Did Donald Trump engage in growth, compromising sexual conduct in Moscow, hotel room power, trumps novel he's very was Brok Obama's farewell addressed different than any other Obama address and what to make of narrow streets during call to the conscience of the nation will do so. All this and more on this week's edition of the editors, I'm rich Lowry by right hand in total and the right. Honourable Charles see w cook welcome every on the week has been dominated once again. By Russia, except now the vague whisperings that had been out there for months about Donald Trump, potentially being compromised. by russian intelligence are

at the centre of the debate because Buzzfeed published this thirty five. I've page dossier with raw Rumour- and allegations about Donald Trump, so Charlie, what is what here take on this latest chapter in this controversy. I think None of us know I was disappointed that this story was published in its current form if confused me, I was initially sceptical. and I have grown more and more. skeptical. They seem to be two parts to what one is that the dossier itself which Buzzfeed publish, I think I'm with David French on this question the justification for publication was absurd. Ben Smith, the editor of Buzzfeed said that it was up to the people decide whether it was true or not, but of course people can't know that through no fault of their own,

They didn't run intelligence agencies, and this is a dossier I'm given to believe that was given Many many journalists during the election, none of could verify its contents. How is the average person sitting at home, reading Buzzfeed supposed to know and the other part. The story is whether this has been done he can seriously by the intelligence services or not and one of the justifications I heard for four Buzzfeed publication was CNN, had reported that Donald Trump himself had been briefed on this, and so had President Obama but NBC, has now said. That's not true that there was no briefing trump wasn't shown anything of the sort it does the impossible here. This is a non story that this is false from the ground up that

Russians or somebody else put together a dossier filled it with salacious stories about Donald Trump and then given a pretext. That would obviously be upon by those who dislike Donald Trump manage to get it out there. I think that the at the very At least we should be extremely sceptical of this story, and I think those who have peddled it should should know better yeah I have to say I've always thought the simplest and most intuitive explanation for how Trump has treated Putin is that Trump thinks that Putin has been nice to him and you can be the harshest critic abdominal trump. If you show up one day- and you say something nice about him- he'll totally turn around in his attitude towards you. So just seemed to me basic trump reciprocity, and these we most of us have heard this

whispering for a long time about some compromise when he was over russia- and I have to say that this day I see it for me is reassuring on that front because it so fantastical and so poorly sourced and so a poorly put together, and in it seems to me just as a matter of the ongoing contention between Trump and the press must be. It did enormous disservice to the press. Slowly I mean there were two stories they came out and basically simultaneous Lastly, one was CN ends which sort of reported at the edge of this story. You know they they reported on a supposed synopsis given to the president that, as President Obama, as well as present, like tromp as Charlie, pointed out not clear whether that happened or not, but they

did at least point too. You know some sort, some actual sourcing behind this now, whether that pans out is, is another question that was a I think There's a question and open question thereabout, whether you know they sort of met the threshold for publishing that peace not fair to debate, but it was a reasonable, generally reasonable piece of journalism, whereas Buzzfeed and went and publishes the entire dossier right and they say they stop all over CNN so the next day at what what? What was an incredibly lively. First press conference, as President Elect Donald Trump was able to, mash those two stories together and when, when Jim Acosta was pressing, him say: you are fake news and and move along and So what Buzzfeed did was

Two under mine, I think for a lot of people, any sense that the press in general, aided and abetted, of course, by Donald trumps Donald Trump here, undermine the sense that the press is going to be able to report factual, more or less objective information in the public interest. Donald Trump was was masterful at the press conference in making it look like the press is just simply out to get him in this case. He's crease correct on that score about Buzzfeed, but for a whole lot of people we're just gonna get the headlines of this it'll be all of the press, and I think that does a disservice to all the reporters who really are working in the public interest.

