« Commentary Magazine Podcast

Shall I Eat an Impeach?

2021-01-14 | 🔗
Today's podcast takes up the second impeachment and the quandary facing the Senate as regards the trial of Donald Trump. Will it involve an assault on free speech? Why are liberals so intent on cracking down on speech anyway? And what about the GOP and Trump's continued popularity? Give a listen.
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
So for best expect the word some preachers diapers, the way of going this way is going over. The best expect, worst of welcome to the Commentary Magazine Daily Podcast today's Thursday January fourteen TH, two thousand and twenty one, I'm John Boards, the editor of commentary with me is always associate editor Noah Rothman, hi, Noah, hi, John Senior writer, Christine Rosen HI, Christine John, an executive editor, a Greenwald High, Abe, Hi John, so Donald Trump makes history by being the first president to be impeached twice. He has been impeached twice in the space of thirteen months.
Which raises the question of those of us who thought that the first impeachment was politically and practically on sound. I think, have have a certain justification now, because the dead the first impeachment this. If this impeachment had been the first impeachment. Obviously I think it would have been a little harder. For a publicans to sail. This is just political, where you know, for his defenders, say to suggest political, and I have to say that also in the course of the debate yesterday on the house floor, since, of course, everybody wants to get up and get their thirty seconds or one minute to two to give a little peroration
A lot of Democrats gave the game away by praising themselves were having introduced articles of impeachment in twenty seventeen or no. I can't remember, who was maybe with Steve Cohen, of Tennessee, saying Hey. I wanted to impeach women, twenty seventeen, which is actually the opposite, the message that should be the opposite of anybody who actually looks at this and says what happened. On January six is itself. Isolation from everything else that has gone on in his presidency, the reason that he needed to be impeached and removed from office It has nothing to do with how he is said this or he did that or he was a white supremacist or racist or mean Charles whatever how want to slice it that he did something very specific, very localised, very focused that letter crowd
to breach and storm the the capital building and tat is why you do it. You don't do it, because he jerk or you don't like him or his policies were terrible or anything like that. And so by by saying I you see, I told you I told you back, then we should have each demeaned in twenty seventeen. That's where you give succour to the poor those who want to say this is all political. You just always wanted to get em and now you're. Just using this as a means to humiliate Amanda and and that's not gonna work. I'm sorry if you remember a single moment from those speeches. I didn't watch all of them, but I watched most of them. They were wrote, they were rushed. They were perfunctory, apparently Adam can singer so republican. Who has been have spoken recently about the dangers represented by this president and why he needs to be removed from office you requested of, democratic leadership somewhere between five and seven minutes. To make the case, the republican case against the president and was denied said, can
have your normal minute and tedious I am to take that opportunity and so didn't speak for his position. It was training as far as I know. I don't think she spoke in defence of her own position, the founding the serious mistake on the part of Democrats and always knew they were gonna, make a mistake or too? And this is the first and probably a big one, because it would have been the sound bite that you would have heard across all the news networks and by declining out Turning and just giving all these politicians another yet another chance to grandstand. They didn't have a single uniform case that could be presented to the to the republic, Zita, especially to skeptical Republicans republican voters. As to why this is a necessary step towards opportunity. Probably one of many well, you know as always when you, when you watch the com,
press in action. It is a disheartening spectacle. I don't care when it is. I'm almost all the time hearings, Euro invested Laurie hearings proceedings with all this talk of the last week about Grand Citadel, the sacred space of our democracy and all of that what goes on inside the building as a matter as a general rule is not very edifying, and this was not a particularly edifying spectacle, though. You know that the people that I'm talking about the ones who sort of. Play the sea? You know these terrible- and I always said he was terrible at work- were not the majority of the speakers and yet oh you're, right it was. It was everybody like getting a buyer, the apple. You view your recognised for thirty seconds. You recognize for a minute. I mean nothing,
serious can be said. Ah, you know in a timeframe like that, the only speaker who had a long peroration as far as I could tell was steady horror. The number two person in the democratic leadership policy did not speak. Nor did she sit in the chair, presiding interesting enough, though, she did have a a preposterous grand moment where she called in the press for what she caught said was a press conference so that there could be the video of her signing the impeachment article. Send to send to the house, and then the press started, asking questions and her questions and she walked out and I'm yet to see anybody. You know among the among the press corps, say hey What was that? What gives like? What? What are we,
we're like there to be yours, do there to be a well courts, not refer an official photographer like we wanted to ask you what what happens now and you won't answer questions again in edifying. I would say. But let's try to unpack this little bit because of course, what's interesting is once once it's done now. It's been done and now we go to this question of what what what happens now and its unprecedented be impeached. Why it's unprecedented for someone to be impeached. Seven days before before he is out of office and now goes to this question of what will the Senate do with these articles of impeachment and how will it manage- and I know anyone want to Come up with a proposal in kind on somehow pocketing
