Welcome to a commentary magazine podcast today is Wednesday November. Twenty seventh, twenty nineteen, I'm John out towards the editor of commentary with me, as always. Senior editor a growing waldheim. I Sociedad, nor rough behind our hydrogen. Senior writer, Christine rose and high Christine hygiene. We are brought to you today by the magic of Skype through the friendly offices of R r r PAL Scott ever got I work his shea who is producing today, so none of us is in the same place

and it will be interesting to see whether that there had helps or hinders nature, the conversation that were the three of us are not the same. Roman Christine as off, in her own room, miles away. So I wanted to talk a little bit about Michael Bloomberg. And his entry into the race. We did a little bit of this. Last week and, of course, the general tone of knowing Of the knowing political What are we to is that this is a m in our quixotic and Baton, Tisch thing that's going on here they ve been worth. Fifty three billion dollars get out can just throws throw a whole bunch of money against the law. Let's see what I'll stick and maybe there's announce our chance,

everything will melt down in the back of a path will be constructed for him. That seems to be the general, then there's a secondary attitude, which is that he is not in fact running too. To win the day, Craig Nomination, but as a declared Kennedy for president, he would get more favourable at rates from broadcast networks him local television stations at all that this is basically just an effort to drive. He will spend most of us. I mean driving down trumps positives, and so rather using a super pack would would have to spend twice as much. He goes as a candidate, he burnish his own name, and he just you know. Cameras trump for months and months and months and months and tries to soften the ground for whoever the demo. Now many will be. So we were having a private our own little so get out

email tax text conversation the four of us and I just wonder whether there are certain interesting things going on in democratic polling. That say that being that may be blue work, has more of an idea about how to win this race than we really understand. His obviously spent the millions of dollars doing a week. Research and that term there's something about the democratic feel. That makes it unusual usually susceptible maybe to this kind of weird late, moderate entry, unlikely candidacy and that its logic, Philip contest, that it's more serious, live, no evidence of that, but there it is. But we have a lot of evidence to the contrary,

The notion that this is just simply a vanity play from a guy who has a lot of money and that a lot of time left to use it. So we have surveys that suggest that the democratic parties electorate is North Sudan, satisfied with the crop of candidates, even though their all pulling in the thirties, twenties or even teens. Time gallop survey. This was in the end of September and came out in October, showed three quarters. Full three quarters of the electorate was satisfied with their candidate candidates, the field only twenty one. Sent wanted somebody new annex come on insights republican pollster group had a really interesting set of surveys? And data came out a couple of weeks back, maybe a week back, showing that the kind of canada- Et Bloomberg is, is really unpopular with everybody, not just Democrats, but everybody generally. He disorder represents this. Socially moderate, technocratic, fiscally responsible administrative authority.

And that appeals to just nobody. People want a a socially conservative, whose fiscally profligate sort of Allah Trump a much more socially liberal, fiscally aggressive Democrat somebody who appeals more to coastal elites, which a sort of the written, the field that Elizabeth, worn and peep, but it's a jockey pie which is contrary to popular wisdom, cause and the assumption is that what my assumption was that she is competing for the symbols that Bernie Sanders isn't she's? Really not. She has a much more cultural appeal to a sort of coastal crowd than forty cents this does to the revolutionary laughed. So I mean all. Data that we have suggests items razor, which is that this was like all Patrick's bid, sort of a fantasy that was cooked up in a hedge funds and not roughly

They have of white voters actually want from their candidates. But no, I have a question. Isn't your description, your characterisation of Bloomberg, politics, Isn't there a lot of overlap there, with the case that Joe Biden makes for himself has? Doesn't he sort of present himself as a moderate choice? Who can get things done whose Whose scoffs at the Extreme ism ends is wants this keep us from going off the rails. I may I guess you could make the case for that, but in there meaner and tone he's the polar opposite of what might Bloomberg gets his core appealed to democratic voters is his capacity to bridge the divide, but in the old blue collar left has been gravitating more towards Republicans in the last decade and the establishment

hurry and elites in the cellar corridor, and that requires demeanor that I dont think blunt MIKE Limber is capable of a he'd drips disdain for the voters that he's trying to appeal to you. Can't he can't rain it rain it, I think, actually does it's like people were already in use any. You can see this in some of whom you break out favorability ratings among african american voters and women voters. They don't like Bloomberg, there's just no getting around the fact that he has not appealing to some of the core voters of the Democratic Party, but it it I'm wondering if it seems that some of the story is that of covered. Why I Bloomberg is during his hat and the ring have emphasised at his team, but it's the Warren is eventually would be the nominee right like this idea that she is somehow going to surpass Biden that the sort of wishful thinking and we ve talked about and in other episodes of the podcast. I just think that

