« Commentary Magazine Podcast

Impeachment Reaches a Climax

2020-01-30 | 🔗
With Republicans recovering from the s in John Bolton’s book, it seems like impeachment will conclude this week with an acquittal of the president. Is that the end of the Ukraine scandal, or is there more news yet to break? Also, some halfhearted predictions about the results of Monday’s Iowa caucuses.
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Some guy, welcome. The Commentary magazine podcast for Thursday January, through it's twenty twenty. I am John POD words. The editor of commentary with me, as always senior editor, a green
hey, I got Souci had ever Roth behind I dont and in Washington Senior redder, Christine Rosen High, Christine Hygiene. So second week of the impeachment trial, we ve moved into the question and answer period is, but we mostly pad. Yesterday, I guess Wednesday. It was interesting in large measure because it meant that the speech the speechifying was limit, headed to five minutes or two and a half minutes. If the question was asked of both the White House counsel and the impeachment managers, the house managers My general sense of things- and I guess the general political sense of things right now- is that didn't go that well for the for the Democrats or further the case that the democratic process,
it's so aggressively in the previous week, because the republican nervousness about this whole question of John Bolton them his book and he should testifying witnesses probably and seem to be settling and are so. It would appear to deny the calling of new witnesses and to basically end the trial with with alacrity. With an acquittal, I watched almost all the proceedings yesterday and I was struck by how the West Germans elicited some kind of peculiar answers that you would have thought that the house managers would have had better responses to having basically been arguing the same case now for three.
In particular. I think the most striking moment came when I think Tom Cottons question came to what what do you say to the argument that there was a hold of four weeks on aid to Ukraine that was lifted before any money was really suspended. Awe and thus could be argued, was no harm, no foul and the fact that Barack Obama opposed lethal military aid for two years and val damning, then the very able, House manager spit five minutes, I no! No, there was harm. She said there was harm and there was foul, but she actually site,
It no evidence were facts to suggest that there had been harm or foul, and I would have thought that they would have had a better answer for this. And that's why I think it didn't go well for them. They also there is up. There were a couple of bad moments where Jerry Adler Hand, Sylvia Garcia, both seem to get aggressively hostile to the questions that they were being posed and call the question this disingenuous and stuff. Like that, given that they are trying to you now. In theory, there trying to get three or four people to sympathise with the arguments there making attacking questioners, one of whom was last summer
housekeeper in fact whom Sylvia Garcia said? Was you know we're making making false argument or was a shallow game or something like that seems very self destructive Noah? You have any I suppose the notion that term harm has been done as a result of this hold is mostly theoretical and will be known for quite some time in part because it has bearing on how nations will conduct foreign policy with the United States and pursue american objectives in concert with United States that have not occurred yet, so the notion that this will have extremely far reaching implications, but they cannot yet be known because having happened yet, while that would have been
convince both sides of the argument that the veil damning made. I mean that that's the problem like that day, I mean it's one of the problems and other big problem is that there are arguing with an audience that cannot will be not and will not be convinced and has said as much okay. So so the general republican argument is that the house, in in voting out the articles of impeachment, did not establish the array of facts that merited even the impeachment, not not to say the removal and that they are retro fitting in demanding that the Senate then provide in the form of witness cross examination the set of facts that they themselves didn't have when they essentially wrote these. These indictments these two articles of impeachment and while there
is a process argument right. That goes to doesn't mean you couldn't call witnesses and witnesses have been called in previous impeachment trials, and all that, although in appeasement trial against a judge, the patient trial against the presidents and serve only been two previous impeachment trials against president em. You know these are two different things and it's ridiculous. I think, to compare the two but in any case, is that just a process Human or is that a you now? Is there something more serious behind that that you know they didn't they indicted without having a sufficient basis, in fact, to make the argument that the president should be removed from office, but this this is where we get into the Alice in Wonderland, through the looking glass moment in this whole saga, because the main policy just gave this statement where she said you know Trump acquitted, because you can't be acquitted. If you don't, have it
You can have a trial if you don't have witnesses and documentation which that's more like how, like literally that's the only response you're gonna have to that because she's indicting her own, a gathering of evidence for the case, and in that sense, so I dont there. The Democrats need to decide whether there just going to charge forward and really try to persuade those reports. Kids, because, as far as we know, Mcconnell, although they seem more confident that they're gonna be able to block the call for witnesses still, evidently doesn't have the votes to do that. Yet so they either have to go kind of several other and try to get those votes in and get the witnesses and and gamble with that where they have to stop please indicting their own case by insisting that more Odin should come in now I dont do it. Doesn't I think it's very confusing to their over all argument to continue to do that and policy statement was absolutely bonkers. I guess it was.