pocketing the impeachment and not having a trial? Well, one the argument being made, I don't necessarily agree with that, but the argument being made for for the delay until after the inauguration is first focus on a safe and peaceful next week was the transfer of power where everything goes smoothly and new Senate coming in can set the terms for what the travel look like and more evidence will have been gathered at that point, too, a stronger case, they'll, have been ordered, orb, exculpatory, exculpatory cases like the idea that you actually this was very quickly rushed in the house, which I think that was a good thing The argument that would be made against this is just partisan. You know or he shouldn't this shouldn't happen he's not there. Anyway, the Senate would make a good case that look a little bit of delay will give us some time to build a have a real trial, so we'll see I mean usually the shortest one was the last one right. It was like twenty one days or something these things take time. So I wasn't
verse to Mcconnell, saying Mcconnell, saying think it was some huge ploy on Mcconnell's part to say you know: here's the he was pretty forthcoming with his response to that. So there is some argument to be made for it in the same way that I think as an emotional and kind of psychological matter for the american people just be nice to have done with it Biden comes in and then that's over, but that's not gonna happen, so we can tease out to other things where there is the question of. Do you impeach somebody after their out of office and there is president for for having a trial after someone has resigned because the way to avoid
it an impeachment trial according to this doctor would be just to resign from office and if you actually wanted to have a genuine trial that shouldn't be sort short circuited by such behaviour, necessarily but the remedy, as we see it in as we can see from the impeachment clause in the constitution, the remedy is either removal from office, which, of course, will be impossible, because Trump will already have been removed from office by the ending of his term or or procedures. That will make it impossible for him to run again for office and you're to hear hear people say,
that constitutes a bill of attainder. You know one these things that the sixth amendment outlaws, but if the remedy for for a conviction in the Senate is constitutional itself, which is a further ban from serving an office. I don't see how that constitutes a bill of attainder. The real issue here is gonna, be nothing ultimately in the car so the trial of the trial is serious and not just nakedly political whether or not you can say that what Trump said in his speech constitutes actual incitement, and there is a standard called the Brandenburg Standard based on law that tried tries to spell out what incitement would act. We be and having read through the speech again, I don't know that accept politically as a matter of law, whether you could actually find that the sort of rhetoric of Trump used word.
I word as you would have to prove it in a criminal court could considered incitement in the most practical sense that a silly standard, because almost nobody brings up almost never. Is there a prosecution, based on broad renovating it, because it is so high. It is so difficult to run every body on criminal standard beyond erosion of regret. At now, we're gonna need right now. That's that's because speech in the United States is protect yeah, but in particular, is protected, in particular the speech of representatives elected representatives is, is so protected that they can say anything they want to on the floor of the of the of the cause of the House or Senate. Without facing any criminal sanctions. I mean that you can literally cordless region debate clause. You could call when a trauma Lester on the floor of the House or Senate the House and sent. Can that can discipline you
according to their own procedures, but you cannot be hauled in the court and accused of defamation or slander forward. you say on the bring proceedings, official, Bruce things of the House or Senate. Because of the speech in debate clause of the constitution, which is there to protect elected representatives for Asia to give them the right to say whatever it is, they think they need to say Yasser I don't think it's a silly standard at because because having watched a lot of the speeches yesterday, but not all of them it was clear to me that the representatives who are against impeachment anatomy, the the crazier ones, but I mean this sort of or level headed ones, They made a better case on the language issue. They they made a case on the language issue. You know talking about out how Trump said to two March:
peacefully in patriotically and whatnot, they they ve had a better showing then those than the those in favour of impeachment who to make this broad emotional case about incitement. Now I say that you know as someone I think you should be impeach, but but on that issue I think they were marginally effective, whereas their opponents were not. Now, I'm gonna put listen to your mouth, but you think he should be impeach not because he violated a criminal statute, because you violated his oath of office I think that's right, right, yeah. What unimpeachable standards are right, Well, there is standard that all all it says in the constitution is I crimes and misdemeanours, it does not define What those are willing That's why the debate and actually you will see in the Sun
a trial that there is a de. There is a danger here for the left and the right in terms of the discussion of incitement speaking. We are talking about the soul, but before we started taping, but you know you can If you want a sort of punishing speech, as its It meant that goes well beyond our existing legal standard, and there are many members of Congress who are encouraging, not in the wake of what happened on January six, including air sea and others. They want to crack down that kind of speech, they think it's bad. This is what the depart forming by Silicon Valley. Tech companies is about as well. The problem, of course, is that and there an interesting ongoing case, the Supreme Court just sent back to the lower of a the police officer suing a leader of the black lives matter, movement who incited by mob and this police officer, was severely injured. As a result of that us that mob attack and he's suing the Matter, leader saying he inside of this violence and the standard is. It is and should be, very high if you're free speech advocate, but as we know, from a particular the younger generations in this country that
Standard of really dedicated a commitment to free speech has been waiting for years in a very worrisome way. The idea that speech is violence has become a tenant of the progressive left and turn that there is now an opportunity, some of them see to move in and make that much more. A strong statement that will have penalties if it's violated. That's what we look at this and we say ah. You see they don't like speech and they know they they consider this noble and and and almost immediate it. It's almost to the point of a religious doctrine that speeches harmful and her full and that there should be punishment for inflicting pain, even if that pain is only psychic on anyone who hears speech that that that makes them uncomfortable.