you're. Looking at what democratic voters are telling generally telling pulsars, they just want someone who can be tromp right. They don't want a progressive and they don't. They certainly have reacted strongly negatively to warns Medicare for all proposal. So this is the idea that that Bloomberg might be the one to defeat. Trumped just doesn't flies. I kind of like John. I, like your sort of the secret theory that is actually just softened she's, the sort of early bomber who's going to soften the ground for the for the soldier soldiers strides in behind it. That makes more sense strategically than Actually believing he can win this nomination effectively he's ROS Perot, who won't go all the way to November. That's it, I suppose, pro basically he entered the race in ninety ninety two to destroy georgics. Be a bush and sell Bloomberg is gonna bay. Under this theory Bloomberg, it's gonna try to do that without actually, even necessarily think he came can I get to the nomination right? So

for what ever reason the inner him he might have. I don't wanna. Let go this idea that there may be more going on here than meets the eye for justice? Does it played devils advocate here for a second, we know that Bloomberg has spent years thinking, this run, and we know that he has unlimited resources and we know that he is very data driven, and so we so now that he's probably spend an enormous amount of money. Doing research on how a race could be run and we know that he decided that there was a moment that he could do this.

And we also know that there is much less data than there used to be pulling data public, pulling data having Indian DE private alot of private data that doesn't exist much anymore, that is to say there used to be. Poles constantly, because media organisations were flush and they did local polling day appalling? Every week they did Pauling all over the place now in most states there's no dominant news organization is going to spend money on polling and if he he may be seeing stuff in his research using it limited resources that we just don't really know about and It would give you one thing that goes to this point I will contradict now was in our data driven point that there are the other. Seventy five percent of them had sailor satisfied with their their candidate that does not comply

with what we are seeing in in the General national support numbers for Democrats right because what what we see while there may be satisfied with their candidates. Biden is down ten percent off his high water mark sand. Sit down ten percent off his high water Mark Warren is approaching being ten percent off her high water mark. Come Harris is, I think, fifteen or ten points, ten to fifteen points below her high water mark. Only PETE Buddy Judges has gained

in any some substantive way. This does not suggest that the voters in the democratic field are satisfied with their Kim. It's just don't I just don't think it adds up there is. There is dissatisfaction, a withdrawal of affect from these candidates so that the the high water mark for Joe Biden was his post announcement bum, which got him contextual in as important. We got him from the thirties too that authorities and he has since regressed to demean, which is about in the thirties in a field of this many candidates. That's not nothing!

and I like Christine's thesis here, which is essentially that what Democrats want is a candidate that can be Trump, that's their core objective. It doesn't really matter. Everything else is just gloss and if that's the case, all of the movement in this race makes sense within the context of the debates, the debate that hurt Joe by Sweden and helped Koala Harris Demonstrator her capacity to take on trumped when she couldn't replicated perform its. She declined Elizabeth warrants. Momentum was arrested and has, since written decline as a result of her poor performance in the debates, be budgets performance in the debates, as probably explains a lot,

his performance nationally, if not in Iowa and my Bloomberg strategy here- is to skip the debates entirely and to demonstrate that he doesn't really need the debates. Sea can demonstrate elect ability based on some other criteria. That is an undefined, I'm not even sure what it is. I guess winning races would be that, but he's not even competing in the early states, but Europe will gain as demonstrators viability as a candidate against Donald Trump wasn't. This is where I am He sees his strategy is flawed because one of the things they are emphasising in her boys emphasise one when Bloomberg sought about this is his biography right. It's like he's appealing because of story. You know he created this empire. You is just this middle class kid. You know it is he'll be on. New York is clear because he's built himself up like lots of other Americans, and he believes in you know the free market, etc, etc, but as compared to get candidates for exam

light Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, who are far more ideological and what they're saying about why they're running, but that, MRS, I think what both damn product, voters and and Trump supporters Sea, which is it it's gonna, be more of an election about personality which is different than biography. So, however, much Bloomberg Biography carries him. A little bit into the mainstream is as an appealing candidate. His personality is not great I mean he is not electrifying speaker. He is he's think Noah pointed out correctly. He's is almost contemptuous when he talks about voters he's really not like most Americans, even if his story could could be resident for some of them, and that, I think, is where, if your democratic voter, you know, You are concerned about someone who can go up against a belligerent. You know aggressive personality and in a general election as as Trump will be, so I that I think, is a mistake there may give they think it's biographies gonna help him

an interesting I made. The point is we think this about the biography, because his first Addison introduction of himself at that he's. Gonna spend thirty million dollars on but he's gonna spend. You know another two hundred three million dollars after that. That will presumably draw these contrasts. M M, and all of that I I do think that there's something to what I'm saying that the Democrats you're saying that this tracks, the debates and I may track the debates, have Democrats rise and fall. I just think that term there is that there is a notable lack of excitement about the field and that's just a fact of that there are these. There were these momentary spasms where people go. Maybe I could be excited about somebody, so that's calmly Harris and now it's it's PETE, but a judge in out here.

