Hi. I'm Alexander DE scientists, and along with David French icon hosting their liberty, Podcast David and I break down the latest political news, with a focus on the importance of culture and religion and american life are episodes are events twice a week and can be found on Itunes. Google play stature tune in or our national review online this on our russian agent. Why is Teresa? May still, the Prime Minister of Britain should there be a the union address and is masculinity on the way out, we'll addressed all this and more on this week's edition, the editors, I'm rich Lowry and joined his voice, Ardley summit- by the Right animal Charles, see w cook the price,

of Tennessee, David French and the Tories, who do Michael, Brendan Dorothy you listening to a national viewpoint, gas to fearlessness podcast on Ashura. You dot com were delighted to have you, but it would be easier for you and better for us if you made his party or feed at Google placed at your tune in or Itunes, and if you like what you hear here, please consider reviewing us on Itunes. If you dont like what you hear your please forget, I said anything all right: so, let's start with the black buster story from over the weekend from the New York Times about the FBI, opening Counter Intel his investigation against the press, The United States David and I have already tangled one on the website David, I think at least in terms of numbers gonna be out waited here and not necessarily in terms of of rhetoric or legal argument. But I think I've got the sense at that.

Early in Michael or on my side on this one. So let me just the eldest, give my view make my brief and let you whack away at it. And then will go from there, so that this. This is how I. It is said that the time story says they were in to getting him for being a winning or on weight wedding agent of Russia, and winning to me just sounds like you're a dupe oh you just have instincts are on Russia, that many people- consider wrong and think are more in Russia's interest, then and ours, but that seems to be perfectly within the right of a present United States to have- and I don't think the FBI the investigating the president. I states for having the same views on Russia that Michael Brennan Dorothy. Does you, I think Michaels Russia, but I don't think that's a crime. or a or our national security threat than theirs The scenario which I think would be genuinely extreme one kind of house of cards territory. If he's

actually a winning agent of Russia. You know if there's a bag drop in the parking garage of Trump Tower and there's video hoary Lewandowski, picking it up and and taking it up. You know too to Trump for his pay off from the Russians. Ok, yeah, that's it warmest deal and we need to know about it and in that extreme circumstance, the F B. I should take extreme measures if they had information. The FBI Drake should immediately resign. Take it to Congress. Take it publicly and saying no longer conserve, present United States, who is a trader, and I evidence of this and Congress in the rest of countries should take this up mediately seem to be thou, be an entirely propria way to handle such extreme scenario, but I think growth will obviously like way short of that and to me as very telling that the proximate cause Believe in your times, reporting of this investigation

anything new that Russia was doing. There was something that Trump had done clue we under his constitutional powers, which is fire the FBI direct and just seems crazy to me to undertake instigation a counter intelligence investigation of him on the basis of that and again, you can consider that that move Yes, call me ill intentioned, you consider considered abusive, but that again is a matter for Congress to up to to take up if the present is abusing his powers as a classic fodder for impeachment. see. A theme of mine here is just political, accountable bodies. Taking up these questions, I think off my they involve it. If the, if he's guilty, you take the dimness dark as possible view of what is

down their political offences, and I think it is wrong that this got so much into the law enforcement sphere. I don't think there should be a more thorough investigation of obstruction. I think Congress. I should investigate that and there they think it they abuses powers. They should impeach him the Russia stuff. I think there is obviously a public interest in knowing what happened and ideally we have had some sort of nine eleven style Commission taking up that question in getting the facts public as quickly as possible and fully as possible. and finally just something that that really sticks. My craw here Again, if you believe in New York Times Report, which are of all we have to go on, servants involve monsieur jesuitical reading of it ll by line the FBI was accepting the conventional and hostile interpretations of bunch of things we all know about,

The Trump higher Paul metaphor is campaign manager, yeah, that was horrible, but no one ever goes back and mentioned earlier also fired him, because he belatedly got onto the fact that the guy was a total drifter Lester Hold interviewer Trump mentions in the context of firing, call me yeah. He did but he also said there is needed. It is because the right I had nothing to do with him and that he knew he was lengthening, probably in the investigation, rather than sure. So if the FBI was undertakings investigation in part also on its its interpretation of these various public statements, I think not is that wrong and out of bounds? It goes to Andrew. And in the cave in company being idiots- which I think is probably a pretty good theory here. At the very least, this was not the eighteen at work at the FBI. Well, rich,

in the immortal words of RON Burgundy to Veronica Cornerstone in the movie anchor manned when debating the meaning of the word San Diego we're gonna have to agree to disagree. The look luscious back up to first principles. Here I seen a lot of discussion about how quick Congress checks the President Congress checks. The president will Congress has specific constitutional powers that, and check the president's such as impeachment. It has inherent investigatory power. It has the power who override a presidential veto, for example. It also passes statutes that create agencies that have inherent investigatory powers himself, so the FBI is part of a national is part of our national security establishment, a creature of state

shoot these statutes and neither the statutes nor the regulations governing that that operated operational eyes. The statues nor the presidential executive orders that further operational. I statutes none of them exempt the President of the United States from the scope of the statutory mission of the FBI, not one of them, and so now there are some constitutional powers that the president has as that he can use that require. That would allow him to take a firm it of actions to arguably exempt himself in some ways, such as ordering the FBI to drop a particular instigation and firing, somebody one they dont do it. That would be within his constant shall prerogative, but I would also that's also quite public act. It can lead to political costs and political account, Letty, as you rightly note, but what we have here is a creature of statue