yeah when I was watching the press conference myself. I just assumed, when Trump had this heated exchange and said your fake news that he was talking about a Buzzfeed reporter now you know it's following also along on Twitter, so I quickly saw it was Jim Acosta of CNN, but most people aren't doing that and they just assume that the press is thrown something out there, that's on unverified and based on innuendo and that Trump sitting back and they like the fact that is hitting backup. Certainly supporters do so Ryan, my theory for what of whatever swerve, not that the Democrats for the press or listening to me is that if you want to oppose Donald Trump. If you're the Democrats or a few of the press- and you want to have you no legitimate check on him, you should treat him as a normal president. And play by normal rules. Could, I think, we're anyone else goes outside the bounds. Besides Donald Trump, it ends up ahead, hurting them more than tromp. That makes a lot

a sense to me. There is another dimension to this, however, which is that Buzzfeed is also a for profit enterprise. Right I mean they are operating. a very competitive media landscape and their this very funny position. They have built this big news. Operation. That is I'd, say you know, but it's not explicitly partisan, but its broadly left of centre that reflects the sensibilities of its reporters, its editors gotta, yadda and then you're looking at the New York Times and the new. Four times more and more is looking more partisan, partly because we too, in a very divided polarize country. So there's this weird convergence, the kind of story that you I used to read and Mother Jones implicit their Jones has. You know they have some more resources. They have more professionalism, yadda, yadda and then the New York Times they have become more partisan and then buzz, feeble, they differentiate themselves from you other media players. Now the dockers gone, who

he's going to be the media entity. That's going to push the envelope that's going to keep stoking these flames. If I'm Buzzfeed, I Could very well have believed that if I didn't published someone else was going to publish it and get those clicks and get those eyeballs. So for my perspective. A lot of this is just a market dynamic. It may well be. True that if I wanted to be a disciplined opponent of Donald Trump, want to get him out of the White House. I do one thing, but you're not actually gonna get that coordination of these people, they're all no one to say their alternative say their own ass, but there is this way in which they Wanna be distinctive. They wanna be bold. They want to get rewarded by, let's say fifteen, to thirty percent of the american public, and I believe that there are people out there who think that Buzzfeed and bends myth that they are basically bowl. Truth tellers did exactly the right thing. That's not gonna, be the view. Your folks at CNN or at the New York Times, because he kind of one of them all

if you, because it doesn't comport with their standards of journalism, but you know He certainly have a constituency, that's what it means to live in an incredibly fragmented country, right, rhinos, very good points when make make a natural. What do I think that, while I think there is a difference between explaining what is happening and Explaining what should happen? That's probably true. That's also for what it's worth why we have fake news websites if, if our stand at, is that in order to break through in order to gain clicks. We have to behave immorally while them we are opening the door to all of those.

screaming, Eagle nine forms we soldier in the election that just flat out lied. I thought it was instructive that pointer set the Buzzfeed had pushed it too far. I thought it was instructive that there was widespread condemnation of Buzzfeed across the political spectrum. I thought it was instructive. The truck towed seem relatively hostile to Ben Smith in his interview yesterday, the fact is the first base Is a click. Farm is very good at gaining eyeballs, but if their aim here- and it does seem to Be- is to damage Donald Trump or, as they might see it, to hold him accountable. I'm not. Oh they're, going about it the right way I'd. I agree with what was said earlier. That trumped tend to turn any body,

else abandoning norms to his own advantage and now, probably for the next four years. Any time there is a salacious rumour about him any time that there is a seemingly profitable attack on it. he's going to point back to this and say: look. They were more interested in quicker than decorum or truth, and the fact that he is as well will not really matter so in you. I think, probably watch more closely to high profile hearings from this week. The Jeff sessions, confirmation and Rex tillers, in what we are take waste from both somebody had to endure some confirmation hearing so assert start with sessions which you know was was built. as a sort of showdown by at least