And the doctrine that I grew up with and that was sort of the classic simple liberal position almost to a into an extreme measure so that you know many first Mehmet Lawyers- were hotly defensive of the most green versions of pornography, for example, on the grounds that you know few started that mob mucking around you know, with wit, with though kinds of speech it make everybody incredibly and trouble and we know where we, even if there be in of depicting illegal acts or something like that and you you have to defend that because you know a speech itself is a beautiful thing and be this is the camels knows, under the text. That was that you know I'm I'm almost sixty m. You know my one of my formative, life experiences in political life in New York and nineteen. Seventy four was a race for the Manhattan District attorney's.
Office that was eventually won by Robert Morgenthau, who then served in the office for about seven hundred and fifty years until he until he was finally ousted at the age of three thousand, but Morgan thought was running against someone named Richard Q, who had who was the serve appointed day because his predecessor had either died or resign or something and Q lost his race in nineteen seventy four, because he had prosecuted Lenny Bruce for us. Vanity, and that it only happened a decade earlier it wasn't like. It had happened forty years earlier, the the argument Lenny Bruce had been a persecuted and driven into his driven to overdose and death. By heavy hand of the censoring state had by this point, become an orthodoxy
and the end and the notion that we needed to be protected from obscenity. I had become something that no no right thinking person believed by that point, and here we are like forty, some five years later and the doctrine has flipped entirely and the free speech movement in the country is We ve been on the right and the and the people who wish to repress em and retard speech are people who are about from this are of conventional. I go from conventional. Liberal institutional voices at universities and the like onto the far left, which no longer sees a practical value except through speak only with political speech on cultural speech, because they still will defend to the teeth suffer
now, if you want to say that that Whap song, that was the big song of two thousand and twenty is kind of disgusting, and maybe they shouldn't play it on the radio boom you're going to have a lot of progressives coming down and saying you're, trying to shame these women's right to celebrate their sexuality. So it's weird because like they want to keep certain parts of it, so some of the freshens part of speech they wanna still protects the most extremes. It's the political speech. Comes from the other side of the Isle that they that they come down pretty pretty seriously and they also use inflammatory political speech for their cause, it they just don't get called out on it much right. well, that was the irony of listening to Maxie Waters, lecture the country for a minute about about the dangers of violet speech, an incitement, because she she's she's well known in their many clubs of her doing precisely that throughout the summer were so the point here is that is that two to go at a Donald Trump on the grounds that his speech was incitement to go at.
Woody Giuliani on the grounds that this speech was incitement. These are incitement. In this case a legal standard and am does run a foul of the first member. There is no question about it that you are, you are on a razors edge about the suppression of speech. If you, if you say for example, someone saying we need to fight is incitement leading to pee you know getting into physical going in punching somebody in the face fight the very generic word and in fact you know, as Sarah Esker has pointed out, When, when we talk about Political Sweetwater, These are fighting words like. So, if we're saying fighting words in that way fight is obviously a metaphor for an argument. You know it's not it's not literally mean go.
Go hit! Somebody your go. Guenaud hit somebody with a fire extinguisher, and this is why Abe tapes point about. You know that the distinction that weren't made during during the brief floor statements during it judgment that I think need to be thought about. Before anything happens in the Senate. Is this you can make, and I think we should make I'm very strong political case that what Donald Trump did is a form of incitement for which he should be held responsible, not because it meets the legal standard protected. You know of protected species, but because with more power, comes more responsibility and has a betrayal his oath of office. It doesn't if it meets legal standard because he was responsible and should have known. Actually what would happen and even if he is in a court of law, when wooden stand up to scrutiny because of his unique role and the unique amount of power we concentrated in, so that that distinction has not yet been made by the Democrats, and it would be a whole behoove them to make it in the future. While we may, I mean the second briefly, the second argument,
favor of delayed trial. I'll be at. I don't find it particularly compelling but nevertheless is that The evidence that will be gathered and presented could provide some picture the president was doing those moments and according to what, putting that we have on which has it verified and needs to be set out in a trial and in a blue ribbon. Bipartisan commission is The present was derelict in his duty to protect the capital. Protect lawmakers indeed, was intentionally deliberately allowed. These events to unfold again. That's not illegal. That doesn't violate a criminal statute, but there is no definition of the oath of office that you took in twenty seventeen that would allow for that sort of thing. You know that's a complicated point, also not to get Tom Ludic about
but you know there is a nowhere- should have known standard in the law. You you don't just you cannot you're not, just necessarily liable for a sin of commission, meaning someone says, Mr President, We have to send the National Guard to the hill, and then you say no, we will not send the National Guard to the hill because I want they held to be violated by protesters. But you're like you know,. You're sitting there. You should order the National Guard to the hill and you don't that That's the sin of omission, and it is it's not only still a sin and can be criminal. You know there is this whole thing going on now it's a bad! It's a very slippery slope right now in Michigan the former. Of Michigan Snyder has been indicted on on
charges owing to the Flint water supply case and is being convinced on the grounds that he knew or should have known that vice in this contract and using the water of the Flint River that that was going to poison people and and in fact there was little bits of phone traffic that suggest that he kind of did know or might have known. This is a very dangerous thing, that's going on here, because you know that this could be applied to every politician everywhere at every time, but again, as as Christine said we're talking about the President United States in a moment of high tension and an unprecedented act of violence happening. You know that he could see from a tv screen that he did not take any role in attempting to quell quiet work.
