. What do you think I just nothing anybody's gonna? Remember they shut down and twenty twenty then shut down, seven very short shelf life or as far as political impact goes what's what's relevant,
is how this has an impact on the vulnerable republican centres or up and twenty twenty who are going to do whether or not this thing ends tomorrow, but if they agree with you, then they shouldn't care. When you write, if there were vulnerable republican senators who are worried about the effect of the shutdown, maybe Trump can convince them, but what you just said, which is that no one will remember the shut down in you know eighty, my word twenty months or how long it is still the election. Now is another shack. Now it's not the shut down its the wall and the strategy that is going forward to embrace the Republicans played a pretty cynical game here. They blocked this wall for two years there were a lot of opportunities to do it. They have we went with. We had to shut down. Over an immigration issue in January, twenty eighteen and every I'm Republicans who now
who now other entertain the prospect of a national emergency to get the Pentagon to do this thing said this was a priority. Will do this later I now that now they're gonna face voters and twenty twenty who are met page on the wall and maybe even a national emergency if it comes to that- and I think it very well could- and that is what Johnny Ernst and Tom tell us and Corey gardener are afraid of sufficiently it's the policy behind the shutdown mouth shut down itself, yeah, because the policy behind the shutdown that, though, in twenty thirteen that had republican so nervous because a pulse collapse out from under them, was the implement
issues of abolishing the couldn't. Stop was going forward no matter what was already past was little different. The wall really is a policy that is up up in the air and to the extent that its anything at all whatever this is five billion dollars. It's entirely symbolic, so pervert presents a really easy opportunity to two demagogue, maybe a little bit more than than a bomb occurred. It gives, you had to say, will people will die in the streets in order to demagogue on a bomb care which was far fetched? This is this is a little bit more concrete network or even worse deal, I have feel slats. I, the political reality is that We don't know, whispering and trumps ear, and we don't know what the political needs of the dam had a coalition? Are you have the clear desire,
I ought to score a significant victory over Trump as a sign of democratic muscle and liberal muscle at the beginning of the new dispensing in Washington? We also have the fact, the Democrats of the party in government and they think that shutdowns are terrible things and if they think that shutdowns are terrible things and the cost of reopening the government is a mere five billion dollars. Why wouldn't they spend it? They're just knock and spend it to ten Trump, a loss, but they do have an inestimable advantage. The Republicans don't have it shut down switch. Is that they've basically have the mainstream media and they're both in their pockets and the mates Army dark,
turn on them. Unless the stories really do get horrify, you know unless it really is like six weeks- and you know I don't know, do planes are crashing something I mean an and that can be out that no one can no one. Can overlook that. I just think that it is by the way, the Pelosi. Maybe this is the best thing for them to, because nothing's going to get done anyway. What I have to do like they have to really get to work to pass bills that o will bring to the floor and the trumpet veto if Mcconnell did bring civil law like there's, nothing for them How do they got nothin to do? There's nothing for them to pass nothing. So what difference does it make, except that their own staffers aren't getting paid so.
It's all will be well. We were looking at the the emergency at the end. At the end of Friday, we had we had anticipated ICE Kennedy. I kind of anticipated. It happened. I mean it's just as it does, it is falling, must be so awful it as it is at the lighthouse. As you know, the word emergency is not coming. Trump talked about it on Wednesday, or something like that. One of those press of eligibility is and then and this is what I am I in this is what I mean by this being a disaster for Republicans. If that is the course that they that they take their two years of sound bites of Republicans like Lindsey Gram, whose now saying, there needs to be a shut down national emergency over this thing, saying that the wall is not a smart. Investment literally said that
the numbers do not support the idea that this is a national emergency. Yes, there are more families more children they're at the border than ever before, but the apprehension numbers are at record lows and then it just does not make a lick of sense and Republicans have to know that when the president is seeking a political victory, transforming the world crisis into I'm not getting my way and establishing a precedent that we will all regret. Well, every precedent, that's being established these days is a precedent that we will all regret. I mean you know the urgency or the euro or the endless shut down, or something like that. I mean we we literally, have now extraordinary markers of dysfunction in this sense, which, as we are not only in a now go into two years of Washington, inaction, which I know from libertarians,
It was better than the government. Does nothing, then that it does bad things? Ok, fine! If that's where you want to come at it, but two, yet we have two years of republican governance in which, astonishingly little in the conventional understanding of how politics works, got done because Trump and Ryan and Mcconnell and the House caucus em the Santa caucus. Nobody was on the same page about much except confirming Joe, which is in a house act from its Trump impeded, the effort to overturn a bomb care. He impeded the effort to get money to build the border while he impeded the tax cut effort. He he interrupted a lot of things that you would have thought Republicans would have easily done.
