Welcome to the editors forecasts I am speaking in this week. Rich Lowry, who is away, I'm just see them cook. I have with me right hand, Salaam and in total and well by the end of this package. Everything we said will probably be obsolete, seems at the moment that it reaches six o clock and the rules are thrown out of the window. But for now he will on with what we know. This has been an Jordan. Every week we learned since last time that Donald Trump was

arguably giving away classified information to the Russians in order to impress them. We discovered that a at James Comey keeps notes, and his notes may indeed come to haunt President Trump. We have. calls for the removal of the president, either by the twenty fifth amendment or via the impeachment process. We also heard many defences off. Trumpet does not seem that the right is yet ready to bail if they indeed ever will be. Let's start with the oldest bombshell of the lot, the russian intelligence question, Is it the case that the President of the United States, in order to impress his russian guests, conveyed to

information that it would have been either best have kept under his hat, or at least that should have been run past Congress or his intelligence briefings. Charlie Donald Trump saying things out of turn to impress people just doesn't and, like Donald Trump does it I mean you know this is it is clear that that tromp was or at least it seems clear that tromp was trying to forge your relationship with these visitors, exactly the type of thing that that Donald Trump is known for looking back in is the way that he addressed when with people in his business dealings? It's it's completely, plausible, to me,

in your sarcasm is so subtle. I had no, I was thinking what on earth is going. Has this man been replaced by a Martian up, it's cool possible to me that that what happened with think is, is what we seem to be hearing from white US officials are people sort of in the no on this is that Trump received information was not not briefed, on necessarily where the information came from or the delicacy of the information offered it as some sort of way to impress ingratiate and serve forged this relation and lo and behold, it turns out to have been intelligence obtained from the Israelis who seems have a man under cover and ISIS that seems to be the the intelligence, but this weekend we, it seems to me,

We can safely disregard the most ludicrous notion, which is that Donald Trump did this on purpose as part of this sort? long com that he's working with the Kremlin and and and the efforts be what seems to be much more plausible Is that Donald Trump is a man who's not interested in learning what he doesn't know and so put it? self in the position by sheer sort of. laziness and on interest of having this information is fingertips and offering it up and now, of course, Thea. The Russians have a significant piece of Intelligence to use for their own operate hostile operations. It struck me looking at the excuses that were made on defence is. That tromp, including those from the White House, that

the message was no harm, no foul. Rather than that it didn't happen. It is, of course, the prerogative of the President of the United States to declassify any information on the fly. He believes it is necessary to share intelligence information with an ally, but with anyone for that matter, he can do so. Mcmasters characterisation of the the sharing as wholly appropriate, carry some weight, but it was, of course, a post, hawk characterisation, whether my master would having been consulted by President Trump and asked. Should I share as I have said. Yes, that would be wholly appropriate is another question. So, even if you take the excuse it at face value- and you conclude that nothing bad happened this time, is it not possible right hand that, firstly, Trump only by the great

if God avoided a far more serious situation and, secondly, may be kept out of the loop in future. Lest he mess up a delicate arrangements that have taken decades to put together, it is worth contemplating the possibility that U S, allies will find that because they cannot trust that we will protect secrets that they will have to find ways to share information without us. That is a disturbing prospect. As the United States, it. Is the public goods provider we're the platform? We are the way that our allies are far flung. Allies are able to work together and this would be terribly damaging not just to us, but to many a far more vault, more friends and allies. So I think that this is a real possibility. I think this is a conversation. That's happening around the world right now,

it's something that we are not take lightly thing to add to that is that this seems to validate concerns. There was talk coming out of Israel in I believe January. that they were saying be very careful about the intelligence that you offer to HU, the White house- because we don't know yet if that information is going to be treated with the appropriate confidence and You have the situation now where Trump has gone and validated that exact CERN in that's part of part of the danger, In a variety of circumstances with this straighten. Is that there already these preconceived? oceans, not evidence in a lot of cases and that trumps lack of discipline is going to validate or a firm