He can really excite me, and so you know I'm really excited, but some of that is take. Will other p we'll be excited the am excited, or will they not be excited and who couldn't someone appeal to and all of them the only viable path, if anybody has to the nomination based on what we know, currently in other how the Democratic Party is built, is Joe Biden. Even now I mean he's the only in theory Corey Booker could because he he should be of special appeal to African Americans. He doesn't seem to be in our Mean Harris had her moment and clearly failed to capitalize on it. But you know it's just binds the only one who makes any logistical sense. How he unites the warring factions of the party and how oh and how he appeals to the kinds of

voters who can decide the election because of these eight of appeal to african american voters. That's important because american turn out decline in twenty. Sixteen and Hilary lost them. It's almost a one for one right there and if he can, if he can cut some trumps appeal in with the Joe Lunch pale boat or of our previous arrows. That would also have, in our powerful effect vertically among three states that decided the election, but he's Joe Biden right right, and and the thing is so while he makes the logical sense in the way you lay out. No one is excited about him Well, that's what I'm saying so so, but but but I think this good prolific, your brother. I could exposed to Christine's point you because so there's an theirs. Arguably there's an opening for a candidate at some would be excited about, but it's not Bloomberg. Ok, if it's

the thing that that that they have more reason to think that there is this opening. Maybe he cannot the person to fill opening in the end for ever Look. I am not, and I am unlike many people- I'm not admire of Bloomberg tenure mayor of New York City. I think he was largely foolish and unimaginative everything that happened for the good in the city was mostly there Salt of the mayoralty that preceded his Rudy Giuliani that he didn't muck with the things that were really of most potent interest to him were things that failed like a bit try to get the Olympics for New York City and building A stadium in the area that is now called Hudson yards. Both efforts were failed. He you know he was a boy

as with this nanny state stuff about in a beverage cops- and you know Smoking and all of that is kind of you know the people should behave. The way I want them to behave in the nanny state idea was largely focused on on Bloomberg and he had the in a horrible good fortune in something the of becoming mayor of the city in the wake of nine eleven when the city was and was, was in an both Shell shocked and interpret take your Lee positive frame of mind about itself and about what it meant to be a new Yorker that he just road firm for a very long time. So I dont think much his record as a politician, I'm just saying I don't think you know

and again like so if he spends five hundred million dollars off his fifty billion dollar fortune, whatever wealth is going to do, this money only eight owed. So so his kids get a little less. I mean who cares, but I'm just saying there may be more to this bid Then then we know, ah a guy. Just to let you know you out, we do know is that he is by far the most disliked person in the race It is his favorite ability rating among Democrats. According to the morning console pole released yesterday, taken or five thousand Democrats is thirty. One percent Democrats actually really do like a lot of these people in the field. Bernie Sanders. Seventy five Joe Biden, sixty eight Harris, fifty three Elizabeth Warren, sixty three even Booker and be, but a judge, have a plurality of favor ability adds MIKE Limburg. Is just disliked by I'll buy a lot of these core group, so

I mean like even accepting your premise that there's some room for some other late candidate at the state, which I really suspect is not likely it just ain't him. Ok, so that then goes to the second area. Which is what, if he's really getting in the race, just a kind of try to hammer trump You know for six months before a book six, months before the actual conventions and before the race you now begins in earnest between the two parties. Else. The race or he plays a job and goes you know right to rise at one these candidates, but that right you're saying he would he would. Mario YE would be, would mark a Rubio right by thralldom your hundred at midnight

two hundred and fifty million dollars at TAT Elizabeth WAR in New Hampshire? Well, so that's the other possibility, which is that you know he's Joe then because he saw Warren Lapping Biden and thought Kay. Well, we care outlet. Let this happen right, but I need you to dinner. They ve been very careful about how they talk about weren't you Limburg team, which I think is interesting night. They don't want to come across as being condescending or being juice being sexes, but its clear I mean there is, has been some pretty clear targeting of her message in the way that Medicare for all disaster. Will you know that Another thing we should bring up so there's something heartening about this boring collapse right, which is that she rolled out. This cockamamie scheme, whereby she, Give us spend the hundred trillion dollars without raising any by these taxes, except to two cents off every dollar. From you know, six million rich people

and and nobody bought it. I mean it seems to have been the thing that, if her candidacy, in our- has taken off favour blow, she did it by going by going at this, I feel like they would have. Somebody Sanders hasn't had the problems that Elizabeth Warrant has, even though keys in Amerika for all back or for some time in his legislative language around Medicare for much longer than any of these other candidates what he did that she didn't was I acknowledge early on that there would be middle class tax increases shy away from it because he thinks it's a virtue. First of all, and not a political liability and Elizabeth Warrant spent the entire campaign being evasive about the nature of her plan, to the point that it was conspicuous, which is road where I think the the data shows where her decline began in that October debate, where she was press reports

ITALY, both by moderators an her opponents about the nature of the pay force of this programme, and she was very evasive about in silly. That's right. We can later came out with this plan that, whether that was just intellectually insulting, then that spent the same dollar twice in a lot of places. I didn't take much intellectual effort to get to the point. Where is ok, none of this makes any sense of slackened work and it reminded her evasiveness neurons rank is her these Agnes room. I ended voters once again of her evasiveness about her own biography about some of the other thing she claimed for herself. That turned out not to be true it. It raises questions about her truthfulness. And about her claims about being incorruptible and all the other stuff. She it it. It was really off brand for what she wanted people to hear about her, and I think it is right that we should check shut out to know who's been saying, is bellows with warn all along that again. Does it with that is so much I appreciated.