Given a mission, that's defined by law does not exempt the president okay. So what is it supposed to happen when evidence emerges that raises concerns about the role of the president or the The role of Donald Trump specifically what we now know to be a russian information operation to intelligence operation to influence the outcome of the twenty sixteen election. The FBI have the power by statute by reg nation by policy to investigate the president under the supervision of the attorney general, or in this case the attorney general, having refused himself deputy attorney general. I say yes and I haven't seen an argument to the contrary. That is, that's, grounded in statutes

rounded and regulations and grounded in the text of the constitution. So if not seeing that, then the question then becomes not one of authority, but one of prudence. Now again, this is one where like defenders of the president, is focused on some things to the exclusion of other thing: gesture, absolutely right that they have cited things that are within the president's power or the New York Times report of its to be believed that one of the proximate causes was the firing of co me. But at this point, where's were sitting on AIDS. A giant pile of information that indicates that the contacts between the truck team in the Russians were far more sensitive than we were led to believe by Trump himself by the way, there's an interesting piece in the washing post today outlining the steadily solving story from Trump about his teams. Contacts with Russia just

today, Rudy Giuliani said. Well, you know we never said there wasn't collusion between people in the campaign in Russia just with President in Russia, with this This is an evolving story. Here there are campaign there. We now have evidence of cow of content sharing pulling data without manifold sharing pulling down over the russian operative, we have documents from mother the creating that, while Roger Stone was trying to interact with Wikileaks. He was also interacting with senior members of the trunk campaign. We have the infamous trunk tower meeting we have reached out to pop adopt less. We have an end up many of these things where people have lied. to law enforcement into Congress about them. We know that the president was actively and his team actively seeking a trunk tower away into the campaign and then lied about it later. So there's a heck of a lot more going on here than firing

Call me or bragging Lester holds about the reasons, or you know that the his sardonic reference to that the the emails, the Hillary Clinton The emails there's a heck of a lot more going on here, and so my point is quite simple: if you're talking about a citizen of the United States in the end, the Bactra involved with the level of involvement that is emerging with the team that he supervise that he was Basa that he was the ceo of the level of contacts with hostile foreign power engaged in active intelligence operation against the interests of the United States of America, for the idea that it's just out of bounds for thee, FBI too, for the FBI to operate under its statutory regulatory and eggs.

he gave order mandated mission into grant the president a kind of inherent immunity and the absence of any statute, regulation or policy. Granting him inherit. Immunity which, by the way, if a regulation or EEO, did try to grant him inherent immunity. It might be unlawful under the governing statutes of the national security establishment, so the idea that that that's going to be that the press as some sort of inherent immunity and that under the facts, as we know them that its inherently ridiculous for the FBI to just investigate rats talking about prosecuting here, we're talking about investigating it. It just strikes me is that this is the FBI doing its job and Trump wants to try to exempt himself from that will then use use the powers that be asked to do

to do that. Let's have the computation, but I'm not going to sit here and say that he had some sort of inherent immunity by the status being present in the United States, one that this goes to again with a sensor irritating about where we are as a country. On this you say the inner I go on tv and I say present- can be indicted. Congress can impeach him. Bills are very good. You're, saying the Congress of the mute, the present immune from punishment. No I'm just saying: there's the most appropriate way to punish the president for what are inherently political crimes. In effect, is the F b I was looking at palm man of working on these connections of people around from what may destroy so explosive. They open a file on the president of the United States himself, based if the New York Times is correct on his firing of their boss, which he had the perfect constitution. right to do so. Many other leave that not all of this is what precipitated I mean before. We believe the times report. This was cause what the FBI did. So

Think by any measure this extraordinary step. It's not just stir. routine investigation into someone who's under suspicion. This is the present in the United States and Russia to say, hypothetically after tromp was elected before the transition he sat down, Vladimir Putin and he said you know, I love Russia, I'm going to promote the interests of Russia their various policies and undertake that are more favourable to Russia, because I think that's the best thing to do to the FBI investigate him. For that, I now won't let them I'm glad. You brought up the indictment question because this goes to you know the formalistic legal argument. There is actually d o j policy about indicting. Now in writing. President there is, there is policy guidance from the d o j about inviting the president Would you say that the deal J can't investigator president, because these are different

like we have to be very precise here, because I have seen Addio J policy and against an investigation, and yes, it is the New York Times. Reporting is cracked. It may well have been that the decision to fire call me as a precipitating event that was sort of the struggle. the camel's back, but it was not by a long shot. The only relevant event here and the other thing is when we're talking about threats to the national security establishment, but we're talking, I'm frets international security, we're not talking about threats to the national security as you and I subjectively define it we're talking about a defined term under public under? hiding executive orders in the threat to the national security involves, for example, is someone operating on behalf of a foreign power and what I would say is that we have evidence, for example, that very troubling about Trump continuing to pursue

a extraordinarily lucrative business relationship with Russia involving his team in contact with russian officials, and I can't say that the thought a multi hundred million dollar deal, If Russia isn't something that influenced his decision, making work Very preliminary stage of our knowledge, and so yeah, if somebody is saying, is, is making decisions. in using the power of their office in the public's the power of the public statements in their office. because they're wanting, perhaps down wrote. A multi hundred million dollar deal with that hospital foreign power. Then yet there's a counter intelligence concern there, especially that hostile foreign power can use the possibility of that deal

who influenced the actions of the president of the United States answered that that something? That is worth investigating the indictment question I think, as relevant though, because it defined, as I'm saying the present can't be punished. I think just indicting him would be a destroyer, of our system and all sorts of ways you keep on saying or the presence not immune big is immune? He should be investigated it just in keeping with our system of checks and balances and political, accountable bodies checking other political, accountable players. It should be Congress that takes up this investigation rather than the FBI and again curious what you make my hypothetical, which is more extreme than anything we actually know about with the FBI, be warranted in investigating president tromp. In that circumstance,. now repeat the circumstance again, I got you get your electorate shop. He gets selected at an end.