Settle down until hours into it when he made that weird? You know we love you but go home statement. So all this being said, my. Looking at this now can, when here's here's the thing Kevin, Mccarthy, the House, minority leader said yesterday, the President bears response bill. Some responsibility for what happened at the Capitol parties. Behaviour over the last two months has been shameful in many ways, because large, the shame of any human being who publicly says things. He does not believe. As we now know, we know that he believed the Joe Biden won the election fair and square, and he said that he didn't, or he said that there were real questions or something like that, and he did that
saying something that he did not believe for naked political reasons, and so that's fought like you now sit sit sit it's bad like the way it's bad. When people lie to the general it is there a way short of impeachment and and this trial under the the peace has happened so know say I believe, I believe be should be like he's been impeached, so it is very hard for people to separate these things out ripen. It's important for people listening to understand Trump has been in but he hasn't been, is removed. There hasn't been a Senate trial. It's a two stage, effort, Is there a way for him to be held responsible that doesn't? and involve a Senate trial and the answer, apparently, is no. I mean that that's you know it because to say: well,
he's been punished because he lost the election will lose the election because of what happened on January six. What How is he to be held responsible without a Senate trial- and I think the answer Kevin Mccarthy says he should be held responsible, but Matt Gates doesn't think he should be held responsible. Jim Jordan doesn't think it should be held. Responsible, Lauren Bobo doesn't think he should be held responsible, Marjorie Taylor, green. Think you should be held responsible, a lot of those republicans who stood up and started yelling and screaming about how bad liberals were yesterday. Do not, the trumps should be held responsible. I mean the argument that are essentially making as well. You know he's gonna be out of office, Greece, and so that's. You know why my we're going as an I think, he's going to provide the cover that
republican senators will need to move on from this, because the trial is not going to commence until after the inauguration. At this point, what looks like and we'll just say? Well it's over. What are we even doing this for the president, your essentially establishing there is that in the transition period in the interim present, can do whatever he wants because there will be no ramifications. There will be no there's. No, mechanism, to which you can apply to impose some standards on the outgoing president, because it's just silly. It's unnecessary! It's not going to be out of there he's going to be out of there soon enough, so creating this. This vacuum of response, accountability in this in this period that- don't think anybody would really think would be a good standard to set for future presidents going forward. Really were to explore this has as a precedent and not just an excuse is to get out of doing your job. One there
I think that's a really good point, because usually we spend a lot of time during the lame duck transition period complaining about the bad pardons, and you know that all the ways in which an outgoing administration can still do these small abuses of power or what are seen by people who knows how the eyelids abuses are overreach and the arts ones is for those it's kind of something that's become unexpected part of the system. I mean, I think we should Congress ones something useful? It can pass legislation that will change the transition period like with too long like there's no reason for it to be this long. It's an arbitrary decision, was shortened. It was your ignoring. Anyone is six months because, of course, people answer right now had to maybe right a horse from Ohio, and I mean there's no reason and a modern democracy for this period to be this long in any case. But I think there are there. Have to be consequences because
and again I mean I feel like we're kind of beating a dead horse with this. But it's going to come back to bite Republicans if there aren't, because what's going to stop the next, what's going to stop a Joe Biden administration from having a lame duck period where they do all kinds of mischief and nonsense using the federal Governments power. There has Accountability also because crazy Lauren Bobo are promising to introduce articles and impeachment about Joe Biden on day widely ridiculous people Will you tell your bring I'm sorry learned with anyone I do um, I um all the crazy freshman Republicans together, but there are a message needs to be sent, and I think that all of trumps for its now, to kind of you to dress up and do a video like he's. A criminal defended who's been told to clean up for cordon Sayer, let's all because let's not have any violence it that's too little, There still need to be consequences for what happened on January six in his role in it speaking of fresh,
probably in the house. I need to make a correction earlier. In the week I spoke of a newly minted congressmen from Michigan and I miss pronounced his name. His name was Peter Mayer spelled Emmy. I J e r- and I said major, but apparently it's pronounced mayor and his chief of staff emailed me to say that I was pronouncing the couple other people the too, so I am happy to be able to correct that. He has made a very powerful statement and and- and I think a pretty courageous one form an incoming Republican, particularly with more continuing poll data, suggesting that eighty percent of Republicans think that I think that trumpeted fine and fifty five percent of them still want him to be the nominee in twenty twenty four.