Ben I mean that the collapse of Elizabeth Warrant has been very heartening. I'd be lying if I didn't say that enjoying every every minute of this, but you know what's interesting, of course, is that war and had the warring if she doesn't come back, is, is a classic political cautionary tale because war and had a reason to be running in this rags and reason was she's. The one who saw the corruption of Wall Street and the corruption of you know of the elites in general and went and did something about it created urgency word all this. You know she came into politics to solve the problem that the not that

You know that the financial meltdown was the ultimate expression of, and that's a real thing like that message. It's a very it's pretty simple and it's pretty well and she was like prominent woman. So there is that too, and almost none of that has been reflected her campaigning, like that's, not what she's out now she'll go down because she does she embrace this. You know all she had to do was say she was firm. You now having a public option, and none of this would have happened to her, but she changed. She was running after the Sanders vote. She ran after all kinds of things she ran after the island. Think minority, she ran after all of these things that were, in fact, a distraction from

What could have been a really serious issue driven campaign, not not policy proposals that are really great and a pamphlet, but anyone who saw it happen, I'm the one who work to fix it I will fix it before the Echelon Data is really interesting because it demonstrates that warns. Real base is not dissimilar from people space, which is not in a socialist revolutionary left. It is much more technocratic elite, educated, affluent and white in their some overlap there. But it's not the same thing. They want a competent manager of the system, not someone who's, gonna burn it all down one and not, as she went left, they went budget plan. I think it is also interesting that cheap that core group that fine

found her, appealing is also the one that in a general election, if you look at the book, she wrote you know when she was professor about you know the two to income trap and then the kind of message send that that that meant, that the old Warren sent to the average voter in predicting swing safe. Women in the suburbs was a very positive one. It was here's how we can fix us. I understand this problem so there, even at the smaller scale of what she used to advocate even before the financial meltdown, their recent, feeling parts that message and no one in the democratic field right now is making match, we're not Joe Biden Anne and that message resonates because it is moderate and it tries to find solutions to a problem. The average american faces every day, and it doesn't do so I know said: burning the whole thing down, but she would she abandoned that almost

beginning, and I think that was a strategic mistake for me, the question is: what is the nature of the pressure that led her if we're right that this was a fatal mistake that led her. This way and question to me, as does this, mean that the publicity they serve the other, the echo chamber, the serve twitter elite left, ECHO Chamber is so deafening when you are inside it or so deafening. If you are trying to figure out what the path is to the future, that you cannot,

See your way out of it and that the noise just means I have to do something I have to respond. I after I'm not I'm sure that that is a huge part. But there's also for war, and I think that the matter of her not wanting to be cast as another Hilary upstream Ding. The rise of the ideological, far left candidate that everyone loved, which was which was a lot of the way people talked about Bernie Posts, twenty, sixteen that Hilary was this, you know through establishment obstruction and I think Worn- didn't want to fall being demonize in the same way right but, as I say, both issues, also like a rattled by the right as a day of sea. The squire didn't learn, as I think, is as true of a lot of people.

Overestimated the importance of this. You know in a nation of three hundred and thirty million people. You know not that they are not important and I think they do represent the vanguard of the future for the party with the party. Isn't there yet or she's as soon as I think no, it said the other direction. Actually not very good at this from finding women. There is also just that is not very good at this is only run into elections, run she seventy years old. She had faced her first, election when she was about what sixty two before that you as a college, professor and cheese you know has no real feel for this slightly lances with which might which might have method, even here She run on the actual accomplishments and and

innovations in her past. She still might have been, but not very good. At this shit she's made allotted just the dumb mistakes that were dumb when she made them, not just the records of anything that now going after Joe Biden saying that he should be running as a report. Can the former sitting vice president, who is extremely popular with Democrats. I mean people like Joe Biden and they really like Barack Obama in the Democratic Party. It was just a dumb move for twitter strategy has been incomprehensible. Silly going in presenting herself is like a millennial. Will candidate talking about tried, ending traffic violence and presenting yourself as a tailor, swift champion. In the amendment I mean literally subsidies, dedicating herself to on twitter appealing to the aid of sea crowd, but the ale see crowd is declared for burning. We should begin with going after grave you're gonna go over the squad. Gopher ass. She went on a Presley, a much more status, Montera and sort right. That's her! That's her demo, but she does