the transition he sits down. Vladimir Putin. He says you know what I love Russia. I am I'm going to pursue within its as much as I can Russia's interests. I think russian power is a good thing and I invite you all sorts of things that are can be helpful to you with the FBI, be warranted, investigating present trump for them and now because it doesn't mean the statutory definition the Counter intelligence mission of the FBI, so these things are defined by early their deep. The definition is established in the relevant executive order mean ass. You know I keep going back to these definitions, he on his own behalf and on it and because of his own ideological bet. You know, loves Russia

as much as I don't know the nation magazine, then that's not acting on behalf of Russia. He's acting on behalf of his own ideological value and heat that would be as constitutional prerogative If, on the other hand, Russia is saying you know A billion dollar business deal hanging around out here and you're gonna get it, but you know we'd freely. Rather, you ease up on your public rhetoric. about Vladimir Putin or you know it's in Russia. interest. Really, if you pull out of Syria, now that's a different thing, that's a different reality. So we're not talking about whether Trump has a pro Russia the ideology, the question of acting on behalf of a foreign power is: if a foreign power has eight improper influence

on a? U S, citizen! That's the question! That's the can write, but like almost all the things that time story can easily be explained by tromp having a pro Russia ideology, so the very least its murky in an area where the FBI should to you the headline from your peace this week, be prudent about, that of taking a regulation that you acknowledge in your peace? No one wrote thinking. It would empower the FBI, Tunas to get a prize, the United States and in a fit of or anger a shock or whatever it was over. A constitutional act in a domestic fear, fear of doesn't firing: their boss open an investigation on them at the very that will not well written acted stretching the regulation as far as it can to undertake this investigation. I thought one thing that was: powerful when you you and Charlie writing about the question of whether a present trunk produces very statue, under his national emergency powers,

then, on the wall as they are. this is not what was intended for stations stretch it too There wasn't intended for, and that's exactly what's happening here. I would say that debt, that's wrong, that these statutes: the statutory construction of the FBI, the regulatory and executive order, construction. The FBI is designed to deal with a very specific counter intelligence mission. I will agree with you rich. If, at the end of all of this, we look back and we we actually have a much fuller explanation and in knowledge of what exact we, the F B, I knew at the time verses what the New York Times is describing as remember these reporters are gonna talk about what was you know, what their source thought, most salient, not necessarily what was actually most salient in all agree with you. If, at the end of this, all of this will look back and I'll say

get on the editors in the corner and everywhere and I'll say rich was right if the if this was truly a result of firing, combing verses, that there was a steadily building mass of deeply concerning evidence that was accumulating and then the FBI, then believe the firing of call me, although in his constitutional authority, was motivated by his desire to stop an investigation of this deeply concerning mass of evidence- and you know, I think that that's that's gonna, be maybe the the friction point between us ultimately is what worthy grounds for the FBI to investigate the president aside from combing, and if it was

not much, I agree with you, it would be imprudent and I think it's an abuse of their authority and rose instincts should have shut it now. But if it's as I suspect, based on the folding information that we are learning more seemingly every month that there was a lot more to it, then I think it's then I think it will have been a prudent decision. Well, I think the the answer here, though, and what would clearly not being the use of anyone's power and totally appropriate. Just come for Congress investigate it. There is not a question of whether these unaccountable bureaucrats of abuse, their investigative power or not and if Congress abuse it is executive, this investigative power they can get punished, photos to see what they are, doing and they can take it out on them in a way I can with the the the eye, and I imagine there was some sort of hidden power Struggle were not fully

seeing yet between arose and Stein and Mikhail, and this kind it interlude others. This open case on President tromp may have been a very short one. When an actual adult in I I don't. I don't agree with the ambit. Of Robert Mowers investigation, but that wasn't his fall. There was what he was given, but there's no question that he is actually a sensible adult the way. I think that these top level at the officials warrant, but we kind of beaten this dead horse into the ground. Other briefly give Michael and Charlie if they wanna chime in your quickly an opportunity that we will move on but David. I always appreciate the robust debate. Anybody

I still am largely on the side of rich in this debate. I am a little worried that the fact that the precipitating events were these the interview and the firing of call me makes me worry when you combine it with the evidence, Almost hysteria of other acting FBI agents related to these cases like stroke and others. It makes me worry that the FBI is as much governed by the sort of panic that was settling into the media sphere

early on even before we knew all of these. Are you know that the pile of evidence David has outlined- and this was a panic about russian influence based on a kind of ideological fear, a wood? So what I'm interested in is this the improper power of the improper influence from a foreign power being of David brought up the fiduciary. interest. The trump might have in a deal in Russia. That's absolutely game for investigation by a relevant and competent authority, but I mean I can think of

how many other ways in which other politicians are compromised by financial interests in the long run, particularly particularly trumps own opponents. In the last election who whose family the clinging family became rich, giving paid speeches to every sort of foreign despot to every sort of foreign corporate interests. whatever in the expectation right- why were they getting paid totally unprecedented amounts for boring speeches because of the expectation that have frequent would be president or, in some other form of authority, which she became ins and secretary of state and would would it least remember who her friends are and- and I were

Personally, I would love to see investigations very president's relationship with Saudi Arabia, given what our foreign policy actually has become in the Middle EAST and given who ends up using american weapons. Intimate least that that would like me, I'm a little worried that, yes, we have this, this desperate mission of improper foreign influence, but I am worried that the distinction between what we also call you no legal, legitimate foreign influence is almost ah immaterial in the real world that that this there's a kind of legalised corruption which we are say we're fine with.

There's this other thing where, if so Saudi Arabia was buying, Facebook adds that they weren't disclosing too. If we see that would be, that would make their influence on our foreign policy more sinister than it is in. That seems legalistic to me to the point that this is partly why fingered tromp was elected. Right I hate that I hate ending any conversation with this is why you got trump, but I am a little worried that this is why we got trump, because we are not good at making these distinctions. If we want to say Russia is a hostile power, can can can Congress come in and in

say something like that and create more types of activity that our legal for Russia to do. That that make these distinctions clear where, where we are able to more finally distinguish between presidents ideological affinities between his foreign policy, which he has the prerogative to implement as president and between improper foreign influence. So Charlie again, how this incredibly long stretch without hearing from union that yours is the longest standing you went away, especially at the beginning, makes it particularly star you went away and are you you'd like I do briefly I'll do my habitual Charlie's Congress Corner there. I don't know who is right on the legal question and I think that in part

because I losing are written in such a way that it's difficult to know who is right on the the legal question, but I never the last agree with rich that the situation in which we now find ourselves as citizens is a bizarre one, and it is because we have strayed so far away from the way in which the government was supposed to be set up. I should probably say that I have, more radical views on the FBI than I imagine reached us. I dont like the f B. I am not convinced that should exist. I dont like J Edgar Hoover. I dont, like the power grab that establishment represented. I am sceptical of federal power, especially when that federal power creates what has, in this case become a super police, but irrespective of that, the FBI's the wrong tool.