that's gonna make things a lot harder. The longer this administration goes on, one of the chief criticism of President Obama in his handling of foreign policy is that and Obama alienated. many of our allies, especially in the Middle EAST. Certainly the relationship between the Obama administration and Israel was fraud. As the relationship between the Obama administration and several of our allies in the Gulf, It seems that President romp has tried to write the ship, whether you think that two things are not as well as another question visas the Gulf, but it's a striking that President who styles himself as a great friend of Israel could be someone who Today. The Israelis are more alarmed by in some respects than by president who again what was no friend so despite having You know what our I'm sure good intentions. It could be that he is a real rupture of a kind in there

chip, not a formal rupture. It's not say that Israel is no longer going to consider the United States a close friend and ally, but a rupture in the sense of that deep intelligence sharing relationship that so important for their security and ours, and no sooner had this news broke. No sooner had we tried to process it. No sooner than these questions had been battered around on left and right? Another bombshell came in this week and that is that James coming

is a famous notetaker has indeed, it seems taken some notes, some notes that suggest that President Trump that's not say, asked him, but made it clear that he would be happy if the investigation into MIKE Flynn were to be dropped. This memo, as its being called, was read to a New York Times report over the telephone. The New York Times has not seen it, but its existence has been corroborated by the news outlets. We don't quite know how we don't know whether the same sources, if its contents, ah ass, reported? This would be probably the most serious development thus far. There is an argument that would constitute obstruction of justice. How serious this in, if either by virtue

the New York Times, is publishing this memo off the House or the Senate Subpoena ring it or James combing, testifying and confirming its existence. worth remembering that members such as this are usually acceptable in court in federal cases that the words of FBI agents, especially of moralized in on paper, carry a lot of weight. How serious will this be for trump Listen, it's not easy to tell you I'm in the first. The first thing about memo, at least as far as its been reported and again, we haven't seen it. The first thing is that true doesn't ever clearly crossed the line. to making an order? There's a universe. Fish it seems that means that there is clear, you're sort of clear, congestion here and when we obviously have to take into account the the powered Dinah making this relationship

as a legal question, it's it's not at all clear that trump process. The line David French and our role argues that the question for obstruct of Justice is determination. Not the memo was was trot, did Trump fire, James call me to impede and beyond nation, and that's it. That's a separate question. This is also complicated, at least to my mind, by commies testimony early This month he was asked by a senator whether anyone in the d o J had pressure him too had on any occasion pressured him or pressured the FBI. To shut down an investigation and that the question specific to the d, o j but com

answer was not a cure. Quoted word. word for word, I don't have a text in front of me, but he he says that if any one had applied pressure too. and an investigation for political reasons that that's his word political reasons. That would be a big and he says he has no knowledge of that ever happening. So to me This clearly presents a wrinkle What seems to have been the cot was. to be the contents of this memo is This is another reason that so much of this you coming out anonymously and in dribs and drabs is troubling because narratives reforming, but we just

don't know the details and that the full extent of these things, yet the prosecution would presumably say that this is equivalent to who will read me of this turbulent priest, which was not an abstract question. It was not a general statement of desire, especially given power dynamics as they exist. It was an invitation. Rife ran very hard for me to say all I can think of is the tragedy. have the of the different people involved in this imbroglio thinking about Flynn, for example, some months ago, James KIT field, I believe it was wrote, an excellent piece recounting Flynn triumphs just how impressive a figure he was for much of his career and military intelligence and then how in the her years of his career. He came to me

it is a more erratic figure and what have you but still someone? You know who is widely admired, and then you know for it to come to this. The big question about the and between Trumpet Flynn. What is the source of the bond alot of irresponsible speculation? Perhaps, but It was this obstruction of justice. I mean you know, honestly, I can't say: was it something? That's one who had been well advised by council would do carelessly and thoughtlessly with his FBI director, that's a question I can comfortably answer and the answer is no there's a lot of talk about president. Seeking to shake up in revamp his staff, and one thing that I find disturbing is that either you have a mixed people, with mixed motivations, you have some who seem to egg the president on and give him the answers that he wants. You have other people who don't want to do that.