You can understand her damn up, so there you go so bad. This is, as I said, are the hardening moment as two months ago for six weeks ago. I think you know that The way these things move, particularly if you search focus on them. So gradually, you would have said, warns gonna, win right that that was sir, where, where everybody suddenly was gone from two percent to twenty percent. In you know, That and that may have been the proximate causes of Bloomberg, getting in the race that the panic that there is no way that Warren Trump couldn't slaughter Warren meant that something had to be. Turn to the thing is now gonna believe preoccupied back in the discussion of impeachment, which is this a judicial decision on Monday out whether or not the White House count

Goddamn again could be compelled to testify before thee Before the house, it here's what s interesting about this decision. It's very sweeping, so Democrats are all three old image. It's so exciting, and you know now it shows he's not the king live according to the judge. You know trump seems to think he's a king and everyone. The worst forms of lives, a vassal, that's not the way this country works at and having now read also the decision. This is real I actually forgot everything else about how these things work and why it's kind of bad that we have these conference are there. Basically, the executive branch and the legislative branches have have shied away from this kind of very direct confrontation throughout the history of the country, precisely cuz.

It's a stress test on these. Some of these really complicated constitutional questions that you now people are fearful. The system can't really handle and were maybe seeing that right now that they are back on yeah they don't play this game of chicken and they think they both slow down and dunk over the cliff right as there as the racing as their racing toward the end Thunder Road or wherever it, and so the decision essentially says says that that The legislative branch is Supreme, that's hey less, I read is allowed to subpoena people who work directly and personally for the President. And it has been the argument of the executive branch that the executive branch being a coequal part of government that, just as the president, cannot summon you know them.

The speaker of the house and ordered the speaker of the house to do something or the speaker of the houses you now dad chief aid to do something his his lawyer, giving him advice on how to run the executive branch is somebody who is only within the reach of the purview of the legislator branch. The extent that he allows it to be so, and that has been the kind of default position of all, presidencies, republican public democratic and then they negotiate some kind of exception to the rule in order not to get to the point that we were at down, but if this decision is allowed to stand in for be if, if it isn't out either overturned by higher corridor by the Supreme Court or in our or somehow or that that doesn't end up being something that really has to happen. Something very fundamental could be going on here. I say: that's good thing, but it is

This notion that, though, that somehow the legislator branch as our almost unlimited authority over it the peanut power has an unlimited authority over the executive branch, and that really is something new till. I have a question about this in a brief comment, but first that the comment because I'm not sure how relevant this is to this whole thing. But it struck me as being a bad argument. The the council further President when arguing against the this serve, this decision by this judge was asked whether the house should or could ever go to court to enforce its co equality against the president and the Presence Council set as a general matter. I think that's correct

the house can never go to court to sue the president. The constitution does not allow this. It does not allow the house in the executive branch to see each other in court. Well, guess what the happens all the time, I think everybody's pretty by everybody in this audience, is old enough to remember. When Thou sued the Obama administration for failing to implement Obama care as it was written and one it was a pretty big deal at the time. I need to seem like it was a bad argument, but also one that I dont care is one of the darkest cases wasn't data, how suit against the presses yeah they play so excellent results over all right, but they it would be politically to seventy to do that, so they just went to court and one on the merits I mean there is. There is a constitutional theory that the Supreme Court that the real purpose of the Supreme Court in its existence in its own, in the thing that nobody else can really do is there

to adjudicate controversies between the legislative and executive branches, as is the only body with appropriate standing to do so now? This Don't you know entering the suit and a lower court at not at the Supreme Court is a slightly different matter. I guess somebody, a brief, now about the release of his grand jury. Testimony from the mother probe cause it say when it was released. It was related to the fact that the house had opened a formal impeachment income. Rate, which supposedly triggered all this Nino constitutional deference to the house, which involves opening up this grand jury test,

I said the same thing happened in Watergate right, but there was no impeachment inquiry there. The Senate opened up a special programme to the Watergate manner, but it wasn't a peach meant per se, but they still release grand jury testimony. So what is the prevailing theory ear? Well, that's what what I'm saying is that in the past the executive branch often were limits in part, because

does not want to construct the circumstances in which its power will be fatally compromised by a court decision, so it is often the case that, but it has also been the case that the executive branch has accepted the fact that legislative branch, the Congress, has accept the fact that officials who are not under the advice and consent provisions right as they the executive officer. The president we're talking about here,

at the cabinet departments what we call the White House as the executive office of the president and their officials, who are not yet confirmed. Officials like the national security adviser who appear, but they appear by the permission of the President right, the president says: ok, you can appear so candy rice can appear before the nine Eleven Commission You know or testifying public, but Bush could have said no, she can appear or shall I wanna, let I won't let her appear. You know like that, and there was a whole circumstance in which there was a show down over. Why does Council Harry admires a going to appear testified a controversial matter? at the end of the Bush administration that never came to a conclusion, because