And so you know, we have to serve to face the fact that that nothing that happened here it seems to be shaking. I mean The margins with ten Republicans voted for fur removal, as somebody serve for impeachment, as somebody said, that is the largest number that has ever voted Cross Party for an impeachment. Ever of course, there have been enough impeachments to really a measure measure that thence, but that still a one twentieth of the carcass. I mean it's not. You know it's five percent of the carcass so They have clearly got the message that this is not something that they wish to pursue, but they should pursue were, is just you know, a part of the general ongoing political strife and I think that they are likely be more defensive over overtime rather than less, unless we get some real
gun out of that? You know, commission that hasn't even been formed yet, and so the simple fact the matter is that if you are a conservative in the United States who believes that trumped deserve to be impeached and removed, whether you are unaware the official or an intellectual, just an ordinary run of them. Voter you are very much in the minority and that's just the though among your people and that's just the way. Things are because negative partisanship, as is the most potent didn't dominant force in American pull girl now and if so, someone so says black. You say why I mean that's, that's that's part of it and, what's more, if they say black there, people will for saying black and their victimizing you for saying white, and so that's, and so that's that's. That's where we are the Trump is, is gonna, be a martyr to you know to add to the political
EVIL that has been practised upon him over in the last week of his presidency. So how do we cope with that now by the way? Speaking from the position of Commentary magazine we are used to being a minority within a minority within a minority. I've said this many times in this podcast. You know we are, we are concerned lives in the jewish community, which marks us or not everyone. A spy podcast is jewish by we are concerned, the jewish me that mark as as the minority we are run. You know we're highbrows in in publishing world in which show that were is very small and so we're used to laboring in
Laboring minority precincts. But that is not true of most people who generally are very uncomfortable, being iconoclastic and not being part of a bit of a comforting crowd. So where does this? Where, where does this go. May we ve been saying like in a week it we can name, six or seven senators who might vote to convict Trump on the Republic inside right now, but The polling is immovable, it's a little hard to see and if the enough Trump Enzo, raising five hundred million dollars, complaining that you know he's been unfairly treated and that money is sitting in a pool somewhere for him to use as a weapon against Republicans above for his removal in the Senate, probably not gonna happen. So therefore, the trial
just simply be another another create another partisan chasm in the United States. I wonder if something gets of its the beginning of a correction of something, though, even if trump you know isn't convicted in the Senate when Christine's talking about you know what happens going forward. I do think that this may quell start to quell the madness rapid, on both sides about uncomplaining, about fixed elections generally, like did having to see that that that that is what Thus, to this cataclysmic point now as they have no basis in reality to begin with and no basis in reality in twenty seventeen no basis in reality, twenty eighteen has base this new reality and twenty twenty that's a convened, excuse it.