Yet who are very, who are very sensitive to the kind of institutional responsibilities they might have, and so are wary of getting tossed out of office, partly because they believe that they are better and more responsible than the people who might replace them so This is a situation in which you have a lot of people walking on eggshells, and I dont think it lends itself to a kind of constructive, healthy environment. For the chief executive of the latest step in the inquiry, and indeed perhaps the step most likely to give us answers that are accepted on both size was the appointment of former FBI Direct Mueller Ass, a special council, not a special prosecutor, but a special council charged with looking into this was pray

He's on the left and on the right pretty much. Everybody said that this is a man of integrity. As so, I suppose my ex question is this given mule is involvement? Is John Port Horrid right when he says that this is a good thing for Trump that if tromp is innocent, he will almost certainly be exonerated to bipartisan acceptance, and that this gives the Republican Party some breathing room now that they can focus on healthcare they can focus on reform that has at least six months, maybe a few years before we doubt back into this or others. I think Josh Crusher International Journal is one of them who have said that the republic,

the agenda is now in serious trouble. That Trump may well be in crisis until the two thousand eighteen may terms, and is the market right to panic over the prospect that no legislation will be forthcoming. Ram. Those days in the there is little better news. This is the kind of thing that I like to think about it and cut a pay close attention to better. news that a small handful of Senate democrats- eating with a small handful of send republicans to see if they might be able to have some kind of agreement on health reform, the likelihood of that was always low. But it's the kind of thing that you might in parallel universe, in which things were going, tolerably well

You know, and you do have. Apparently it's thirteen republican senators, plugging away trying to make progress with they're trying to do is be, ugly work as if there were no president as if there were no white House, so I do believe that their people were trying to do serious work over hauling the health system in the tax system? And what have you and and- and there will be a good conscientious public servants who will continue to do that work, will the appointment of Mueller Create Reading room that will allow people to do this kind of work, I'm not so sure, partly because you now a large number of people who were more fearful of losing their seats? They might have been otherwise I could have all kinds of complicated, knock on consequences and more broad you know: look given the climate of leaking encounter leaking that we ve seen in the capital. You know I wouldn't surprise me at all of this just created all kinds of new. I would hope to go to go through.

I really think that what keeps happening is that people refuse to be proactive and by people I mean. We could then Congress refuse to move quickly. So something are. We really could have clear the decks, a lot more had people move decisively earlier on and yet what's happening ass, a dynamic of scandals? How does a scam, work. So what happens? Is that there's information that could accord everybody knows, but lots of people have read to deny publicly because its inconvenient for them to say it and then Suddenly something becomes public, something that one can really deny and then suddenly have this huge cascade of people saying all along? Oh, yes, no absolutely we, of course we need a prosecutor. Of course we need Ex wife z and this dynamic happens again and again, and I think that people need to think two steps ahead. What is gonna be best for the country John, you had it not better near times that I thought was very smart. He said: look this can be Watergate or can be Doran Contra and we will go to,

country, as he meant it, is that we can try to clear the decks and try to have a successful presidency, but we need to do that. You do it in a very thorough going way and take these charges seriously and and really demonstrate the drifting it's really. This is on the part of our public thing Congress, but also, of course, the president himself, and I think that you know instead you just have backtracking and denial. He and his the agenda dead. I don't think so at least not yet, and I think you you get that from Republicans in their their response to some of the impeachment talk or last last week, a lot of people, a lot of Republican, saying you know, put the brakes on board or not

responding in us round points out, there's a lot of backroom chatter about things that are continuing to happen. So I think that there are three questions about the special council that we should address on on their own terms, but whether it creates whether creates cover. I don't know, but I think that you would see a lot more panicky members of the house Its legislative hopes for this session had had evaporated already, while some beginning to back around getting rid of temper. There are two main strains of this thought. One is that Trump smoothing inexorably towards impeachment that there is obviously some sort of scandal here that there is over

the case for obstruction of justice and therefore that it will become inevitable at some point for Congress to remove him. The second, I think the more explosive dream, I was given voice by Rostov that in the New York Times yesterday, doubt that suggested that Trump is simply unfit for office, that he cannot discharge his duties in an adult and sober way that he is. child that those around him hold him in contempt and that it would be better for America, extraordinary ass, it might sound if the cabinet stripped him of his power and the case went to Congress. I have many thoughts on this, but before I express them in either of these strains on something well to a certain extent both