For this job. The correct tool for this job is the Senate. Judiciary, committee or some variation is Congress. It is farcical, even if it is legal, that the president is effectively being asked to investigate himself. It throws up inevitable conflicts of interest, or at least ostensible conflict of interest. It throws up the argument that we have just heard the american system is supposed to provide for elected representatives to have control with their own branches, Donald Trump should not be directly or indirectly investigating himself, and he should not be in a position. Even if its legitimate is co. Misfiring was in which he is a

to fire people who are looking into him. That's congresses, job Congress should be looking into the president. Congress should be contemplating impeaching him. If that's what it's going to come to riches example, his hypothetical, I think, is an excellent one, not because it is likely that Donald Trump holds that you towards but because, if you permit Congress to fulfil this role, that no one ever asks whether line is between policy and the law. If we go back to

the early nineteenth century- indeed, maybe ten fifteen years before that, we will find a debate over whether the United States should side with France or Breton many thought that it should stay neutral. Thomas Jefferson preferred France, he was pro France, he likes the french revolution at least at First Alexander Hamilton, took the other view. Now how how do we think it would have gone if Jefferson had been,

suspected of having untoward ties to France or of Hamilton had been suspected of having untoward ties which they did a great deal. Since that latter there was a speculative while right right, but I meant if the FBI had existed and looked into, we would have had a problem because it may have been legitimate to have said. Maybe Thomas Jefferson expecting something for France maybe wants to be french. Maybe you want to go over there and he's been promised a castle in the law on. Maybe that would have been legitimate, but it also

would have been a problem if his own administration had been investigating him on that basis, for what was ultimately or at least could be construed as a legitimate policy question which side should he and his government and the United States have come down? You can avoid that entirely. If you give Congress this role, because Congress is allowed to impeach a president for policy differences, it can do whatever at once. It has a blank cheque, and I see that the the primary objection to this suggestion of mine is, while Congress won't do it, but that's not really an objection if Congress decides not to investigate the press-

not to fulfil its constitutional role if it declines of it demands that is its prerogatives. You cannot have a system that works. However, you need it to get the consequence that you want to. I I need to read the law more closely. I find the legal question fascinating. I'm entirely open to the idea that there has been no ultra vires behaviour here that the FBI's following the lorries it's written, in other words, that David is right on that narrow question, but as a man- to have constitutional hygiene. This is a disaster and I hope we learn from it and we we amend our system and use it ass. It was contributed in fairness You respond briefly. Let me add one last point and tell me if I'm putting distorting your view or putting words, the amount that seems to me

that year, your view is that the FBI should be investigating whether he's a winning agent of Russia. You know if Russia put some pressure on him tangled some dangle some benefit and lead to these two him having these views, but you don't think hidden, as is the FBI's role, to investigate whether he's just unwitting, which is kind of goes to mine, hypothetical. Whether unwitting, I think it's the hypothetical, why I can imagine you would have another thing is if the president is surrounded by people who are compromised by Russia and providing him with advice. That is moment motivated by financial interests, for example, provide provided by Russia, in other words, he's dead. hiding from universe of deciding

policy on a universe of options presented by people or compromise by foreign intelligence that tell somebody's an unwitting agent. Perhaps now the the the one thing that I would say is look. I agree entirely with Charlie that we need more robust, congressional oversight of the present at one of the problems that we have is that the and Charlie I've talked about this countless times have written about this countless times Congress, as an institution has subordinated itself to the executive branch, an extraordinary way, but I also say that Congress as an institution has created a national security establishment that exists I agree with Charlie ought, to a limited extent about the I have. I have real coms about, how involve the FBI is domestic law enforcement over and above state law enforcement agencies But when you're talking about counter intelligence at a classic federal responsibility of the federal government and the

FBI has been resourced specifically to deal with counter intelligence issues, and so, unless maybe we want to resource the Senate. Judas your committee or the House Intelligence Committee. In similar way that we have resources the Federal Bureau of Investigation, I'm not sure that that's how we want to do this button Congress has created and funded a counter intelligence mission, and that Counter intelligence mission. When it alerts two problems, potential problems with american citizens, all american citizens it conducts an investigator and one thing that I think this a little bit problematic in the solution that you propose rich when you say well, take information and give it to say house, intelligence where's that information coming from it doesn't fall from the sky

information that has been handed over to Congress for further inquiry comes through investigations unless we want yeah. I just sort of randomly handing over rumours and innuendo and anything that kind of crosses its desk. No, I think that the reality is here. We are in a unprecedented situation. where existing law fits, but it fits in a way that prick provide, creates inherent difficulties that way crop require wisdom and prudence, democracy, and a lot of this goes down Those are just so, do we trust the people. There was one thing on this so that this this, I think, goes to house greatest. So let us say, the the FBI comes comes up with, like just lock down evidence that he's a winning agent of a foreign power, and so so what you do not get us Dorothy, Sir yours, possible for the foreign policy nationals Curying ice days, and we have evidence that you are a national security

threat. Please let us know what to do. Yeah, that's problem and that's why I think this problem senseless and if they actually had that evidence you you go to you. It's brilliant than gonna carnivores up in Congress, takes it up and Congress disciplines the president and correct the present by punishing the President Nigh where the FBI, by policy they would take it to the attorney general and they would say Mr Attorney general. We have the following lockdown evidence that the present in the United States is a wedding. Agent of a foreign power has been compromised by Vladimir Putin's Russia. The attorney general could then approach would approach the president. The attorney general would also approach risk. The attorney general in theory could revise the o J P see about indicting, sitting president and then require the president to explicitly override him, which would again fundamentally alert a Congress is to work,