Would have been more than just a process. Argument on the part of the Republicans. Had there not now been reason to suppose that there could be some could be some juicy, some additional juicy evidence now that that Republicans are not interested in hearing that some now becomes a strictly process argument: That's right! There's one good process argument. I think that the process argument on the bolt matter is, I don't think a good argument. Words. There is that there is a good case to be made. That Bolton should be called as a witness although there is also a good case me made that he shouldn't, because these they're not gonna they're, not going to run them from office. So for the health of the republic. It would then be better. This ended sooner rather than later, and it is true that at first reason. There is a whole new set of facts that come out over the course of this year. It is not
no, it's not unthinkable that he could be impeached again because there's a whole new set of fat and obviously it's sort of unthinkable, but but based on what the their own indictment of him. They didn't prove the case. I don't think, but the one thing that I think is really kind of discomfitting? Is that Elliot Angle whose head of the house a Foreign service committee, said you now? He knew whose bolt knows a lot, because, on September twenty third or something like that Bolton said, you should look into the firing of Marine Yvonne of it, though, a merit. U S, ambassador to Ukraine, who was sort of in a horizontal and pursued by Rudy Giuliani in his and his two Jeff kill in his Jeff bullies and then fired by the president, because, if Elliot Angle knew the John Bolton, you know was saying you better look
into this, why didn't he tell buddy that and this week I mean if it's a if it's a fact that strict then some case it was wild. Bizarre and irresponsible of him too to leave it one side, and so that's where you start saying well, so they were saving it as a. Play hit, it's all politics and all that I think that's a that's a. It was an uncomfortable moment, and I like Eliot Engel personally and I think, he's been largely a force for good in the ghetto in the in the house, is of as a moderate. You know Damn hawkish Democrat. Pro Israel and all that, but I mean I was this weird moment. I think and of course Noah's case, which is an excellent case, is that you know that the conduct here towards Ukraine,
was terrible, because it creates a whole new set of approaches in the minds of foreign powers. About our reliability or what we're. What were willing to do with our aid and for our own domestic political needs and all that. But that's not even that I don't think rises to an impeachable offense in part, because they that's not the argument that was made. The argument continues to be that he needs to be removed because he's going to cheat in this election
Ok, but can we also just pause for a moment to recognise the inanity? Dershowitz is Argo Meister I, which was that no MIKE I find not elected the national interests, will suffer so my doing whatever it takes to get reelected is international interest. My only one and honestly, eighth he's getting a lot of luck for this, but he didn't make that argument and its most comprehensive fashion. It was pat filled and who made this argument in the most offensive since House had filled in his deputy Whitehouse counts, quote and and if there is any possibility, if there is something that shows a possible public interest and the president could have that possible public interest motive, that destroy their case. So once you're into a mixed motive, land its clear that the case fails, there can't possibly be unimpeachable offence. At all so that logic, if the Brookings instead, you should have been fire bombed by virtue of the fact that Richard deemed it in the national interest because think of they taught, then it I've been unbeatable. Well, ok,
that's a problematic. What you just done there is is a problematic collision, because the bombing of the the bombing of the brookings, lucian, which never criminal we at, which was proposed to Nixon by G by beer by G, Gordon Liddy would be a criminal act like you can't bomb. You know that Can't bomber building in Washington DC, that's the destruction of property and placing people did harm's way and all that, so there is a criminal statutes, Edison violation here to it. What does Dershowitz there were there? There is a there is a colonel of a point in what Dershowitz was saying that Dershowitz, who has it enough Wesley high opinion of his own intelligence. That is, I think, largely, is not entirely merited. I mean he is. He is a brilliant appellate law that's his his job as in a pellet lawyer, which is what made his reputation and made him rich, and all that is figure.