neither is onto anything imminent. I think. That's that's where these proposals raised. The question of of prudence statesmanship that, even if in the abstract you can sort of fill out the cases here whether the timing is right, whether the process would be permitted the implied by the electorate or by a sort of the more abstract forces that be they govern our politics, as it is much more difficult question to answer I think that we are not at the point where either visas is practicable, and let me address the twenty fifth amendment solution. First, in this sort of following from what

or or responding to what Ross wrote in the times. The first problem, I think, is that Ross. A little too broadly interprets the twenty fifth amendment and and the idea of an unfit president like the languages, your president, whose unable to discharge the duties of listen, it's broadly formulated, but the twenty fourth amendment rose as a response to concrete situations. James Garfield in a coma for three months after he was shot Woodrow. Wilson, who was invalid for the last year and a half or so of his administration. These are concrete medical situations where the individuals involved are very obviously physically, unable two to execute the responsibilities of the office Ross

sort of expands that to say Trump is too mentally stunted or emotionally unstable or whatever the case might be. I think that's setting a dangerous precedent. If, if the twenty fifth amendment were to be able to be used that way. It extended far too much interpretive leeway to to the cabinet and can be obviously used for far more unscrupulous purposes in the future. The second, as is the question of legitimacy, and this goes to the point of practicality at the moment the The question of removing a present easing the twenty fifth amendment is obvious explosive just on its own terms, but I think it extremely explosive now because, as I, we talked about this briefly,

last week there really is a sense of legitimacy obtains to so much of the political class at them. And it's not just on the right as a test to buy from its also on the left, its Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and whole idea of the system being rigged and the idea the powers that be got their own account nepotism, more various forms of privilege, herbal, whatever the case might be, If fifth amendment solution would. Would present a scenario in which a small group of highly placed republican were able to overturn. he will of millions of dedicated Trump supporters?

Maybe there is in fact a circumstance in which a small group of elites should and can overturn the majority will but I think that is a very very dangerous thing has to be done very, very carefully. A far more, I think practicable pollution, not right now, but in general, is impeachment for two reasons: one Impeachment is a poem political solution that addresses political mistakes. We do you dont have to make a case about. Pumps, you general mental unfitness, you don't have to sort of append the types of aid, is that are in here in the twenty fifth amendment into it. You say that Trump is

Performing inconsistent with the expectations of the office. Keith Whittington, who was a profession, Politics at Princeton wrote an excellent article in two thousand, reflecting on the Clinton impeachment, and he points out that this is impeachment has always been an available recourse for Congress when they feel that the the president or affair no official is acting in a way that stains the office that they hold and makes the public actors He of officials around them more difficult. I think it's hard to say that that Donald Trump, his has not already done that. The second thing is that impede It would require making the case over a period of time

have to go to your constituents and say here's. Here's the brief against him. You'd have to go through the house's impeachment process and and potential send a trial. I dont think we're anywhere near this president of the United States has an eighty five percent approval rating from his own party. No congressmen is going to take on the kamikaze mission of unseating, a president of his own party, when his own constituents don't want it, but I think that the the the most sustainable solution, the most sustainable, solution that maintains a sense of legitimacy which seem to me that the underlined problem here is is one that's partake. One is conducted by a broad by partisan consensus and that's gonna take time so weird

think about it now, but I think we're talking about a mainly theoretically Ryan. I think eagerness has spoken at length about the nature of the twenty fifth amendment remedy. So, let's not let's go back over. That is Ross right in his diagnosis. I applaud ROS form, broadening the conversation because we now live in a world in which the moderate sober sent both thing to say. Is that, while we were certainly not going to pursue the twenty fifth amendment remedy, but impeachment of up to eighty David everyday. Think that you know, honestly, you to expanding the frontiers of our political imagination is one of the best things that we as opinion. Journalists can do and what Ross has done better off, he would have knowledge he would have acknowledged. This is a fanciful scenario. This is not very realistic. I'm imagining a five thirty eight dot com, widget tracking