so the sign in line of low nuts, the Congress. It comes back to Congress but whose but yes, but Congress has resourced and executive branch agent see to conduct these investigations, and it is not exempted the president. So that goes back to greatest think this gets David again just going back to the indictment example. Reason why the entire answer. Screwy, you maybe Annie makes the case that the guidance is wrong and they can have a sealed indictment of my present guidance is right. The idea that you indict try jail sitting. Presently United States is completely nuts collude. Just excuse me, I'm just this just gesticulating wildly here can only were not as peace, it's crazy criminals, but no, then you have liked twelve jerk

deciding whether someone could in fact be the present United States or not, and that's not their role, to decide its Congress is why if we get it, if it is some terrible crime, it's it's up to Congress does not the same thing here is shot the FBI to decide whether his national security threats and I urge the president to change himself resign, its that's it. These are all hope, inherently political question: they have a political model that whether or not wait a minute if, if Donald Trump, let us take an extreme example walks on to get MO, where there's no state jurisdiction there, federal jurisdiction only and shoot someone in the fix. Ok, a jury. A jury would try him on the question of easy, he guilty of murder, ok Congress than with this

I'd, not whether he's guilty murder, but whether he shouldn't continue to serve as president I'd states. The president is still subject to every law on the statute books, both state and federal, unless he purports to try to pardon himself. If for violations of federal, I cant do for state law, so he still subject to all the laws in all sure it does is decide whether he would be guilty of a violation of the law. It doesnt decided was her, sir, as at present from jail. If Congress didn't impeach him a bit better. No, that's why back you had a genuinely has highlighted things most compelling about the guy. You have a jury deciding as a de facto matter whether he could still be president I guess it washing Deasey jury can decide that basically, reverse the verdict of the entire american public is inherently a political question. Congress should make up such Political questions he's a citizen of the United States, who has absolutely no,

immunity from the operation of law unless he purports to pardon himself from relations of federal, your page homepage, over move in jail. That's that would be the most appropriate order, but we're gonna blow the entire spent not what the constitution without, about the whole whole s we keep going here but, David again, I appreciate the debate. Our listeners have appreciated as well exit question to put a button on this one. I go to you first ambition. Rate the possibility of Donald Trump is full knowing and malicious agent of Russia zero,

Gotta be kidding me ten, it's the only explanation point. For I mean he could totally be compromises judgement by in a financial incentives, but I have more trust in the Kremlin's intelligence resources than to cultivate so unreliable and asset get French too. I think that the the most plausible case for any sort of compromise isn't the steel dossier in scandal. I think the most plausible argument for any sort of compromise

decision making on the basic at the behest of Russia is related, this business interests and I'm not going to rule that out entirely. I just think it's unlikely troika diving is the two is why I think that the flaws that we see in this president, the product of this president and his his short attention, span his lack of knowledge, his capricious nature. I think those are much more likely explanation. then some elaborate compromise scheme. So I guess maybe a little higher than anybody point five and I put it in Erica's, crazy stuff happens, but it just extremely unlikely. So before move on or tell people a little bit about an hour, plus the digital subscription service on national view, dot, com, all sorts of wonderful benefits, the signing up for an hour plus, first and foremost, get access to our content, clean print magazine content and web exclusive content, that is behind

and our metered pale. I programme noticing more more key icons on the website. That's because more more content is behind the meter pay wall The only way that you can be assured of getting to read everything you want is to sign up for an hour plus you also get an almost entirely ad free experience ninety percent fewer ads on the website, no ads on the article, so no distress actions while you're trying to read our content, you also get the ability to comment on the website, which is the exclusive privilege of an hour plus subscribers. You get be part of our private. Facebook Group, where there's an ongoing discussion and argument about the arguments we're having and Editors and writers are popping in and out of that discussion them selves and finally,

You get invited to be part of calls and events. We had called with Annie Mccarthy and Jim Geraghty the end of last year. I have call coming up a week or so, here with Devon Nunez, and we had, as you ve probably heard me say before we had a Party, here with the fur and our plus subscribers in New York he knows, a lot of fun will be doing. Events like this around the country, including one coming relatively soon to wash in DC severity part of an hour plus watch em but box for those invitations. If you're not part of an hour plus, please get with the programme, it only costs about fifty bucks a year. we do have loved to have you part of our community. Ok. So after David now dominating podcast. With this this, sir, this ten round fisticuffs over the FBI, whether that can investigate the president of the United States

on these grounds or not we're gonna, throw it over to Michael and Charlie. Probably I can have a debate, but they have very knowledgeable discussion about what the hell is going on with Brac said we have stork defeat of Teresa Maize breaks it deal in part women and then no confidence vote, she narrowly survive so just seems to be the status quo, where there is no majority in parliament really doing anything, and you have the weakest leader in the western world hanging on by the skin of her teeth. Michael. What should we make of it? It's totally uncharted territory. I wrote a peace on this. The normal to explain to America. We insist that mean the normal pattern in parliament is that once the government can't get its business through once that, once the garment king of its business through parliament, the government falls apart right that, prime Minister, if they will, if there

piece of legislation loses by thirty sixteen ninety votes. You know that there are examples in the past them resigning or immediately losing a no confidence vote. After that result,. Teresa maize Briggs Deal which is agreed to buy twenty seven nations of the European Union and the UK ah went down to a totally unprecedented over two hundred vote defeat. There's no defeat recorded like in parliamentary history that we know of and it she's than immediately survived. The no conference, where is it is a very odd thing to say:

my own read of the situation has been that there are two crises happening at once. There is a constitutional crisis, which is basically the problem that in the british system, parliament is supposed to be sovereign and in the british system they have kicked this question of bricks it to the public for referendum and the public voted for a result that parliament doesn't fundamentally agree with and in that chasm the government is falling apart. It was very interesting to watch to how dispirited both out of the chamber were Torreon,

however, when debating breaks it when it in the business moved on to the no confidence vote the next day, and it was just a pure tory verse, labour rhetorical contest. The parliament came alive with sudden eloquence and great speeches from Michael Goave and others, and if it it began to feel to me as if, like Briggs, it is now this dead weight on on british politics that the sooner they get out get it done. They can move onto business that actually excites the players in the room. Unfortunately, I also think that by voting down this maize deal that the hard Briggs tears have made a softer briggs it or no breaks it. Much more likely that that They ve chosen their red lines in such a way that I think there

make it less because Maim may one of her the most obvious options would be softening breaks it because the EU would like to soften breaks it in a keep. Keep written in the Customs Union perhaps forever, and the Labour Party wants to keep Britain in the Customs Union at least that's their stated position to get labour votes to pass a deal ahead of the debt Lange that that that is one option. The other option is if no one can agree which is possible. They could crash out at the end of March, with, with all the consequences that come from at EL long term. I think Britain will be fine because it controls its own currency. I think anyone that was in the euro system on the currency would have a total national calamity on their hands.