At ways to reverse guilty verdicts due to air as in the initial court proceedings. That's that's what he'd that's his thing. Right is reversible error a constitutional law and not the history of impeachment, not anything like that and he's just basically email allowed mouth and- and so he got up in an effort to say it's very art to determine presidential motive if the president wanted to pursue corruption in Ukraine. While under, Standing that pursuing crushing Ukraine could have a favourable effect on his re election that Policy interest out ways his political hunger to win reelection like because
he is a presides eights, he is allowed to pursue policy and you would have to read his mind them Venus Soul and all of that to understand what the balance there was. Unless that is the argument that will prevail and will establish precedent. Why No argument will establish president because he's gonna be acquitted, meaning that they did not prove their case, there's no, that they do not know. The nothing's proved see what I'm saying like they are gonna quit on both charges on the grounds that whatever he did at them, I have to say why their acquitting, I mean the arguments be whatever he did. It does not justify his removal from office in some ways, maybe it was good. Some people are willing to make this law Chris Arguing Journal Editorial Board. Well, that was can't come out in support of the Jesuits
theory yet, but but, as I say, there's a colonel of truth in the dirt. You it's theory, I mean if, if you, if, if you decide to bomb, you know the baby milk factory in Iraq, because is you think the baby manufacturing factory needs to be bombed in response to something but you're? Also, to change the focus of the national discussion away from your impeachment. If your bill Clinton does the fact that you might get a two for one mean that the act of bombing, the baby milk factory, but I thought the idea that, if, in the end, if, if you leave that your re election or your you are a rising political fortunes themselves are in the best interests. Of the country that was directly. That was the horror of Dershowitz Rise argument, which does not fill dirt
two. It said, if you don't mind, he thinks that he has to be present and again to save the country, which is what Lincoln below if there's something like that, then then had opens the door, then that is a debt as an insane arisen, electoral, explicit electoral argument, but he was just and fill them with saying the same thing, all no more. I catch terms ass. He was he was saying there is political implications to every act and every act had because every I had a political implication, the advantageous political implications. Would every politician pursue No electoral element of ok- I I I I don't agree that that is the dirt With said what a just said, I mean Dershowitz said as long as He thinks that he should be re elected because that's in the national interest. He can do basically anything he too, because You know it because say The country from the Democrats, or whatever is abroad, is, is just to justify grounds enough because of the way in which
presidential powers allocated by the constitution that is, Why? There is an impeachment clause. It is precisely to vitiate that idea in the president's head before he gets there, which latest say why I pray moi. They lose whatever french phrase. You want to come up with what you know. No, you can't do whatever you want to, because you think you need to be president. Another people shouldn't be that's a b so power and again the other horrors this. You know bizarre argument that being levelled at Dershowitz as other horrible argument cause he's. Not a constitutional learn does know what the hell he's talking about was. There is no such thing as an abuse of power. If your president, which is Prima facie preposterous, there's there there only impeach him removed in some ways on abuse of power, because the president isn't criminally indicted bull according to various.
Theories of the presidential powers, since he would basically have to indict room and arrest himself right since, since the power of the executive branch to arrest and suddenly flows through him personally,. I mean just think the he's gonna cheat so we have to remove them from office before we cheat itself is a was inoffensively stupid approach that they took. Accusing someone of having of saying you have to get him. You have to remember
It was this radical sanction and you know change overturned the results of an election, because you can't trust that he won't do something bad. That's madness! I mean Arabs, not quite madness, but it's you know it's it's as close to madness is as any and of pre crime. You know I will just hold him in detention forever you now so we can commit. Yet if every human being were held in detention for ever, there would be no cross has everybody would be in jail? also this weirdness, where they say that it's not a sanction to to be removed from office. That's the other, weird things: it's not a punishment I have a question for you all about religion, worldview, their strategy. There humor Pelosi strategy of already trying to get ahead of the the likely acquittal of Trump to say that to basically say
doesn't mean anything if he's acquitted, I justice as a matter of a sort of everyday logic- the strikes me as a bad approach to take because they are the ones that were driving the driving force. And impeachment, then sell. Well, it doesn't really matter because we couldn't quit. Him strikes is undermining their case when they go to the electorate and in the lead up to the presidential election. But I am I wrong about that. Is this just baffles me that their taken this tat? Well? Ok, so, basically, I think if you look at them in the serve the long, the long term between Say September, twenty nineteen and November twenty twenty. There is this a moment you know from basically October through January or through the beginning of February, when there is this impeachment thing that happens and he'll be acquitted at the beginning of February and that it will be over. Let's just say what could have been Had this not happened, I mean what could have been was massive rise in.