from day. One and sessions tell the sessions himself testimony it was rather dull. I think you saw most senators play played fairly well. What was soft law with him. Even democrats seem generally a mental bull to the van, how and sort of taking it as a given that he would, he will be confirmed the the only real news out of that whole hearing. I

was Corey Booker's attempt to elevate himself by breaking precedent and testifying against a sitting Senate colleague, colleagues, in a confirmation for a cabinet post and what came off, as was just horribly trickly sentimental moral preening about you, know the arc of the moral universe which he which your query Booker at least had the sense to say, doesn't naturally bent or justice, so he's got that one there are going present ATLAS just so cringe inducing that all day, the idea that the train generals posed to heal the country and in my favor I didn't wash them the whole six or seven minutes feel. But my favorite part from the from the from the section I did watch was to cut away to Ben Sasse and TED Cruz, adjust their looks of butter.

important right absolute. What's what so, I don't know its reassuring or or even more galling is that everybody knows it. You know there are some liberties and the rest to thank you so much Corey, Booker, etc, but even Democrats that's a lot of Democrats. Treating at me, as I was treating about it, saying this kind of fraud- and we know it is not right are going anywhere. Those that I think telling I think that even goes up into the high levels of of the democratic Party. The far more interesting hearing was was tiller sense and I think, at least by by my lights tellers and had a tough day he faced a very aggressive questioning, often much more aggressive from Republicans than Democrats. Market review

the front of that, obviously a lot about Russia, where I think he tried to strike a balance between a more hawkish position. Euro saying the Crimea was annexed illegally. The invasion of Ukraine was illegal action, promoting military aid to the border in Ukraine, but also trying to sort of toe the the champion line, saying he wasn't confidence that they would go forward with sanctions against Russia, they would extend President Obama's sanctions etc. At times he look, he seemed a little bit wishy washy on questions of human rights, particularly in the Middle EAST. And then he face some some tough questioning, particularly from Bob Menendez Democrat from New Jersey on axons

business in IRAN, Sudan and Syria, all state sponsors at the time that Exxon was dealing with them three through a young european subsidiary to get out of the of the sanctions per sanctions. Restrictions back in the mid two thousand, and I think that should raise questions about where, where it where's the ban. Balance between the corporate interests in the national interest. Rubio said after the mornings testimony, he was quote unquote discouraged by certain answers that he heard here. He does have the power to sink the nomination in committee but his face serious serious backlash. If you were to do that or if he were to vote against it, on the floor assuming the nomination goes through, so it was Trusting tat, certainly an interesting hearing to watch and it's hard to know exactly, what's going to happen when they when they get,

about Selina, I'm with you. I have a hard time, seeing Rubio going all the way and killing this thing in committee, which kind of bee in an earthquake, seem to me more, like till was underwhelming rather than he'd committed any gaps. It really would endanger his confirmation but right hand. Another theme from this week is how tell her sin matters and pale all of them have contradicted. Tromp on Russia and sometimes on IRAN and on other things say. You're you're seeing expose is really interesting Fisher where trumpets picked, a purtier, conventional republican cabinet and these nominees have pretty conventional republican views on things and views at odds with Donald Trump yeah. It would be impossible for them not to contradict him simply because, even if they followed very

closely whatever it is, the Donald Trump said, Don T trouble said contradictory things the way there Think about this is normally the reason we have these wishy washy parties is that they have to reconcile lots of different conflicting views and interests and Donald Trump. Essentially, here, support at a bare minimum. He had these solid support of about a third of people in the country. That is not bad at all. That's very aggressive, but normally when you have a candidate in a republican primary, you know he has to win. over other elements- the party, yes to soften the stances, etc. This guy's completely so generous. He asked completely on its own, and so you don't you I must see that happening with certain finessing here and there he's trying to make a nice with certain kind of conventional republicans that accounts for some of the foe she's nominated to his cabinet, but short Jeff sessions. There's really