crashed out? Britain will be fine long term but short term. There really are concerns about well, where they gonna get certain vital supplies. Food supplies, medical supplies, There is also of agreements that are of that are only now really beginning to be planned. For, in the note, your possibility said Charlotte. Do you think that we tackle it, but about this offline? Do you think that any possibility that, if it really seems as though Britain sliding towards a hard breaks it that the EU would come back, Ok, you know, let's, let's cut a better deal, does not in our interests the energy today either to have a hard breaks out with with no governing trade rules,

Yeah, I don't think that's the crushing out option is quite a scary as it sounds, and I think it's more likely than no breaks it at all. What we're looking out at the moment is how people behave when they don't have any alternatives. There's no alternative within The conservative party to tourism may, because the conservative party is so deeply split that anyone else at this point is unacceptable to enough people to render them not an option. There is no alternative to the coast. It is my job to because Jeremy Carbon is a lunatic he's, not apparently popular enough to to prevail. I think if the Labour Party had a talented leader, we probably would have seen the government.

but he doesn't, and that was made even more obvious during the debate. The other day I think it was. It was made clear to Jeremy Carbon that it is not in his interest to have another debate like that. His face set everything and there is no alternative to breaks it, because the consequences of parliament essentially reversing the referendum would be cut. the Strasbourg in the long term, it would be so destructive to Britain's trust in their institutions that I think those in the those have the power to effect. That would would wooden Do so, and the European Union doesn't really have that much of an option but to let Britain go and to do so at least Unreason

legal terms, even though this is the most controversial uncontested question I accept, but the the issue of Britain's membership in the EU is often presented by those who wish Britain had voted. stay as if it is an honour, Lloyd, good and really, as if Britain has everything to lose in the European Union has nothing to lose, but that isn't true. Firstly, because with any political union, there was sufficient reason to enter it in the first place that both sides have to have benefited. Secondly, because trade tends to benefit both sides

that's, why we we do it. And thirdly, because there are a number of states within the european union- the very much wanted Britain to stay and that have watched Britain's actions with interest. I think if it came to it, it would be messy. It would be bad for the pound. I think it would, in the short term, disrupt the british economy. A budget would not lead to the end of Britain. It would not lead to rights in the street. It would not lead to Englishmen running out of time and butter and gas and marmalade, while I that would be worse than all those that's gonna. Love mobilise knives, we're talking about

out of marmalade, maybe I'm in the remain side, but seriously that there is a significant set of incentives for european countries to find a stop gap which would not be too hot. I accept that is very difficult to put together trade agree, you cannot do it overnight and Kevin Williamson on the Wall Street Journal have taken the view we should just have in America, a law that says they shall be free trade. I get that, but in an era of intangible good in an era of interconnected economies. It is tough. You do need rules even to Scotland. She comes of the world except the shoe. You need rules that have to be put together by people who know what they're doing but our rules already. So if, if Mercedes, suddenly panics and says my goodness, we saw so many cars to Britain and and and the day, and yet we are about to watch Britain crash out. I can't see

There won't be a stopgap measure put in place, will cable the same rules obtained for three months, and then we really really have to do with the European Union can set policy with nations, in the European Union and has done before so I'm not to our it about it. No, I don't think this is reflected well on the british political system. I don't think this is reflective well on the conservative party or the Labour Party, but I am more sanguine about the short term consequences and perhaps others will. I worry that the than the stop gap that you mention, that is the backstop in a way right, is that there's gonna be this transition period, where Britain follows Eu Customs rules, even as its exiting the Customs Union, and- and it will do so until the future relationship is decided, would, in other words, until they centre a trade.

agreement right available at a certain number of years, and then, if there's fights about what exactly the the legal status of that backs up, will be theirs worries on the the Tory Briggs, a tear side that it's you know a Customs union in perpetuity with Britain's having any say in the rule, making the the stir union aside in Northern Ireland is frayed that the backs up as a way of effecting a sort of irish economic unity that would violate the good Friday agreement. it's. So there is, there is a stop gap and it's just a quick. I think that stop gap, even though there were legitimate questions. I think on the unionist question side of that question that stop gap was just rejected by parliament which voted two years ago,

two to send in article fifty notice that is going to reject them on no deal. So I agree with all of this I, but that the difference that I'm tryin to highlight is that in one case you are asking Mps. What is the ideal situation you would like to see come to pass. What are the ideal rules? How should things bay? In the other circumstance you're saying my goodness, we run out of time. We couldn't come to an agreement. What happens now and I think people will be far far more likely to accept second best that isn't catastrophic in that environment than they are now when they still think they can win this thing. But the way this is spoken about their theirs Implication here that Britain will crash out and suddenly there will be, no trade will be no ships coming into british ports. There will be no planes landing on the internet will start working, and this is not true. Sir Ector question to you

b d was more likely at this juncture. In your view, a hard breaks it are no breaks at all. My boat is that the the crash out is has to be rid of the most likely because it's the default option and you have to get agreement from from disparate and conflicting parties to avoid it. Try to hot breaks it in part, because the way the politics play out toxic for the anti breaks it sighed and all of the political parties which are worried about their future. No, that would be less damaging for all three political parties to watch a hard breaks it happen than it would be to try to stop it. My guess is no breaks. It is more likely, or at least a delayed breaks x. I just think when countries face an enormous risk of this nature,

they find some way out of it, and it wouldn't surprise me that happens here. But given us two options, I would very much be rooting for a hard rex. It too so David. Let's move back to the United States, America, where the shut down is dragging on, and you have the latest gambit from Nancy Policy yesterday saying that, given the strain on federal resources, it doesn't make sense to have attrition or stay the union address, because it requires a lot of security and an during Nielsen quickly, tweeted. Well, no, actually that this is an entirely within our resources and we can handle it no problem at all. I think the latest it now suppose he says she doesn't care with Secretary Nielsen, says and might take on. This is not a thing. Say the union. We all agree that Congress should have been more protective of power and prerogative