National confidence about the economy, continuing in extremely low unemployment, the the the strike Sulaimani in a rock which is now as Noah detailed in a post earlier this week now pretty popular five thousand three hundred and forty one support for the strike absent impeachment that famous vote. Did trump ceiling of forty six percent in the polling or that could have who knows what could have happened and ends Oh impeachment had a political effect on him. It either slowed his rise, is unmistakable, I mean corner and one thing he's gonna six percent in three months: gallops, not less than was I will pollster, but I mean you can understand why his numbers would have improved. They
did some damage to either way I held them back, or they heard him some and they should be. They should be content with that. In my view, what about politically that? What about this idea? I'm just too replay devils advocate here? What if there was no peach went, but the UK marine scandal sort of state out there as the public's another another complained of the public against the President, as opposed to an extended democratic crusade that people could eventually turn out and answered, become annoyed, Why that's that's an interesting because, if you think about it, if they hadn't immediately jumped on it, because they were disappointed about Mahler and they wanted something else as unimpeachable offence and they ve just had to get impeach somehow, but there had been hearings and there have been some
in the house, and all this you could see twenty republican senator saying I'm very uncomfortable with this and its bad. You know you wouldn't have had this right decisions or party wide decision to defend at all costs without the ok and those being the face, but without the jeopardy non you'd have the Federalist with defended at all costs, but you could see where were publicly. Would have been somewhat discomfited and would have. There would have been sort of like ponderous a ponderous. Iran was as I like. You have a whole lot, Republicans on record, saying I now quid pro quo would have been a red line and then, when the red line was cross, yet we demanded a new redline Nova. Ok, so they said that it was so had the house not sought the ultimate sanction. This an interesting question politically: have the house not decided that this was the thing that they could finally jump on to do these things they wanted to do for three years and impeach him?
maybe it would have been more like the sort of thing that not would have broken trumps hold over the Republican Party, but would have been a and an unanswerable like a like. We have what you like a bird in the saddle just. You know that you can't get rid of what happens now is probably the more resident question reasonably comfortable predicting that they're not gonna go for witnesses. That will be fifty. Fifty go down and he'll be acquitted Fred. Evening and will move on right, Nope losses, he's going to stay with us for the rest of the election. Why? Because, in the interim between the articles passing the house and the Senate trial, we had five fire of freedom of Information ACT, requests have turned up owls Allenby memos in the implicit the president. In this decision, we had John Boltons book being released. We had,
a bunch of new information that suddenly turned up Republicans. No, the Democrats left a lot of evidence on on the table that evidence is going to continually arise over the course of the next year. Republicans will say: hey we're, gonna, leave it to voters to decide. That's gonna. And it's five. It's gonna turn to tone down the new cycle. I highly doubt it It also is reflective of the fact that Republicans know that the witness issue is a more problem. You know what his testimony is: gonna be, what they would have to do is call hundred Biden but his mind and he's probably not going to say anything that isn't in the book. So we already know what his testimony is. Gonna be, what they would have to do is call hundred Biden, and they don't want to call hundred by paper, but but let's when people are in Iowa, when these democratic Buddha Judge and and Biden who were being the only like viable candidates who are out and with this week since the senators or all back sitting. You know at their at their desks drinking milk, when they have these town halls and meetings, and things like that now
Nobody is asking about impeachment now nobody cares about impeachment. Nobody in this country cares doesn't mean. Imagine that it was one thousand nine hundred and seventy four. This was one thousand nine hundred and seventy six or something like that dixons running for reelection. You think in the Watergate case that people were wandering around going to town halls in Iowa that nobody would have asked about Watergate? There is some thing off! There is aid. There is a bizarre and the we're time at activists here which are made Chronic activists were going out to see these guys email at these at these meetings. This is also a function of where we are in this process. Democrats right now have the articles passed. They haven't, have witnesses rejected, which are supported by seventy son of the public, depending on what five pole suggested are and they haven't had there the articles rejected once they do, the the anger mantle passes
Republicans to Democrat. Oh, I just I don't their angry period. The Democrats and democratic voters are angry period if they can get angrier and that they're gonna be angry or between now and November. How can they be put? Can they possibly be angrier? Has any has any political figure ever generated the kind of anger that Trump right, I'm and, I would have said it would have been impossible after Bush, for anybody to generate that. That level of anger, but I was wrong, you know I mean I think. They have reason to believe. Based on pole, in various other things that say that says that they want wrong, to have done this, because even their own, because they were guaranteed, set up to fail, they impeached and it was clear,
that he would never be removed and that they were being set up to fail and you want them. We visit their failure for ten months. Generally speaking, politicians don't do that people don't walk round talking about when they failed. They we impeached him and they they blocked it made us sub, letting tunic that they're going to have now been able to throw that what we don't go out and they never I'm just saying MIKE's, where this is, you can be right. I could be right, then we will know soon enough by what actually happens politician, don't like going when talking about the things that they didn't get done. They like going when talking about the things that they do, do excuse me. Yet Yes, where my George W Bush spent ninety ninety two saying I wanted to pass capital gains, tax cuts and George Mitchell let me end by one in this house, rather than only talks about the things that are blocked by Democrats. That's not true.