The Bush administration ended, but the ideas. Basically, this is his personal staff and hands off. You got me You know, I'm I'm your equal, I'm not your superior you can't. You cannot subpoena one of my people to come testify if they work for the executive officer, the president, now any Senate Committee can demand that any confirmed official appear before the committee. You know that's every cabinet secretary under cabinets it web ambassador stuff, like that. That's one of the reasons that you know these ambassadors have appeared

that we saw last week because really, in the end, the clearly administration that want to test the proposition that it had the right to say that that that you know it sitting, ambassador couldn't be compelled to testify before before the House of the Senate. Well, amazing that the Of course, I think that I mean there was, as there is, an infidel infamous a bomb, a memo and twenty fourteen that those transporting that made the argument. The exact same argument that the trumpet ministration is now making about the D. The power of the president is an equal branch of and the dangers of allowing the precedent of the congressional committees to demand that that his personal advisers appear before them. It could be used to harass them. It could be used to try to

effect. Presidential decision making by you know the pressure that could be place. I'm it's not truly, not something the Democrats should be embracing, philosophically, is a good idea. I was actually struck in the judges decision by her utter contempt for the Office of legal counsel, and this this really bothered me because, I mean there obviously have been better and worse people who run that office and worked in it, but that is she basically was saying that decades in decades of of kind of internal legal. Accident has been developed over time and again shaped by experience at the well see is meaningless because way at and that struck me. As is incorrect. Lee narrow minded view of what the oilseed role is and what it does for the president right. I just I don't see how this decision is.

Overturned and had how, in some ways it's a double edged sword for the impeachment process for Democrats in the house, because they they won this victory. But it's gonna have to run its course through the courts and that delays everything. If there you know if they really think you know that they need to have again testify or or else might be considered under the aegis of the decision. Like Bolton another's mulvaney, then you now, if that's the case, then there This is gonna go on for months longer than the openness. Going there outward eyes if they did, they come to be right, the report right now that Sierra Gap, but this so I dont, really entered this kind of a digression but I dont understand explain to me why Democrats feel like they have to get this done.

I get it. I understand the superficial aspects of it that they want to get this over with it, so they can move on to the presidential election and not have this blooming over the presidential election. But it feels like to me that it doesn't serve them aid. Do this quickly and at once again into April, if this goes on the April and a Senate trial were to take place, your primary season that it would be better for them if they were trying to impose moral and political pressure on Republicans if they think they can impose that pressure on Republicans now, if they dont think that they have a case it something very different bullets, They actually do believe in what they're doing for a second wouldn't. It makes more sense to drivers out well permanently ago, so go ahead, I'm sorry for them, but then they come up against the idea that the closer this gets to the election, the more p, We're going to be convinced that this is just a matter that should simply be decided by the election and ads

That would then cast the impeachment effort. As a stretch and and pointless, and a waste of time, and you know politicians who are accused of wasting the public's time. That's not really, good thing. I think you can just take it from the fact that they think that they have to do this quickly, that they have good reason to think they have to do it. Quickly, you know it I'm! U, assuming, as I think we do, that Nancy Policy actually continues to think that this is probably a mistake, but that there was no way to avoid an after the EU stuff came out and end and after their refusal to

baby subpoena and all that that she basically had no shit nor to go but to agree with the bore in a hardline people in her party that this data to proceed apace, but she would like it to be over with as soon as possible. So she must have good reason. Aside from the: u know, aside from the complication presented to Democratic Canada its which can like what does she care? I mean she really has the care, whether about Elizabeth Warring gets to spend more or less time. In the end I am sure, like that's not part of her red is to make sure that there is a get out that their people get to do a lot of retail politics as their running. For president, I mean

He's got other of other things to worry about, but I think it's an interesting but an interesting point and I think a busy they hit a bright on the head, which is like at some point. You know the public really will turn on the impeachment effort if, like the vote, is gonna take place ghetto two months before the vote. You know right before they get to vote like an and trampled stay every day say their wasting my time their wasting your time. This is a waste of time. This is why you need me to come in and shake things up in Washington that these people are making my point for me which a sort of what he said last night in Florida. But let's let conclude with, the absolutely gobs smacking interview that term

Andrew Meal of the BBC had with them with german Corbett her the Labour Party last night. In you. Nowhere prior AIDS said the bird british Action is on December, twelve envy happened in England to spur the beginning. In the interview was this system? pushing opinion peace by effort nervous. Who is the chief rabbi of England, saying that British do she'll, be there in an existential crisis and that the Labour Party is as turn Anti semitic, and it represents a threat to the future of the british way of life and the labour right response.

This was to say that about nervous was like a tool of the Tories or something like that. But this interview features carbon sitting with You know, one of the most relentless interviewers in the business basically said literally said to him: isn't it you say you discipline people in the Labour Party for being anti Semites somebody said Rothschilds run the Zionism doesnt that constitute Anti Semitism. That's a personal has yet to be disciplined, as does my, and he would not say that this classic anti semitic trope was anti Semitism. He said it should happen, shouldn't be sad shouldn't be like that and he did it in five or six different context.