cabinet member, is going to vote to declare the President unfit for office on this or that day whereas a lean chow right now on this question, I guess I suffer from some historical myopia. You guys and that's the reason why I am so concerned. So when I think about Nixon being forced to resign from office, then ok You know Gerald Ford than almost one, the presidency, in its own right, narrowly loss than you had Jimmy Carter, and then you had Democrats during various crazy things. Jimmy Carter was so. It is not in line with the new democratic congressional majorities. It was not a terribly effective presidency bought me no Jim Carter was a guy. Who is a veteran? Any was also someone who decided GOSH once the Soviets invade Afghanistan. We ve got to do something about any, actually knew a thing or two about what we ought to do. He propounded the Carter Doc. For an address, so basically the world was more or less a safe place. When I think about the name

ten years of U S, history and how they might unfold. I kind of feel too incumbent upon me to to at least consider some of the darker scenarios, and I see it three right now in which one It Romany declared that Russia was our chief geopolitical adversary. He was literally ridiculed by members of the other political parties, and that when the tables were them, suddenly angular you have Republicans like Dana Rural Bachar in the House of Representatives, saying that actually Putin is great and he summoned that we ought to celebrate this either My perspective as someone who ultimately cares about this, country as a whole, and how country is going to fairer, internationally as someone who really free is about some of the forces that are tearing us apart as a country the wave, I fear that ethnic cleavage is resorting to line up with class cleavage. Isn't political cleavage? Is I just that this is a really sensitive moment, and so, if this presidency wines up in some kind of disaster and that if we have a demo

party, that's pretty heedless and moves pretty radically in some other direction, because by the way I do not believe that this kind of tribal is more or a kind of unmoored, populism is unique to one political figure or one political side of the aisle. I think that that be really really bad, so what I desperately want and what I want I detected in Ross as peace, what I are people who are public spirited. What I want- or people are thinking about the fate of this country, you no twenty five. A hundred years, hence, and either I can see no look If I could wave a magic wand and Donald Trump would become a sensible, thoughtful, very care person who had run himself with excellent people that he would listen to. You know assiduously carefully in somebody. I wouldn't I would do it we ve done it years ago. Probably

you know is impeachment. Is the twenty fifth amendment solution? Are these things? Realistic doesn't seem like it to me. You know what we all know about Donald Trump. Is it that he's gonna really turn over a new leaf? I've gotta spats I've spent four months just really talk. Solely in terms of well here's what he oughta do here. So we can the ship. I understand what he cares about here has objectives, as he stated them. Here's how we might accomplish them. So you know I want to be constructive. I think a lot of us want to be constructive, including a lot of folks who voted for me, the country at large, but I think that the promise. What happens next? What happens six months from now? What happens a year from now what happens five or ten years from now and that's what's got me worried? It is precisely because the populace forces that you described are not limited to President Trump they are described in other ways by Elizabeth worn and by Bernie Sanders that we are

old by right and left that the system is rigged, that there is really only one party that, regardless of the will of the people, the same people win that Washington has grown rich on the back of hard working people. It is precisely because these conceits are at this point in our political history, so potent on a bipartisan basis that I am so vehemently opposed to this twenty fifth amendment notion, because I don't think there is any better way. To make people conceive of their government as a far away disconnected cabal than to watch a group of established politicians and billion as Strip power from a president on the grounds that he's witless

a president who is not in a coma president. You can go on television that night, who can hold a press conference and appear lucid. I worry a great deal now that I think this is going to happen for what it's worth, but I work a great deal about the mindset that might lead us to that place. I think it could lead to violence. I think it could lead to people who have used the ballot boxes. Safety valve concluding that there is no way out. They believe that Elizabeth Warren is closer to the truth, or Donald Trump is closer to the truth. to have a man who was sent to Washington to vanquish? The status quo kicked out by the status quo and kicked out specifically, it must be said by people who had backed him, who had agreed to work for him who had vouch for him when nothing obvious is changed unlike within.