Talks about how he is that this is the best economy we ve ever had and lived low and lowest unemployment. We had only talk about that. He'd have better Paul ratings. He likes to talk about his grievances. Give up I'm not talking on talking about. People have to go and try to make a case to overturn this to get him out of office I'm telling you right now job If he's the nominee or Bernie Sanders, if he is a nominee, isn't gonna be walking around saying remember we we we impeach them, and then there was this republican conspiracy to keep him and I keep him there. You don't want to do that like a bull. Aren't you gonna move on the run. It's the only is over three months of this. But the only silver lining of course said according to Politico Adam shaven hacks,
Jeffreys have now been caterpillar to national prominence, and now we have these two starring figures from the democratic left. Shivers number guide us button earth disappointed propellers. Oliver a sarcasm if and cares for me, I will say one thing I'll say. As you know, I feel I'm I'm as on. I must say I find Adam shift- is distasteful as many, if not most, of the people who listen to this find him. He was pretty impressive yesterday because YO he did you have a script right. They were being asked questions and they had to answer. You know than previously, as opposed to reading out the he was pretty impressive in the first week and he was even more impressive. Yesterday, he's smart and able and he's he's the best kind of demagogy, which is to say that at his best he doesn't sound like a demagogue and if he
If he had been more like, I will say this: if he had been if he had places cards closer, the vast and twenty seventeen and twenty eighteen it haven't gone on Amazon B C and said. The president was a russian spy seventy two thousand times and made false claims and did stuff like that. It made him a lightning rod. He might be an. He might be a different position now like maybe he could have run for president. Maybe he could have been sort of person who could have in a sort of emerged. As a as a much more serious and much less partisan player at at at at a sort of a certain kind, even though, is incredibly by but he didn't do that, and you know good locked him whatever like here, but let loose Let me sit down here for a minute and talk to guys about our first sponsor. Sweet
you know, if you dont know your numbers, you dont know your business, but the problem growing businesses have to keep them from knowing their numbers is their hodgepodge business systems. They have one system for accounting and other for sales. On the four, inventory, and so on it just a big, inefficient mass, taking up too much time and when resources and that hurts the bottom line so introduced, that's we'd by Oracle, the business management software that handles every aspect of your business in an easy to use cloud platform, giving you the visibility and control you need to grow with nets. We save time money and unneeded headaches by managing sales, finance and accounting orders and h are instantly right from your desktop or phone. That's why nets with is the world's number one cloud business system? right now, nets we is offering you valuable insights with a free guide, seven key strategist, where your profits at net sweet
calm, Slash commentary, that's nets, we dot slashed commentary to download your free died, seven key strategies where you're profits nets, we dot com, slashed commentary. We think that sweet for sponsoring the commentary. Using podcast, so moving on the five unveiling after two years of the or year and a half or something of the trump. It is tat peace plan serve, worked on by jarred cushion
U S! A massive Israel, David Friedman, AVI Berkowitz, who worked in the vice president's office and up and the plan is stunning. In many ways, a wanna tubes certainly lay out some of the wealth Dietz. I guess in terms of its being stunning, I think probably the first thing to say is that it was put forth without waiting or pretending to wait on input from palestinian leadership that a peace plan, which is the way it is the view s has gone about this kind of thing before this results in American drawn up plan agreed to by the leaders of both competing leading parties in Israel and it
as envision a palestinian state taking existing within four years is it has a American drawn up map that defines borders of it, but would what would be a contiguous palestinian state and contiguous state of Israel? The Israelis have agreed to this. The Palestinians have ass, they have they have they have they declared Dave rage right, ok, so the the map, as its strong gives the Palestinians about seventy percent of the of the West Bank, along with God and then to two patches of land south of Gaza, for a kind of like industrial parks or economic activity. Thus adding to about as the plan
says pretty roughly the area in which Palestinians lived before the armistice of nineteen, forty nine that ended the war of independence. The key sentence in the plan in many ways is that no israeli or palestinian will be uprooted from their homes. So, if you think about it, That's interesting is that the that means that with the exception, illegal settlements, of which there are still some. The plan says: if you whose want to live in a palestinian state. They should be free to remain israeli citizens inside the board so the palestinian state. If Palestine, means want to be citizens of the palestinian state, those stay within the borders of Israel. They should be free to do that. The United States government in this rat, in this understanding for the first time region