In in this in this atmosphere. Certainly, when Obama had a house of us at that were overwhelmingly, you know democratic democratic granted. He had a sad that was really overwhelmingly democratic for a year. There really couldn t know couldn't be overturned by summer resort
and when he did a lot, they passed two point. Seven trillion dollars worth of new spending coming Donald Trump doesn't have a whole lot of radiological affinities and libertarians. I say as somebody who is very fond of them in shares many of their policy preferences. They don't seem to care much for the reputations they seem to like having the reputations is as no wrenches in the in the years of things, but conservatives do care about their reputation. Conservatism is a reputation, has reputational problem and its very vulnerable to being tarred with the the brand of running dysfunctional governance that it cannot simply cannot govern, and after the last decade I think it's you can make a pretty sound case that Republicans in the majority cannot.
Cover literally, cannot keep the government open, cannot make things work. Well, I mean again. I think this is a larger, the wee wee that we are living as a moral or I might add that I am also six years of Obama. Nothing happened either, so we have to. We have to say that this dysfunction is a is in a deep sense. What the people want, because they keep voting for it, he fell. Obama had it above, spend two point: seven trillion dollars the, public came in and said nothing to government shutdowns, with United One party government Washington is a unique condition and one that you have to examine with a little bit of self criticism and You know and envied humility and that's as a unique failure of government governance and the and Anna failure on the part of down front, but also that is governing party which are at odds, but we ve all made
case of murder case. He remained hasten the magazine all the time that the rewards, sir you I'll Levine's remarkable article from June of twenty seventeen Congress is weak because its members wanted to be that the incentive structure for american politics now that we have our first tweeting reality tv show, president, that is, the set of structure, does not seem to favour politicians doing what politicians have done throughout from tat the moral witches figure out a way to get what you want by helping the other guy get a little bit of what he wants, while still maintaining your leverage in your power in your control, and that is how politics works, and we increasingly no longer have that as a functioning reality. And we don't know what the long term costs are. We know one form of long term cost
is that nobody is looking at the eight hundred pound guerrilla than a standing ten years down the road from us, which is the insolvency of the entire, Open system in the United States, and that's when everything will comic will come to a halt when one hundred percent of the federal government will be dedicate of the spending. The programme will have to be dedicated to paying entitlements, and then we don't have a defence budget. We don't have nest, a policy we that we have the equivalent of a shut down, because everything in the government will have to have massive tax cuts, are massive cuts in government or both together and nobody is dealing right and we're going to sit there and everybody when it happens. You'll all of everybody was been screaming about, including Paul Ryan for twenty years will say see. I told you I tell you didn't listen and you didn't listen apparent that's the way it's gonna go and then made
he then, and twenty twenty eight or twenty thirty or whatever it is. Then we'll get serious again about governance. You know really have it and in the present, the verb, a party led by a president who doesn't believe in that right and he doesn't- he doesn't- make even the slightest rhetorical just right. Stay in title VI. Norton Democrats now democratic movement, the more than that because we no longer have a party, that's even making rhetorical gestures towards the need to curtail non discretionary spending you have a democratic party that has no addicted to absurd spending proposals. That nobody can even opposed half measures about making two years of college affordable they turn out a twitter on the weekends by tuned in this morning to see, I believe, walking Castro, one of the Castro brothers who said we're gonna, make sure that two years of colleges affordable and the response to him from the- monetary theory base was that this was
an absurd capitulation to the blinkered forces, who do not believe that you can do simply declare things for affordable on and make it sound. Monetary theory by the ways is one of those really weird new things and has gripped the D. A The liberal left- and it is some really dispiriting his spirit. I, u can wave a wand and you can pay for Literally anything you want thirty two trillion dollar three heads needs nothing. Ok. Now I need to Emma high note about the future. Since we are now talking about the heart, You know this disturbing future, not only and the reality of our time of crisis, but on the Netflix show travellers which, once again, even I commend to highly the news, has come Chris Pratt STAR of guardians of the Galaxy franchise, partly on the ventures in the adventures and the Jurassic world franchise has is engaged to the daughter of Arnold
Schwarzenegger. So I want to share with you that so the great action star, the Eightys and Ninetys his daughters, marrying the great action star of the teams. Chris brat, their children. Imagine to imagine the action star of twenty forty born from the marriage of Chris Pratt Catherine Schwarzenegger- this is gonna, be an action star. A level at a genetic and cellular level of the sort, we have never seen before, and I only hope that I live to see it. So for a green hold a door Rossman. I'm John passwords keep the camera.
Transcript generated on 2019-12-12.