Each man there would be no criminal or pseudo criminal charges. This would be a characterisation of fitness for office. That is arguably the preserve of the people. I greatly greatly enjoy reading rushed out. That, I think, is one of our best columnists. I think he's one of our best thinkers, and I accept this is a thought experiment. I am not proposing that he would pull the trigger him if he given the opportunity to do so, but I do think that he failed in the say to grapple with the potential consequences and the strength of feeling that such a move would engender, and I think that, as we think through these questions, acknowledging that more openly and more seriously is incumbent,

Finally, I want to challenge you a bit now. Your point is well taken, Charlie and actually Ross himself has conceded. You know he is acknowledge that this is a powerful account argument, but Are we willing to countenance so for fear that there might be some kind of, I went backlash again. I mostly share your misgivings about this, but, of course, there are other abilities to when you have a president who does not always seem to take advice. Our president Who seems pretty impetuous and erratic. You know, given that this is an office, powerful when I'm just curious health. What are you willing to countenance? I mean how aid, because I'd say that, in space of four months we ve had some some pretty need unique exe variances and I'd say that a lot of those people who supported him, some of whom, for him enthusiastically who are now far wearier and and very worried people working within the White House. I should say I too

really that tells us something that the fact that there are people who are staunch supporters, which means you weren't neither was I tell something in sting and useful son I'm curious, so either kind of. Would you countenance thing is getting I dunno two or three times worse? Would you countenance what I say. I don't think he should be politically immortal because his downfall would lead to violence. I don't think we can have that sort of veto on our system. I also think we ought to be careful in. in determining which is worse whether it is worse to have President Trump Office if we accept Rossi characterisation of him to go down this road and I don't think the answer to that is obvious, and I think it is made up

the more dangerous when figures such as David from coal, the firing of the FBI director a coup and then, albeit he, didn't write Ross, his peace in a novel or dust in american institution. We hear calls for what is effectively a legalised coup. Now I suppose you have addressed this early on when you suggested that too, what Ross has done here is to say one that we should do the twenty fifth amendment option. We should do impeachment, but if it is the case that President Trump is unfit for office, that he's dangerous that he is so unprecedented in his incompetence that the republic is threatened, then impeach, but is the way to go

two reasons. Firstly, it would be a great deal easier, although it would be difficult. You do not need every member of the Republican Party to acquiesce. You need to slough off about half of them. whereas the twenty fourth amendment option requires? You convince a cabinet full of Republicans who owe their jobs to president trumped rascals early, offering a moral challenge to republic that that's what he must do. I accept that, and, as I am, a great fan of racism is not and at home enamel of track, but he also wrote a specific essay and he did not write their say and then conclude it by saying so somehow we have to convince President Trump not to be president anymore, whether that through the twenty fifth amendment or impeachment or just to offer an analogy in your favour. This is to strengthen Europe point and and and by way of illustrating it, you know there a lot of people in the run up to the invasion of Iraq in two thousand.

So that look I mean let's actually wait for Saddam Hussein to do something terrible and then we'll have a much wider coalition against didn't. Let's move in rather than in this kind of preventive war. You know I mean that that's him sensible to me, and yet in an equal say in a year with an electoral coup of choice. I think that yeah I think that I think that makes a lot of sense and end again. I just you know I can speak for us, but I do think that, he was saying something that was really really fanciful. What he was saying is that- and you know, when people talk about this a coup, etc, I think it's worth keeping in mind the process. Ok, so half of the cabinet of people appointed by the press and then confirmed by the Senate would have to do this. And on top of that, seventy five percent of Congress just to be clear, I mean this is a constitutional process right and again, like the actually legal and and the nature of it is actually- it's so hard for us to imagine that you know that Russia.