the notion that there should be land on earth, that is union rights that is Jus free, which has been an implicit belief of the peace plans that have been proposed up till now, which is that the Israelis are just going to get out of the West Bank back to the close of the sixty seven borders, and that means that they will you now that that the idea that a policy of they can't have a Jew emit, whereas of course, twenty percent of the population of Israel, as is arab That is something that we no longer accept as as up as a desirable outcome, desirable or even thinkable outcome. You haven't heard that talked about very much, but actually in moral terms. It's in some ways, the most important thing, because there has been this idea As you know, the settlements are illegal.
No understanding of true understanding of international law, the settlements, illegal, the land was never. In anyone's proper sovereignty. That still exists, you know why was under the Ottoman Empire Zone was underbrush, and so it was under the Hashemite kingdom. So you know that a lot of He's players no longer have any role in in the area and resolution Forty two of the resolution that serve ended the six day war does, I say that does not wire peace to return to the borders of sixty seven.
But you're right. You know I haven't really thought of it in those terms, and it is an amazing thing, because before this should every envisioned eventual peace took as given the acceptance of this kind of like cultural pathology, whereby, if everything will be great, peaceful and gathered be note there there, we of course there'll be no choose here, above all it what's revolutionary about the plan. You know it won't happen right. Let's go stipulate that won't happen. So therefore, what is its? What is its utility? Its utility, is it, the United States is now effectively recognising that this fiction that there was going to be a brokered worldwide peace? That would end the conflict somehow between Israel and the Palestinians and thus settled on the Middle EAST and comment. That's up Third, there hasn't been a serious conversation about peace between Israel and the Palestinians
December of two thousand that's like nineteen years ago, so course what happened before and after that was that the Palestinians, because the Israelis we're talking seriously by giving them a hand, launched a war. You know wants to terror war in you now that that that nearly tore the heart out of out of out of Israel until until it took the most, determine measures to end it by destroying all the bomb actor ease and then building the the security wall You know the world may go on and say: well you know this is ridiculous. I mean we have to have you now the and they didn't negotiate with the power students who are they must negotiate with, but by the like the national debate they had the p. I won't talk to them and there are some key players who haven't said that the world yet saying that at all. No that's that- and that is that is so
who saying it liberal, jewish organizations, the democratic Jews of debt democracy in the in the Democratic Party, are basically things about Israel that Saudi Arabia is in saying that Jordan isn't saying that Egypt isn't saying, or the Emirates or the amorous by the EU, who were Germany or France Corporate right, it's basically of the New York Times and tear. And and Peter Mario Jeremy Carter? Me Corbett invariably been on the right and there's another Yemen? No, not even with the other state in Israel, let's aligned with terror and then had a problem with us. Well, in a little while cut cutter had not got it. I cannot think right. Ok so, but I mean so, but even here and I think this is a key thing The reality is that the Palestinians no longer matter geopolitically. Now they matter in terms Israel cannot. Subsume to an end
million Palestinians are three million Palestinians within the the Jew. State polity, I mean that. Will create that would cause he had a horrible circumstances for the jewish state and so what's remarkable- is that we now have officially. We have the right wing government of Israel, firmly on the side of a two state solution. We have Carolyn click former com, I couldn't contributor, author of book called the one state solution. Doors to the two state solution here, because she recognizes as baby recognises, thereby that this arrangement in which it is it is accepted that Israel its security border along with Jordan Valley, and that it will be allowed to retain them. Major settlement blocks or that had been built that this is as
the best that this is actually only way there would never be peace and you know, who's plan. This is Yitzhak Rabin Shalom Javier Bill Clinton's best friend the idea of retain the Jordan Valley, retaining this much of the girl and the ones that are closest to Jerusalem and all that was the Labour Party plan and ninety ninety four, after the Oslo agreement was signed. Let me talk to you about lending club, our second sponsor. If Europe bearing revolving debt, that means are paying off your card every month, you're not paying off your card every month and could be paying thousands and interest every year that you don't have to with lending club. You can consolidate you're, dead or path credit cards with one fixed monthly payments to Doesn't seven lemon club is help millions of people regain control their finances with affordable, fixed rate, personal loans, no trips to a bank, no Heine discredit parts just got a lemon club.