Paradigm that they were a constructs that they work themselves up into which has fallen. Into a general persecution complex this killers, are not really important. It's a general sense that the institutions are rated against you, you don't actually to justify it. In fact, because when you're pressed on it, you can just hurl the- I thought of accusations out that you ve never actually researched yourself, but the touch that them, the man number of accusation themselves constitute evidence in your mind and all it is just as in a contract, an idea that justifies, your own recalcitrance, but that's objective, the Recalcitrance is what you want to hold onto so as long as you're committed to that psychological predisposition- wait the evidence that if you work the evidence backwards to justify okay well, but maybe there's a silver lining here, I'm going to really try to be an optimist, because I've been so cynical the last few weeks that
it points to which is, it might not be. The rigging elections talk, but maybe the cult of personality around politicians will receive a little bit because I didn't, it really is milk was right, it's what was his. It was his appeal. The Hilary Trump match up was the Godzilla most for a right, because both sides were really heavily invested. The personalities of their candidates, I would to see a lot more milk toast at the top of our political life for the next few years, and that includes I mean it's, the one silver lining to having kind of aging partisans on both sides controlling the institutions of Congress Right Nancy Policy She does her sleigh, Queen bullshit pardon the French, but they but but its. If you can it's not really how she goes about her business same with Mcconnell, so that would be, Welcome silver lining to all this chaos in the last ten years, and sadly, we're not gonna get that either import, because there were no possible outcome. Has
materialised, the fifty fifty Senate I am a Harris, is the most important person in american politics, and the image makers had been working overtime to force her. She did not answer but role she had vote cover. Did she know? Why can we Germans have not got it and how she doesn't? Have the political star power, naturally she's a maladroit PA Titian there been trying their best to make her into some sort of a star and they work and will continue to do so and haven't much to have much more robber. Kennedys. Now that she's gonna be occupying the prominent position. Breaking Tebrick that's! How many of us are you? Ok, we're gonna pull back and talk about the vogue cover I wanted to remind your days ago, but so if people don't know Camel Harris is on the cover of vogue and she had a photo shoot of her in a kind of class. Power Power, let's go Are you a cream colored David against a background and that photograph was taken in the last couple of weeks and then
apparently Anna winter. The editor vote that looked at it and she was like this is born. And they found this actually pretty fantastic The photograph of her taken in twenty and eighteen and a much more colorful outfit, where she's wearing sneakers and it's act. A great picture like of sub some photograph like that have been taken to me. I would be thrilled targets merely iconic she or her people or somebody went absolutely ballistic and said. The vogue had violated an agreement? They had agreed that they would only use the picture that was taken and blah blah blah and so which, for the print cover like the print magazine shipped with the good good. They are what the digital, not on the day that did they use the digital they use the one that has not really been ordered to make peace with Harris. Look at now here this is not the editor of Vogue. She doesn't get to pick the photo of her. That goes on the cover of vogue. She is
our people are dumb to have objected to the photo that was chosen, which was very vastly better and vastly more flattering and vastly more interesting than the one she did That's an aesthetic choice, while vote very gently said well. You know why we have to say we never said that we were going to use that photo and we'll we actually had talked about the other photo. When nobody said that we couldn't but were really sorry to have it. In any way shape or form, possible to me suggests sorted what Noah's talking about in very she is tone deaf and not I mean I don't know if she's nuts or if her people are nuts. But if this is how she wants to start dealing with the press with a friendly press, doing a hay geographic cover an article about her is to wine that she didn't get them
picture that she wanted to herself under cover, but is not limited to the. About the picture, one is that with the iconic sneakers were like a main message of her campaign, as vice president, she was always shown in her sneakers like look at her and her amazing sneakers. So the fact that they were complaining about that is ridiculous. It was one of her branding things, but the other thing it shows. The split that we ve seen in other cases on the left, because was about race that the woke left on line was like the only reason they did this to risk. If she's a black woman, forgetting, I guess the multiple extremely flattering. Michelle Obama covers on vote that, where you know what I've been Anders, what they did, what to her, they used a better photo, But now I remember the area or interest go ahead. I know I've been agreed, further the ideas that it diminished her power, because yet A casual exact orders but they can't stand black women's power, that kind of them or so scared a black women's power lose was robbing her of authority right.
Have a bizarre obsession with footwear have any further frightened footwear. For many years to be some sort of a psychological expert thing we're going to get a sponsor. If you keep talking like that, I'm talking about something else, I'm talking about what this says about the curiosity of common Harris's position it knows talking about how she is being. You know how she now has no unaccustomed or unusual power for a vice president because of retie breaking role in the Senate, and that is true They have used this in some fashion or other too. Send some kind of message to the press that she is gonna be unfriendly unless they do everything that she wants them to do. She is making a mistake and Alex you. Why? I think she's making a mistake,
oddly enough, despite the fact that the press is you, know incredibly democratic and incredibly liberal and you know, is getting more so and is more hostile to Republicans, as that, as the minutes take away, The press in general does not like being yelled at by the people that they admire. Like most Well, I'll give you again, let me just add not to be like Scheherazade with stories inside stories. I was incredibly admiring of Rudy Giuliani when he was the mayor of New York City, and I was the editor of the Outro page of the New York Post for a time, and I was a columnist in the paper for a time, and I was incredibly we admiring and he and his people called me all the time and yelled at me? If I didn't, if I use them If I, if anything, was said that wasn't, he is the coming of Diogenes. They,