No one here who is a full on trumpets and, of course Jeff Sessions disagrees its trump on things here there too, but it's more that true, was lashing on two things that Jeff Sessions is long believed. So when I look at but, like till her son, I see it, extremely impressive, thoughtful cautious person who hasn't he actually hasn't taught did Donald Trump about Russia. John Kelly, the homeland security novelty hasn't talk to Donald Trump about immigration. So it's very hard to see how that's going to work? The only model in which this makes sense to me is that in a maybe Donald Trump will actually pull back I'm an active policy making role, because there are two ways for Donald Trump to make this work. One is that he basically becomes a conventional. Publican and has his nominees basic leave although this marching orders, which Rex tellers and would be more than capable of doing or he managed to get outside,

that one third of the electorate by based, becoming a mishmash of left and right perspectives, but if you're going to do that clear, marching orders for the guys working for you. So I think that this confusion speaks to a much bigger issue. about the Trump presidency, as it continues to unfold yeah, the the tiller not having spoken to Trump about russia- lend credence to me that there have been various rumours during the transition about house strange. Some of these job interviews have been and how form of people who were selected for Hype profile, foreign policy positions did not talk about foreign policy at all, with with Trump during the during their Discussions- and I guess I guess some of that is- is actually true, Charlie. Let's, let's move onto, Obama's farewell address, which he delivered in through Obama style, not from a desk in the oval office, but added campaign rally, type event,

I've just for a long time has been struck. How you know he's very gifted and you listen to the speeches and a certain level of you subtracted the politics and the positions you disagree with you like us at sounds good, she's, pretty impressive, and then you read them and kind of flaws in those very little there and its it's real we ve been the same speech fur

most ten years now. Our longer, I think, that's right, although in two thousand, for he was pretending to be somebody he's not, which is by partisan Unita, is clearly not that unless wise party has been decimated on his watch. What struck me about? It was the manner in which a farmer seems to believe he has a monopoly on certain terms, an uncertain ideas. He said that he still believes that democracy can effect change, that he still believes that movements in the country can yield positive alterations in people's lives and that's fine. Clearly they can but he's grafting a value judgment onto the would change. Change in a bomb as mind has to be run passed him before it can be legitimate, Donald

from for better or for worse, also believes that democracy can effect change. He also believes that movements in the country at large will lead to alteration in people's lives and those who, like Donald Trump, extremely excited about his becoming president, because they believe he's going to shake things up, and indeed those who don't like Donald Trump include President Obama are worried that, because he has the wind at his back, because he was the beneficiary of a democratic movement in his favor. Now that he's going to shake things up to, and yet Obama speaks simultaneously as if Donald Trump will only in force and strengthen the status quo, and that he is a terrifying prospect. Who's going to run.

ethically alter the landscape- and I think that's the oddest- that was the hardest part of Obama speech for me was he was almost saying. I see they'll believe in changing democracy without grasping, but does about to be some change in it in a thoroughly different direction, and that is radical in its own way to yeah. There's an excellent points for me. What was most alarming about the speech was just. Did that climate change passage where he moralist explicitly said that people who don't agree with it on the facts and and have a dispute about the underlying science. and people who disagree with him on the policy are on American and oppose innovation, and basically everything good about this country, which just crazy but captures the deeply illiberal mindset of the left on on that issue.

The moment right handed any. Did you have any thoughts about the address? One of the president's look or let did have a criticism. I found interesting that criticism was that President Obama, never names the enemy. He says that you know here. These Atta things out the world, but who is the actual enemy? And I am not sure I agree. I think three actually makes it pretty clear we as enemies are. I, when I think of Morocco and the last eight years I based Please see him as someone who thinks himself, as illiberal pluralist centrist, and I mean liberal in the broadest sense, he sees himself as basically the combination not just himself, but he sees himself has- part of this combination of the western model, actual tradition. He. he believes in science he doesn't really he's not really ideological. Its people, who disagree with him who are plagued by