Come tell him by yourself and how much you want to borrow pick the terms that are right for you and if you approve your loans, automatically deposited in your bank account in as little as a few days when the clubs, the number one peer to peer learning platform of over thirty five billion thousands loans issued so lemon clubbed outcomes, less commentary check your rate minutes and borrow two forty thousand dollars. That's lemon clubbed outcomes, less commentary, lemming loved outcomes, less commentary. Loans made by web bank member f. The icy equal housing lender So what else well? Should we go? What else can we talk about the other, the virus, who's afraid of the virus a hyper, so he's approve are some not happy about. We had to The first human to human transmission was really about. Is there s right? Yes, yes, apparently I'll join and who is invalid, Han and came home and gave it to her husband. So it's not. Like it- was somebody walking down the street who dear transmitted somebody else who was walking down the street. But you know China must. It must be done
playing the numbers? Here I would assume I would. I would hesitate to trust with the official state figures are on this. I in the bureau, Joe, is convened. It's kind of emergency specialists to discuss How do we do whether other measures that countries can take so If it is serious, it's it's Mean Sars. Sars was also serious, but this seems to have a higher patient to new infection rate rate. Then Sars did Sir it's it's very serious. I mean you know. Patently people eat snakes, that's the other thing live term. I guess it shouldn't surprise one, but that's the thing that keeps me up at night, miss thinking about people snakes. It was the bat sickens me. The woman eating a bat was imminent, because that is their laboratories, this disturbing, very disturbing, no you're, not
you have to I don't know I mean I could have the positive effect of repatriating american jobs so that's what I wanted to that is that age and Emily me ology users, assessment of commerce secretary worrying Ross this morning, discarded, wouldn't observation. Wilbur raw saint staying on their no Senator Durham was Wilbur. Ross cannot take his foot. Stick it right in his mouth. This is true him his entire career and it's true, nine, just reserving management, I don't know it to believe and none of my relatives, so I don't have any real insight into this. Sort of thing by the waves of the fact that it seems like there's a fair income based on religious there for you you're, not never deeming colleges, there seems to be an innovation period where you can be contagious and not events, symptoms, Ba symptomatic that so you're like every other food, What on earth is always a bit you when you're when you're? Finally- symptomatic you're no longer contagious, that's like lets a classic, that's a classic thing,
I guess we should conclude by saying that we are now entering in the year of Poles. Making everybody insane because all week- it's been Bernie Sanders is gonna win Iowa years, appalled by bygones up by five. Now here's a poet Bernie. By seven twelve years of polar binds up by three now So am I, of course, a cock estate pulling doesn't even make all that much sense, because people end up a lot of people. The winner often ends up being the person who is everybody's second choice, as opposed to everybody's first choice, but I would just caution that what this indicates that we are moving into this time in which if you think, poles say something that you want them to say, and you actually take some emotional comfort in the results of that Paul you're, making a huge
You're, making an enormous mistake, because you're just gonna have your heart broken like three minutes later by by the by the next one and that's they night. So it's were finally actually this whole thing we ve all. We ve been talking over two years as this imbalance Now, finally, beginning it's like the Miss America passion for political weirdos like everybody claiming their predictions are going to save her from other. I have no, I mean. How can you predict that you told us to predict the risk, so the twenty twenty election. So let's go ahead I'll eggs, there was a fine little mark caucus at college. College towns are burning territory. He's gonna burn your Warner, gonna windows, but done it was instructive, if not predictive, so they had. It was pretty quick that the need to get fifteen percent to be viable right, so the Biden teams were not
I will very quickly closure non viable very quickly, but a judge, worn and burning were the big big left, first, an team Bernie was no longer viable after another round and they were being cajoled and coursed to go over to Elizabeth warns side and they declined refused. They would not participate so they picked up and left and did not progress at all Bartleby. The scrivener approached me I'd heard not to carcass. So if that is a dynamic that occurs across the state, the really three types of areas- and I hope that the college towns that the rural places and there's the mine and you can see in the night, Algeria is more. Or non viable constituencies.