I guess I just think it's unseemly for Congress to provide this radically majestic setting for the president and in a form members of Congress to sit on the Isle of Man hours on off chance. They get on tv or get to shake the president's hand or even get his autograph, which is completely pathetic. So I wouldn't mind seeing this fit the current spectacle and blown up and some more alternative, some better alternative going forward. I think the problem with what Pelosi's doing is that the the the rationale? It is clearly pretty bogus, but why you know I can sum it up pretty quickly. Is that I, like you, I am tired of the state of the union as currently comment as its currently done. I find all the same things to be dreary and in just increase

my already boundless cynicism about politics, but at the same time I dont want to see it cancelled out spite- and it also Creasy cynicism for her- for a policy to cancel out of spite which is actually can sing it out despite and then offers up some ino reasoning that clearly protects tool that that's clearly unsupported issues pop. Of the same dreary game and so yeah, I'm all for de escalating the state of the union. I would like to see it D escalated for good reasons. Rather than bad reasons, and- and let me just say I did put my time to good use during the breaks it discussion. I I tweeted out a quick note that our debate on the The issue was lit and with the flight with the flame Elmo, Jim Fathah, unlocking my inner millennium awesome building interests in this project

already said Charlotte. Imagine you were the at the happiest man in America. When the news came out that perhaps stay the union would not happen, and the trivial setting this year will not really because it seems to me. That the reasoning behind the potential cancellation, opera spokesman is self interest. The argument is that the state,

The union is a mirror, the speech from the threatened that it belongs in a royal system, not a republic that it elevates the president over Congress. The argument is also that we didn't have it for a long time and that the people who brought it back we're on Lovely Thomas Jefferson, got rid of it. Some party think, because he didn't have a great speaking voice, didn't, like speaking in public, had something of a list. Nevertheless, its abolition then became the norm and it was brought back why, of course, Woodrow Wilson. It was then abolished again by the minimalist Republican presents the nineteen twenties, and then it was brought back by EFTA. There is a pattern there, s not suppose he had written a letter

saying you know, I have realised during your presidency, Mr President, that we have given far too much power to the executive. You are who I was thinking of when I worried as a young girl that Washington was getting to powers it she didn't that's what she said in effect, is I don't want you making the case against us during this shut down? That's not a good it. That is such a perfect. Perfect illustration of the way in which a portion of the modern Democratic Party thinks that they only ever want to restore. republican, smaller republican norms, when it helps them when it suits them, when it gives them a temporary political advantage, and, incidentally, Republicans and no better on this- is not a civil republican. Small government president recently is had let's get rid of the state of the union. So now I'm not thrilled because

The argument hasn't been made how many people out there in America who have who are aware that this debate is, is under way have been reading Kevin Williamson space on this whole George? Will space on this or any of the other pages national Review has run about this? How many of them is saying? Yes? Finally, we can get rid of this horrible horrible today should not? This has been absorbed into point scoring and pauses on politics in the Salinas it is to shut down. and so I can't take any great pleasure said: Michael, do you have any shape on how the shutdown might end

You know for a while. I thought that the longer it went on the more pressure would fallen. Democrats because they ve argued essentially that you know this. Sir. This wall is an effective. It's not an effective place, Cetera it's a waste of money, but it's not very much money in the grand scheme of things, and I think I am against this argument that Republican should enjoy the shut down, because it's mostly Democrats they're losing their paychecks. I actually think that attitude is totally destructive to the bonds of our society, but I did think the political effect them of that reality could be that no unions would would turn a Democrats and say why,

We fighting for any more. You know if this isn't, if this isn't a big deal like let's get our people paid, so that's how I thought it would end, but the poles are just so back of her president Trump. That, ah I mean I think he has to find a way to key with dignity. Soon the charcoal Ex a question to you present will deliver the stay the union address in the House chamber in the Senate chamber someplace else. or not at all. This year I held the who maybe see this palace in LAS Vegas adds that bad David, French. It'll happen in the house chamber after the shutdown sober immediate. I agree with David, I may say some place else since we once again blown

in addition, the editors out with the internal debate. We don't have a lot of time for a last topic, so let's do it exit question style but feel it'll elaborated at least a little bit I'll goody. You first Amby De Fee campaign the masculinity Gillette, the American Psychological Association and all the rest will result in less masculine DE in America or more masculinity in America ironically, will result in more toxic masculinity, enrich our good colleagues so that.

that I felt nothing about the Gillette add. I think people should just not take corporate messages like that very seriously. The the american psychological cessation, though I think that actually is kind of sinister because of it will be used by schools and and workplaces to do. You know. Push forward a political agenda that might be at odds with human nature in some way so yeah more toxic masculinity will be the result, David, French, more or less masculinity, More division over masculinity- I think the ape I'm totally within VD. On the Gillette, add I'm kind of board by that controversy. I just

heavy handed, but it was the basic message was bad. Things are bad good. Things are good, I mean nobody's for bullying and sexual harassment, the EPA guidelines, or something else entirely mean this is something that is sort of taking basic mail. Two risks and labeling them as inherently negative or harmful to men, and so it's gonna, I think clarifying moment because it's not like the Pierre broke new ground here it sort of gathered together these long term trends within it. Profession that are already managing manifesting themselves in schools already manifesting themselves in the workplace, put him in a document and then you know, gave us kind of up a specific target to aim at, and so The battle lines are drawn and I don't know how it's gonna work out, one way or the other, but I think it is a fine moment. I'm glad we're having argument, I'm glad the battle lines have finally been drawn, show the cook I