ideological beliefs that narrow their understanding of the world either his favorite rhetorical device that well there are people on this side who say, acts there, people on the other side and of course I say the only sensible thing, which is the view in between these absurd extremes, and it's really Interesting to me. I think he genuinely genuinely believe that and when that's the case than politics is, not simply a matter of well. I represent this set of interests and you represent that sediment, breasts and were necessarily going to be an tagging history. Because of that, because you know that at some level these interests are irreconcilable and one of us has to win it. It's it's different, it's not because what you. Have that view that ok, you know there are different group interests, neg they're, gonna clash. You could have the view that yeah. I kind of see your point on that side, but an end, you could say that's a tragic view. That's a dark view, but the owl today. This view that where there are people who see light and reason and truth and there

not necessarily a constituency its Mr Liese set of people group interests, it's just the people who fight for the truth and the people against them, and I think it takes you to a very dark place. And on a certain level. I dont think it's all that surprising that President Obama Burma has been followed by Donald Trump you know another way of looking at it is that you had the financial crisis and Brok Obama was the first major western leader to have come out of the financial crisis, but he actually wasn't Someone who kind of fully took in the cynicism of the sense of shock that people had. If you look every other western democracy. You ve had these huge populist challenges and in a way broccoli. What was able to delay those huge populous challenges, because Barack Obama, able to basically put a different face on kind of Libya. Pluralist centrist technocracy by saying That he's this change agent, who, in fact with someone who is a defender of these

aspects of the status quo that had been discredited by the financial crisis so either in a way. You could say that here We held these pressures at bay, but then they kept building up in building up the building up behind them and instead of being exe, breast and some more constructive form. You know he kind of tap to this somewhat dogmatic belief that you took out if he is the bearer, truth anyway, that that's that's a more abstract answer than you are looking for, but it's how I think of him, and I see him as a kind of tragic figure because of it. Ok! Well, let's get to our last topic, which is Merrill Streep and let's go to eat and sincere such a devoted viewer of the Golden Globes Award ceremony at. newly. This was a highly annoying. Performances stipulate that up front, but just for the sake of discussion, in what's wrong. In theory if your marriage Streep and you have these views about Donald Trump Industry,

the country in your alarmed- and you have this megaphone what's wrong with using it. Maybe I disagree with conservatives on this point generally, but I don't really think there is anything wrong with using I mean I'm, I'm somewhat of the opinion of your shut up and sing, but I recognise also the celebrities. We're also citizens in and they have these these rights as well. What bugs me is, it is to is to fold one is the the the immediate pouncing which I think has

and exacerbated in this cycle by the question of real america- and you know the the bubbles that were were constantly hearing about which, to a certain extent is, is absolutely a real phenomenon, but it doesn't really capture. I think, what's what's happening here near american culture is is very much defined and has been for a long time by an ethos of Hollywood. I mean that the lights, the the particular you know, slant of sunlight in California has a very particular life in an american culture and its foolish to think that these people in This particular section of the country are not real America, which is where conservatives constantly jump to doing. So they do basically, the opposite of the new Yorkers

famous fly over country cover coastal elites aren't real Americans its everybody in the middle? I sort of reject that binary in the question is not real America, verses and real America. It's a question of, I think I shall put this out their bilingualism, which is that very few people in the lower class Furthermore, the middle class have a dip have difficulty imagining themselves up. They dont have trouble imagining themselves into, or positions of celebrity and speaking the language and living the lifestyle think that's part of Donald Trump Draw, but the flips, the flip side isn't true celebrities seem to have a very, very difficult time after they reach their moment of of fame a wealth of vat

imagining themselves back down except us sort of oppressive. You know this social justice or a victim types. They dont have a sense of of imagining themselves into. A sort of you know fifty thousand dollars a year, coal mining job and Beckley West Virginia. That just doesn't happen, but you can bet that the Beckley West Virginia Coal Minor, can imagine himself up into you, know George Clooney private jet of that sort of failure of a reciprocal empathy. As I think what may sort of lie at the bottom of so much of the frustration that people feel when Hollywood types you our or New York Coastal later or real. Haven't you want a phrase it pontificate and, of course there is the second issue, which is just and in passing, which is the liberal praise for it as some sort of grand brave gesture men were ministry based created, as you know, went to a convention of Bee of visions.