Would actually kind about unite in doing this reason that I say legalised coup about the twenty fifth amendment rather than about impeachment is that impeachment requires one to lay out ass, a process more like a criminal process, although it is still subjective a set of charges, a set of challenges that are far more comprehensible to observe, as the President lie, the president committed perjury, the president, obstructed justice or what you well this on, I'm not saying Rossi wrong, I'm not close to President Trump. I've never met him, but this is nebulous in nature. It is firstly difficult to define unfitness for office childishness for These are political questions. Ultimately, it is also, I think, without question, if not an abuse, a transmutation of the intent of the twenty four, the amendment that would not sit well with a number of people. This was not in the constitution. At the founding,

We know why the impeachment processes, in that it's not just an accident of history. As explained in the Federalist papers, the twenty fifth amendment was passed ass, even says in order to accommodate certain situations, the incapacitation of a president, a a shadow presidency, as in the case of Woodrow Wilson in his last year, the murder of John F Kennedy. It was not designed to do the squares. Impeachment is explicitly designed to be a political process whereby the legislature gets rid of a president who is for whatever reason unfit for office, and I think that distinction matters a great. I want I want pursue this any further other. I just will say that. Certainly there are many amendments, a ladder amendments that have been stretched beyond recognition. Let me when I heard, unite yeah. Of course, you know so I want to ask in so what

Element of Russia's argument- that's proved somewhat controversial. Is this. Deanna. It's gonna be silly distinction, but an interesting one. I find between weather We should think of Trump as childlike or of whether or not, and then you ve got other folks and those on the left. Who said that? No it's wrong to discredit detritus childish. What he really is a someone who's gotten away with impunity is a kind of a rich pie. And you know who this is the kind of fruit of that. What do you think about the description of the president, s childish and that being part of the problem? I think Ross overstated slightly the extent of of trumps childishness so to speak, but I think that the general approach is accurate. I had a political, Order friend has been in the business long time who you said, if you think of Trump, as someone who serves,

maturing around seventeen years old. You kind of get him he he approaches things that sort of impulsive. You know kid with dad's car keys and credit card kind of level. I think there is something to that, but in its a helpful heuristic for thinking through what comes out of the White House Data Day, but its Charlie I don't think it is a Stan enough or precise enough. measure to to pursue the

cream remedy that the twenty fifth amendment would be exit question without focusing on the means in. Do you think that, at this stage in his presidency, there is a more or less than fifty percent chance that Donald Trump complete system, goodness. If you had asked me two weeks ago, I would have said easily over fifty percent no problem. Now it's it's very difficult. Difficult for me to say. Maybe we're hovering right around fifty fifty shot Ryan and you'll know that I asked the question in such a way as you cannot take refuge in decimal points. I believe he'll see out his term, although we have it. I also believe he was

out his term. Of course. What will happen now is that between saying that and this podcast going up some new bombshell will head discovered that there is a smoking gun and the president will resign. You just have to pose. This before six p M tartlet, that's the key were beginning to run out of time. I just want to ask a final question before we move on to light items and editors picks, install chump being unfairly treated, and if I could explain what I He certainly believes that he is. He use the occasion of a coastguard graduation ceremony to argue.

no politician in american history has ever been a spot, be treated as he is, and to describe the investigation into him ass, a witch hunt. I am of the view that almost every problem that President Trump faces is off his own doing, I think, he's ill disciplined. I think he makes bad choices. I think he seems incapable of basic defensive politics. Had he arrived in office on January, twentieth and shut up, I think you'd be in a relatively good place, and indeed, prior to the latest round of crises hitting he did seem to be on. The up is a priori

had improved Ethel. The house had passed a version of the health care build it. He likes. Tax reform was on the horizon, NEO go such had been put in place. You could make the case that things were getting better for him and then came the firing of James combing. I also think that some parts of the press have gone too far in their advocacy against Donald Trump. I think it is possible to contend that Trump is both the author. His own misery and that magazines and newspapers that should be more sober have instead decided to try to bring down the White House in. Is that fair yeah? I think that I think that is fair. It strikes me that Donald trumps,