So you can go, read the transcript of it. On line I recommended to you, you can watch it in its entirety on the Tories, Facebook page right, that's right, ok, so thoughts, I mean there is still a lot to unpack. An entire interview. Actually read the tray. Whereby watched it, which I recommend doing, because it is an absolutely spectacular just in German, creation of how to destroy someone and course of an interview. Engineers is sort of a jerk, but he's really really good at just dismantling politicians, and he did it with prevent Hastigt job here from so that Anti Semitism part was an absolute disaster, labour recognised as to the protection, just going around from labour saying that this is a mass, don't talk about it, but among the the worst part City interview occurred at the very end,

in which she was pressed about whether or not he would pull the trigger on an ISIS terrorists in the event that they had some one in their sights, and there is an hostile territory in special forces couldn't apprehend them, which, as is stated desire, carbon stated desire. Any Jesse would not say that he would. He would push the button on and ISIS terrorist and was pretty It was at the problem, with his whole interview was that he was afraid to say what he believes. I mean he's an anti semite believes and Anti Semitism. He won't say it out loud. He doesn't believe in the war on terrorism and at the very end, in a sort of. Went past Andrew Neil, but he should dwelt on in a little bit. Is that Corbett said that we should be talking instead about the problems we ve created, uses termed we created relative to islamic terrorism, and he just genuinely believes that either

Why he thinks that climate change is an existential threat in Russia is not in the Falkland. Islands is not an ambitious whalers, not as because he believes all these Bum national security threats are the product of british american foreign policy and that a foreign policy changes. Those threats will Willoughby it's extremely chauvinist, stick and and and demonstrates a sort of intellectual block that the whole left suffers from that that they tend to believe that events that occur beyond our shores are somehow the product of our actions and behaviors, and we can affect all this change if we just changing a little bit If your patterns that whether we engage in that very, as I said, chauvinistic mom, it was the ogoni largest, was quickly. Regarding its symbolism, question there's something else: a kind of went past, the interviewer little bit, which is that while carbon throughout the country was being asked to, should have apologised for how he's dealt

if incidents of Anti Semitism among other men the Labour Party, so much of the anti Semitism the Labour Party has emanated from him. There were his own actions that he needs to be held accountable for like, treating and calling Hamas and Hezbollah friends, and being paid by the iranian government to appear on running state tv and all all of his comments and actions against Israel. And so on will not, as I think I'll try and I think he did the way he tried to equivocate and hedge against. Just saying I'm sorry, we did. This Anti Semitism has been allowed to flourish in this party and is that it Is it because he, I think you're right? I think he peace one himself, and so the fact that he would he kept referring to. Oh, these processes is processes that involves like sending US

turn letter to someone who had denied the Holocaust. There's also. You know that there were two candidates that labour was putting forward that were forced to withdraw because one used the term dialogue and the other one claim that even talking about Anti, Emma to them in the Labour Party was obviously some wealthy establishment. Orchestrated you no attempt to smear the party, I mean it's so clear, it so clear and his squirming is is is kind of epic, but I I was struck by how often he was asked specifically about Anti Semitism, he pivoted talking about Islamophobia or racism in general. Right I mean that's in that's as we know in the: U S, contacts of a familiar tactic as well, and I that I think the fact that that was so clear and so many people were found his Behavior important during this interview is, is a good sign, but that he just tried to do the same old same old didn't quite work. Well, I think there was an entry. Thing angle

in the way he attempted to define Anti Semitism and say it has no place so Anti Semitism. I believe, in his context, is direct acts of individual violence against individual Jews right or attacks on buildings, or something like that but theories etiologies ideas, opinions and You know why scale, but movements do not fall in this category additive. Interesting dodge because it would seem he thought that he had it now. He thought he that this was the way he could. You now serve weasel out of this, the interesting part of this is that he wanted to

the latter that, like saying anti, saying and has a place apart, of course, no one should be able to say Rothschild. We're we're gonna, do something where we have a process to do maybe it's too slow, will look at it all that, like the thing that you would expect any american politician to say in this context, so why doesn't he sat while I think he doesn't say because he believes there is a clear electoral advantage team, his movement, your wealth a while ago we believe- and so was excruciating here will not say it, because he thinks that his anti Semitism is a dog whistle minority populations in Britain that are going to vote for him and that he is not going to. He needs them and he is semi every message that he possibly can to them. You remember you know we're talking about we're talking about population population, Jews who are so are six hundred thousand Jews, or somebody that out of eighty five million people