more and less. I think this is maybe whatever was driving. I think people on one side of things will look at that in some of the other trends in our society and there I am buying a pick up and then I think the people who, like that sort of ad and thought the idea, was absolutely right and spend all their time tweeting about help. Tolerant now will go the other way. So I think we probably headed for more by four catered view of what is the role? man, and that these ads are reflecting that, rather than anything else, I'm gonna say yeah, I think less and more is a pretty good answer. I think are are a lead for better or worse, has been quite successful and changing views on gender and gender roles in this country, but there

a limit to how much of that you can do and masculinity is inherent to half of the species and attempting stamp it out will create a reaction, at least among some segment, the male population. So before we move on, let's hit a few other item, some Michael you have been watching and all history television series on Netflix, the some Netflix carries more and more foreign language series and dramas. I think in a previous episode I recommended occupied, which was about soft russian invasion of Norway, are now much in nineteen. Eighty three, which confusingly is set in two thousand three in Poland during the cold war that is still going on, and Al Gore

as president of the United States and its just a fascinating fun, weird television, so that you would never get in the United States. The polish specificity of it is pretty compelling the kind of idea of communism extended Welland through the nineties into the two. Thousands in the Eastern Bloc kind of presents interesting, dramatic opportunities. It's dark! It's weird and I think it's just such a great way to blow few hours every every weekend gave way in fact some lately. Well, you know, there's a glaring hole in our apocalypse. Television in the Collapse, television genre that foxes filling those he read me While no that I, until the decline of the walking dead franchise, I wrote and talked a lot about

the inevitable zombie apocalypse and have paid short shrift to the inevitable, vampire apocalypse, but thankfully foxes stepping into the standing in the gap there in his adapted them really creepy and could apocalyptic novel the passage for television- and I watched the opening up a sewed this week and it's actually really good. It's very well done very well acted faithful enough to the book but depart in some interesting ways. It makes a television show more compelling. So if you ve been, you know if, if the modern television landscape, is not bleak enough for you and you want another variation on the end of the world. I cannot recommend the passage on Fox, Charlie.

My younger son turned one two days ago and we took him down to Disney world for the evening and really it was a pretext for the three year old or almost three years ago, because he's one, but it turned out that he loved it. He got to meet Duffy at Africa Daisy Duck, and it was so excited at the prospect that once Daisy Duck had left, he chased her around the room and wouldn't let her go. There is nothing like watching the world through the eyes of your children,. so are lots of things are wrong about twitter, obviously, by the very cool things about it. Is that allows you to connect with people that you would never connect with otherwise and

A little while ago. I walked away from my phone at nights and came came back. You know owes dormant in their their certain tweets are tweets activity it show up, and in this case there is a notice that Lenny Dykes drop was following me, and I just always loved Lenny, Dykes DORA, this this hard nosed led off hitter for the Mets, and the Phillies just so excited Lenny, dykes dread had followed me. I told my wife, you know who's whose Lenny Dykes rattling ISIS baseball players so fantastic you know in the nineties, ninety nine three world Series, one game he hit to home wrongs and she's like? Oh, you know each you shouldn't vital

dykes or to your next NASH Review of that. As you know, I don't know about that. I had to go, do something I could explain and then, when I came back in the room should actually looked up learning dexterous now, maybe you shouldn't and Letty Dykes, dear next NASH, review of that so that time in the pod cast for our editors picks. Charlie, kick cook, and why said that Charlie? What's your pic? I guess I didn't, then I went pickles influencing my pronunciation of your last name. Charles happens, rich for when I don't for a long time. You know my name gets forgotten. I like that Exactly two scientists is corner post on the well the bigotry. I suppose that we ve seen in relation to the Knights of Columbus. Certain figures within the Democratic Party have started to cars.

membership in the nice, if Columbus's some insidious thing and is so tray asked to disqualify one for job as a judge as Alexander points out. This is, of course, not too far away from imposing a religious tests, but more important. It may be a preview of what is to come if Donald Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. which, given the state of Ruth bade against works, health looked for a while a couple of weeks ago, ass. If it might be imminent, thankfully Ruth Bader Ginsburg seems to be making a recovery, but for a while there was a great deal of Worryin Talk and Alexandria noted. I think, smartly, that suddenly membership in religious organisations was cast us beyond the pale

David, French, you know I'm really enjoying Jim Gary's series. What he's doing this interesting thing, where he's rather profiling, some of the democratic presidential candidates is doing a list of things that you didn't know about them. Joe Biden is on the block right now and it's a great in refreshingly different way to look at some of these dimmer presidential contenders mean we're gonna have a lot of writing about them in the coming weeks and months, but this is a great way to start And I've learned something every time side. I would urge you to check out Jim serious empty might. Was yours, rich Larry, your case against even French, that you in imprint on the web. Do sorry I was kind of on the fence I was. I was so as always surfaces argument. I felt going in a sort of on the fence and enrich really brought me over Yazzi David.

up for you today that no I've got another. Might we need to restore this spot because the rest of your philistines- and are not nearly as literary as I am. My pick, the first I'm at ever on the editors podcast is a poem by Jessica, Hornback. It's called other distances. It has surf forth upon for in the print magazine, riding palms, Jesus Subscriber and everyone out there. But an r plus member which all of you should be but Jessica. We very much appreciate your contributions and please keep added. So that's it for us, Sarah. We actually have, sir, should he the incomparable sir shitty here in the pot cast studious. How long is this progress? We are our fifteen minutes here, close to record some to all of you for listening where the editors and see

so anyway, that's it for us been listening to a national review podcast any we broadcast reach transmission or account of this game without the express written permission of natural, you magazine is strictly pro habited. This pod cast has been produced by the aforementioned incomparable. Sarah should he, who makes a sound better than we deserve Thank you Michael. Thank you, David. Thank you, Charlie, thanks specially to all of you Listening where the editors and see you