That would align with Biden then, when align with burning. So it's entirely possible that Biden pulls out from these non viable constituencies, a three or four per lead over a Bernie Sanders. So without really what I've that's. What my head is telling me is is but a smart monies onward Bernie, I'm making a prediction that is cavern to it. She quickly explain that in a lot of the Caucasus, though not all of them, they will not report out the results of of of any candidate who does not get at least fifteen percent of the Caucasus, so assuming an and so they'll be a first ballot on which people will get more than fifteen percent. And then
have. These can stragglers who get under fifteen percent and then they'll be a second caucus in where you literally go stand next to the people. You want to wear the people under fifteen percent that those candidates are no longer present, so you have to go somewhere else physically in the room. That'S- the biden- hope right that that that clover, Char and Yang and whoever else get like forth rather twelve eleven percent and that they will line up with him, the most startling number and I've checked with people to make sure it's. My error stuff, like that, was a pole of Iowa that said that of the vote of the cop potential caucus goers eighteen, thirty four Joe Biden gets the support of three percent.
Three percent, whereas he's getting out of forty nine percent of people who are over fifty five or something like that three percent. So this is my way. There's been a whole controversy this week about walking around money, which is money classically that was that's, been give out on election day in urban areas, to to get off the vote. I this idea that binding should do something called like can absorb walking around we'd day than he should like send p Two, a m various other places and just hand out free marijuana, so the spot, the oats stayed at home in their in their dorm room said, might not go out and get stoned, because that his best hope is that the we brows. Actually, you now are just too lazy to go colleagues irregular voters. I would talk him at the end of the two men race. It's not there could be surprises and probably will rises in any of these candidates in the top. Forty five are vital.
The only real surprise would be. If here I mean honestly, there are no surprises, like the surprise We have budget one or something like that, but if up five of them got in got over fifteen percent, like if Sanderson worn, it's not sanders. Warren body, judge, clover, Char and Biden or site get over fifteen percent. That can happen. I mean you know, then dented system could then they'll be want. That's like seventy five percent of the vote. There I don't know I will, also say that I think Biden also go with Noah's analysis. But on the other hand it could also be the Bernie will win like commanding. He has the momentum and if it's a high turnout election- and it has
we don't know what you know momentum. This is one of the great confusing things of all. Politics is whether momentum exists or not. People always p boys think that momentum is real and I'm I'm very sceptical, because in the end the results are usually when you think what you think, I'm, except in the Caucasus, which are just just weird, anyway. So Abe is not saying anything Sanders. I think it's Anders it centres will you have to think it's ask as Europe the same our service guy. No, never steam. What about you I'm I'm months, my monies on centres of this one I would ask, is witching while going is limiting Sanders surge tattoo I'm going with sand resulted. Third, because I need to a need to herd
Either the right body lands cause. I love come from. I like the counter intuitive predictions. I hope nobody there comes out for the from behind or he places forth. The gulag has like a narrow. Second, Well, you know the other weird part about this is that you can still see this whole thing, but how? If you, when I was seven of nine steep vernacular, seven of nine democratic nominees have winner of Iowa since nineteen, seventy six, so that's very serious for sanders, but you can see how, after New Hampshire, where he really is apparently separating himself from the pen and Biden stories binds pulling ads from tv. Binds already, basically assuming that he's not gonna, win New Hampshire that but where Z, go like this. It's all so exciting that you now suddenly mystically this the southern vote and for Tuesday vote. Suddenly flocks to Sanders like like
tromp about sceptical? I mean that that if Sanders winds, these things that doesn't mean that we're not gonna have a hard slog all the way to whatever is the new California know what it is. We re had just like something out of here, too limited, and with that we must have closed so remote, Roscoe Rosa Jump at words, keep.
Transcript generated on 2020-02-25.