and the british Isles, and Nine percent of the population is now muslim. So, if you are looking to who you want to vote for you, it's pretty clear which side your bread is buttered, and if you think that this is electrically important to you, you're going to do it, you can not to say what it is. That is just sir patently yes, you should say, even if you don't mean it, I mean both. The pole suggests that it's not working. I mean if he believes that this is his pathway to victory. It's not exactly yielding any returns, pull suggested. The tories have a pretty substantial margin and the kind of performance that Teresa may turned in the last election is unlikely to repeat itself right, but I mean if he were

disavow Anti Semitism and his party, I dont know that has not heed, may look better, be reciprocal benefits, maybe what where there might be some, but then he thinks is what I'm saying. I think he thinks that he would suffer with his constituents. That's what I think he believes I mean. I don't know how else to look at this I mean, as we understood by Americans, that german carbon being headed Labour Party is literally, an analog to Ill Hano, MAR being head of the Democratic Party there is no. He was in the way that he ended up is headed labour party as this thirty year lunatic Back bencher, who was the most left wing person and his party for thirty years, was that in an unbelievably ill advised structural move, the Labour Party went sort of democratic in it.

Selection process and you could pay five pounds if you were someone in England joined, lay party and vote in a kind of primary for who was going to be the head of the party and corporate and one by mobilizing in our basic Lee. You know crazy, leftist kids to go and vote form in this primary totally sandbagging the rest of the party. So you have this weird circumstance. That's one of the reasons why You look at it and say: oh, my god. It can't happen here in this is terrible. It's eighty going to meet us seventy five years after the Holocaust and look where we are with you Linda electing you know and open way, England having as one of its two major party heads than open anti semite, who supports groups that Lou support the mass murder of Jews, but it also it so if we look to

our people in the Olano marring, where she lived to Lebanon, the squad and the movement of Democrats and the United, this, as you know it can happen here. What happened? There can't be happen here, I don't want to like sweet talk, what's happening with the Democratic Party cause, it's awful, but very weird set of circumstances lead to this, like. Obviously, if the Labour Party had a rational person as its candidate for Prime Minister, it would doubtless with the election I mean. There's no reason: the Tories have literally no business winning this election, given how they have over the last three years they may when going away, because because a Johnson is trying to fulfil the promise of the party made an brags it end,

the voters of rags at and be they had. The british people have to keep carbon out. Johnson's are much more camp competent politician when he gets credit for it, in a competent politician, since he was London Mare, and he worked his way up to the top of leadership being much more competent politician. Then he got greater for I think, he's viewed by elite circles, a sort of a bumble, person and sort of a pandora, but he sees the. I think he fits the electorate in Britain better than his critics. Given credit for the central problem with Boris Johnson is the people who who have known him best are people who have worked with him known, em they're amused by him, their annoyed by him? They, you know they were dealing with him as a kind of public purse

malady for bread out thirty years and there's a lot of you know intimacy, literal intimacy and those circles attempt at the reader at the top of them a british Power pyramid until LA people are like what the hell bourses gonna run the country, but you know now looks like his decision from his own personal from his own personal stance. I hear decision not to run and twenty sixteen when brags at one but too well, wait it out. If there is a great victory on December twelve, you know he will have. He will have come into them. Prime minister ship as Savior, rather than as a caretaker trying to deal with a monkey mass. He may

be in a position to serve shape, the future of of british politics, and so everybody who said while this disproved he was a dilatory cause. He said he wasn't gonna run having chosen sport it had been leaving cheerleader and then saying. Well, I'm not ready to actually do this for you, which reminds us of the probably the worst part for domestic politics terms, probably the worst. The Corbett interview was the fact that german corbians doesn't like the European Union.

Came the supports abreks it in its own way, which is very out of step with his own party and was pressed how he would campaign in the event of some sort of new referendum and just sort of sidestep the question, because he kind of sorted supports. Breck sets others that the choice that is before voters, which is essentially it's been a series of referenda on breaks it ever since the bricks. A referendum and what he is saying is he's not gonna present a clear choice, so it sort of bricks it or bricks it light, and that's the case, then bricks, it's gonna win right so that that that's no breaks it did. When I mean you know what I mean again and again and again right again break that is the weirdness Corbett like carbon is a classic far left us, which is to say that you know he. It's the far right. He meets the far I didn't you know add certain at certain points, and he doesn't like he doesn't like the European Union because

thinks it as a driver of capitalism and up you know in full force it. You know- Will it would impede his effort to create a social state in England? Like that's, that's, that's the bizarre part of their. So anyway, obviously one of the one of them real has done the world of a yeoman service here by making it as plain as it could possibly be to the people of Great Britain who carbon is and they will vote in. Sixteen days or fifteen days or something like that. And will see you now and there. It is very important for the future, civilization, that he not be the prime a servant, so if this could be something for which

Neil is celebrated you now by history and not thy thing at the polls already showing a twelve point margin for for the Tories, but nonetheless, so with that, we wish you a wonderful thanksgiving and hope the weather doesn't impede your travel for a green wild. No Rossman and Christie Muslim Tom passwords keep the camel burning.