bitched and moaned and yelled at me. Christine lotta gone. Oh his political, various other people, it was really ugly and it was because I was friendly because the post was friendly and that is an end. You know what it made me angry like it made me less less willing to write. hey geographically about we're due Giuliani, and this is part of the story of Bill Clinton. It's part of the story. We Clinton's career in her weird relation with the press, If Comma Harris wants to Ill Obama Barack, honest people written forest, that sort of thing constantly, and you became somewhat all else, rotation with that sort of thing. This is not a good way for calmly Harris to start, because the echo
can say the the differences that both with Trump and Obama and Michelle Obama as well, they all have natural charisma. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Comma Harris had any national Christmas been entirely manufactured for them by their by their advisers and Aden abetted by the press. So I think it's it even worse than than her turning on a precedent that should be friendly and they might respond with the manufactured charisma than that the press has made for her she you gonna have a real he's. Gonna gone shall be my pants hidden, which is fine, that's kind of the VP role, but that is not the role the party once for her in the future and that become more clear. I think, as time goes on, even if she is doing these amazing typewriting boat. She just a friend mine went to during the democratic primaries went to a little cocktail, That was hosted here in Washington for for her very gung HO on Camela. She came back astonish you just said: she's just so boring. She has nothing to say, and she said- and this is someone who's been around a lot of politicians,
She knows all policies in stone always have something to say, but she said it was. It was literally like a net deficit having her at the partly you expect. Your expectations were high, but then it's like you, sucking the life out of the room by just kind of said it was. It was weird how she describes and she's a part of the Democrats, so she wanted to love her and she just couldn't In this case, I'm just saying like that. This is a very. This speaks to political instincts that we saw how calmly Harris in presidential race showed very, very poor political instincts. She did not know how to follow up with the Vienna with her ass, the attack on Joe Biden that gave her that you're, a momentary, shot her momentarily into this political stratosphere. She was in constant. She kept saying different things and coming out and things are different ways in the end, it all worked out for great cause she's now the vice versa, United States em out
a very serious potential president at some point that maybe next week I mean who knows, but you know I, but the Instinct to go to war with vulgar when at an end to it huge vogue of doing something that Vogue did not do, which is to violate some agreement to use specific picture on the cover. It's it's. It's weird: it's politically it it's tactically foolish and it suggest something about her. That Republicans should watch closely because nod to the extent that a pilot is a game and people and the great thing in all sports car petitions is when you are a rival, makes unforced errors. She giving every indication being somebody who makes unforced errors and, and and that's I think in
an interesting, interesting side to the more important stuff that were we're talking about here. But I want to get back to the republic question of this republican Party. Immovable at this moment. After a week in its general support of of trumpets and immovable like theirs. As I said, there's been some there's been some degeneration and Now that's when people write to me or write to us to talk about, you know why were being me mean to tramp or something like that, there is this. Why aren't you want the bandwagon you know, you are you're out of the ten to tent I now you're you now you're. All of that
now, we're going to expel you, which of course is what term Jim Jordan set about Liz Cheney right was chain. Such was gonna, go to impeach and Jim Jordan in a web of a fresh from a life, making excuses firm, the file coaches says he's gonna taken out he's gonna make moves to take her out of of leadership. So you know I don't know If this is the mood, I don't know what happens? Anyone want to speculate. Apparently, not you guys are all regulations, ridiculous, where we have no idea what will be well, what will be will be when Freedom Caucus member at the blocking on whom it was I who was- I forget, I'm sorry, but at home, once didn't throw letter circulated by Jim Jordan saying that she should be
from her position is number three in the conference and on one of them publicly through through a spokesperson said that they didn't support. That's others, at least so I'll, a lack of consensus among the most insurgent wing of the Republican Party that that's the proper remedy here. Ok! Well, that's that that's good here, but that's specifically those chinese gay. Some eight, the fact that we are moving into a position in which Trump having lost the elections having having played a direct role in the loss of the Senate control to Democrats in his behaviour in Georgia and having having compare having been involved in the in the up to end the instigation of the riot at the capital. I will leave office and potentially
be someone to whom people still need to swear fealty and loyalty tests in order to maintain their politics. Viability, that's yet another unprecedented thing and and is very interesting and, I think very worrisome, but it may be. The phenomenon that were gonna fix, a bigger We got nothing for me. Well, I mean a righteous he's kind of touch. What we were talking about, I think which I think you know going forward. It depends on how much of a roll trunk continues to play in our politics. What what? What tries to assert in his sort of like it or not. Rending defence of himself. You know going forward. He can invent. You can continue to invent fealty tests out of office,
I wonder if the average republican voter after experiencing a couple years out of power all power in or not controlling, Congress, not controlling the presidency, and the kind of legislation and and very likely overreach we're going to see on the democratic side might cure them. Some of that attention that they would otherwise focused Trump and his grievances, especially if he's been. If everyone knows he's been barred from running again, that's why that's important like what what you you rally rally around old angry, who thinks he got treated out of election. Who can like at a certain point, give it all the other problems. The country faces, I think, a lot of reasonable, even reasonable. Pro trump people will be like just enough like. The show is over. What's mine now, right now, if there were- Senate trial that were speedy and happened before the inauguration. Right now,