You know said she's against eating meat. There's nothing particularly brave about preaching the the status quo position to a bunch of other people who believe in it that that's fascinating right and I think we have an assignment for even for the next day. He should say great idea. I think it's a wonderfully well said, Sir Charles DE do by this ends. Take that part of what's going on here is disconnect within the cultural bilingual legalism. Those I didn't. I grew up in that it wasn't brave and it was about

brave is meeting the energy. I think we should have less gun control. She was in a safe space, so to speak. Nothing wrong with her processing, of course, is absolutely her right, but let's not go overboard that the one thing I did think she deserve criticism for was there was a certain tell in her attack on football and Emma may for two reasons. Firstly, she really didn't have to say that to me a point she did make it sound as if football and Emma may, both of which a pretty popular were in some way inferior to Hollywood rather than different. It was not an inclusive statement. Secondly, we are helping to say, because football is extremely diverse. Football fans diverse and I may is very diverse as well as is its fan base. That was her out of touch. I don't quite like

you all in the middle of the country moment, but she can say whatever she wants. I just don't really want to see LOS Angeles. Times headline saying this was one of the bravest things that anyone has ever done in american history. It wasn't, sir, I was saving point for you that she didn't attack the NBA yeah these it it. It just makes me sad. Sometimes Hollywood just makes me said the latter say. Ok, so let's go to our nurse Ex charlie. What's your pick this week, my additives PIC is Matthew, Walther on winning the pool occasion being the ninetyth anniversary of the publication of the first book system. fascinating little essay, it's it's engaging from start to finish, and he is a very interesting person he's a sort of monarchies Catholic

traditionalist left Wing union lover he's he's, Sir he's SUI generis, Lastly, with what He is in many ways yeah. He certainly not a conservative he's his pro ease, almost distributors, dinner old catholic sense and his

it s a is as wide ranging and this interesting as he is in. What's your pic, so we rediscover Russia earlier in Pakistan. One of the revelations not included was that it appears that the evil of Amr Administration sought a warrant from the face court. The basically wiretapping court to eavesdrop on members of the trunk campaign with a thought might be having dealings with Russia and its also have tied up in this. This narrative, I dont know what to make of it buys Annie. Mccarthy does any has a very, very interesting piece at national review dot com today,

Andy knows this stuff backwards and forwards. So I was eager to read has taken, I think most other people will be as well. I am. I am very glad to report that I am the one who gets to choose Dan Mclaughlin is extremely engrossing series of posts on national view, on line on the real reason. Trump one he's basically going exhaustively through different theories as to why Donald Trump managed to feed Hillary Clinton and kind of separate the wheat from the chaff. It's a great example of what in a row can do because, whereas the print magazine, we have some constraints, I hear DEN Mcloughlin can really just write a really thorough, comprehensive peace, and I recommend to all of our readers, yeah and just dont damage lock on is really good at this. Their few people who can do a better deep dive on a particular electoral question then than Dan.

My pick is the Michael Baron Knox Baron peace in our last issue, which was our farewell to Obama, issue and barren, makes the case the sermon has really dominated Obama, presidency. In a way we haven't seen since L, B, J or Woodrow Wilson and that Obama has been beholden to what baron calls. The Calvinist hang over an american politics is a fascinating peace and, as always with everything that that Baron rights is extremely eloquent and also just as it and credibly rich in and varied collection of literary and historical reference That's it for us today, thanks everyone for listening thanks in thanks in raw hand, Charlie we'll see you all next week,