There is no way that he would be barred from serving an office again right now he would not be convicted by the Senate based on the polling. That were saying, I think that's that's self evident that he that you could get ten votes or maybe twelve votes, but you wouldn't get the seventeen that are necessary or the atm not even sure that it's a weird it's a weird thing: cuz. I think you need two thirds of the members present, and so at least, There are a couple of cases. I think that the number of senators now ninety eight, not not a hundred, because the two Georgia senators have not been seated because the election hasn't been formally certified. So even if that were to happen, I'm not sure you would get the number necessary you. I doubt you get the number necessary because it would simply be too politically damaging for republican centers to cast the but then they can use. They can to fall to the same thing that everybody in the I was saying which is this is a time for immunity. Why would we want to do something that was so? This unifying you know all that which is a which is it
Obviously, a reasonably effective, spins and says since they all got together in a room behind goods, is somewhere decided to use it. You know systematically. There is a genuine, I believe, so it had desire on the part of Democrats and Trump skeptical Republicans, and certainly people in the middle and the independent, to move on from the age of trump to move on, all this to get past it to extirpate his his malign influence on our politics that will run up against in conflict with the democratic imperative to tether every single Republican, Donald Trump from now until the Rapture Nicky Haley's. Probably gonna run for President twenty five for she just The pact this morning, towards that presumably and what is the focus of the press on this. Well, she has shown any pictures of herself with Trump she hasn't shown herself and
I'm sure you spend your ambassador with trumped defending Trump being trumps supporter and and and phalanx, and yet questioning another responses. I well as that bad I mean it Isn't that, ultimately, what you kind of say you want, and it is but the local imperative for Democrats is to keep Trump in our politics in perpetuity and probably what's going to win, because it's the strategic strategic approach, not just tactical, smart strategy, but once and for all that, once again begin What you wish for, as this could be some version of Bill Clinton urging Trump to run in twenty fifteen We thought it would help Hillary and guess what happened like you know. If the Democrats want to keep trump at the Center of american political life, they may just get him re elected in twenty twenty four,
I mean, if you serve, think it through the martyr ology of Trump and the republican side- could really intensify over the next year or two years. If there is a weak indictment of him by the New York District attorney's off, that is our basically just slapping together of of of of of vague tax charges in this and that the other thing. He can just claim these being politically persecuted if they do why? And they can claim that he's being politically persecuted and he will wore out of the gate and twenty twenty three saying you know that Everything was a witch hunt, everything's been a witch hunt or they wanted to kill me because I'm there for you, and maybe Biden, will be terrible and maybe he'll be out of office and calmly will be president and will show the same political skills of women. We talked about ten minutes ago. Maybe he'll be presently the gunman twenty twenty five. I mean
Well, that's yeah! I was I started to interrupt, but it's the Democrat and the sort of cultural left that we spend a lot of our time examining and warning against the excesses of and whatnot like really. This is where it goes back to the free speech stuff we were talking about earlier. They do need to be careful because, right now, I feel like the theme song they have in their head is karma police but it's gonna be upside, didn't again, if they go down the path that you just outlined, John and that's gonna be entitled here from the first shoulders as well as the Republicans. You didn't properly punished drum roll see I wanna, maybe finish up. I just said this. One thing, which is that I am now saying you know, look watch out. You know indictment impeachment in, however, they handle the trial and how they talk about him, and all this baby may strengthen him and
you sure and therefore, as somebody who you know, a thinks that he was unfit hold office, that he is disgrace. The office in the last month, with his be it last two months with his behaviour and should be impeached and removed. Why Why what's going on here- and I think the answer is, I think that he needed to be impeached and removed for reasons that have now whatsoever to do with his political views. Ability or the current political standing of the United States. This is weirdly, not political on my behalf that come the United States, was stormed and an looted a little bed, any kind of sacked a little bit, and it was an event that is Lindsey, wind lab as less chase and was insulted and to some extent directed by him, and that we need
to me on record that this can never happen again and the police the political or ideological origins of it, are very interesting and very important. It will be something that we'll be dealing with for a long time, but that's not why I supported impeachment and support removal. It is because this is something that anyone can do. This is something that any, political movement could do in theory, at the every other country in the world, with a lively and complex political system has faced such things before, but we haven't, we haven't and it can get worse, and so something needs to be done to cauterize the wound to close it to cauterize, Them to seal it up, and so that's why forward? Even
oh, the consequences that I'm laying out made may be long term, something that that I think will also be bad for the country in short order, but that would be worse. They wouldn't have any other thought, and I agree with that, and that was why less chinese statement, which I it correct me if I'm wrong but somewhere cited in his own remarks, lives chinese statement made exactly that point, and you know: she's a pretty right wing elected official, like she's, very conservative, very, very conservative Republican. It was it's about the institute we spend a lot of time on the spot gas talking about institutions and what their useful for and why we need them. Precisely at the most crucial institution, one branch of government insides and attacks another that has to be thought and that isn't that that should be something that we can all agree on. Is you know, despite our part, whatever part of the loyal tac class. Okay, great well, we'll that with you tomorrow for AID Christine no I'm John but words keep the candle
Transcript generated on 2021-05-22.