Treatment by the media has certainly been hostile in many cases hostile to the extreme, but is it worse what George W Bush faced as he was preparing. The Iraq invasion or afterwards when we got. Got into endless discussions about the quagmire is it worse than Reagan faced neuron contracts or you can use it. go back and back and back, and I think that part of part of the reality of this is the situation. Now that wasn't, it wasn't the case in previous years. is, is there's a really extreme degree of polarization which has had maybe made the young and the vault. higher

the content of Bush Hitler from pillars is roughly the same, and so it's it's easier to perceive that Trump is being unfairly treated than it was in the past. But I dont think that I dont think these. He unique among President's and, of course, from himself being don't. Hyperbole is most certainly not the most persecuted political figure in in in history, but also, as you say and Charlie, a lot of this is is self inflicted Trump doesn't have the the discipline, it seems to create the conditions for

for friendly your treatment, a matter that a serious for I am if your base line is getting the media treatment of just introduced or Kim Jong on both of whom get similarly glowing treatment from their respective press course. The earth, look I mean, I, I think that you can put it well when think about the Reagan era and the George W Bush administration in a you, had actually a pretty hostile pugnacious press and lots of ways You also have people who are relatively adapted dealing with it. I just think that people, love narrative, I'm so in terms of things, I pay attention to there's just a lot of bad wit, reporting in which you have a lot of, porters at ostensibly. You know, outlets that strive for objective objectivity, unfairness rely on advocacy organisations for their talking points and further analysis, their understanding of what exactly is going on.

in the administration etc, and I think that that's that's really bad, but I mean I think, that the big picture Is that no? I mean I mean, I think that you know he's a president who really invite scrutiny. He someone who actually is pugnacious, confrontational and- and I think that it to be expected that he's gonna get a lot of scrutiny and a lot of hostility. I mean I guess my dream is. What have you got? a break out some of the substantive claims. What, if you had a president who said hey, we should have immigration policy international interest? Hey? We should have a trade policy international interest, hey action. D, you know we need more descent his government. We need a government that is more efficient and effective. Cetera et Cetera and who was also a pretty. Does in person who knew how to communicate our who knew what the FBI director does. What isn't it is not a pro. I think the media would still be pretty hostile to that president, but I think that that president would be able to Perry very effectively with the media and that prison

would actually be able to empower for other voices it is again media's fragmented these days. It's decentralized these days, you can actually have other media voices that are amplifying you effectively if you are actually he came to a script, and you are actually doing things that resonate with large, whilst the public. So so, I actually think that that pursue there is more that gosh there are people who Klein to be as allies who actually struggle to mount much of defence and anything this. This goes back to a maxim that I have said to anybody. I have spoken to about this, and that is that Republicans have to be better than Democrats because of the way the press treats them in Trump is what they have to be as good as they can possibly be to pirate and trump is as bad as he could possibly be, and he is reaping that whirlwind. Well,

onto something a little light on what is about what is your light? Eyed him? Well my light item. Amidst this very bleak news week has been huffing gold spray paint. That's right! That's no! No! That's not it! I'm I'm I'm still that seventy two hours away from that no man. I read this neat little novel. Recently by came Stanley Robinson, is kind of a little bit of a little bit Scold me a little bit of a communist, but this particular novel was was a treat to read it aurora and it's about a generation. Starship and what happens when you're you're living and your life is defined by decisions made by your grandparents are great grandparents too, to be the starship in this kind of bleak, endless universe and, of course, That'S- we're all our. Ah, we are all in such a state orange

we were all living on the spaceship earth, Charlie Indian, any you'd have emancipation birth for now, but here s what they're still selling seats for that Mars Journey, but he can come back, it's kind of a downer well in fact my my item is so light that is flying. Actually, I wanna I'd like spaceship exactly right. I just wanna. I want to read this because I can't do it just as otherwise headline from from sky new. the king of the Netherlands has revealed has been living a secret double life as a co pilot for a commercial airline for twenty one years, King Villain Alexander, has taken to the skies twice a month to ferry centres around on short haul services for the dutch airline Kay EM and his presence was never revealed

really is royal that child. That is an absolutely amazing story, and you, just make America, the Netherlands, that's pretty. Men have nonetheless exactly recycling transport costs. Money this item- is about Hillary Clinton, I'm thrilled to see that she's returned to american politics with a new political action committee. Its name is onward together, which is about as meaning that the statement as you can I'll be fine. We pleased to know that it has all of the same Microsoft paint arrows ass, her Hilary logo debt. They all point to the right, which I think it is somewhat ironic, a very snappy and definitely not cringe worthy slogan. Hilary says resist insist persist in

list ass, she pushes whirling twirling twirling freedom system stronger micro, aggression against people with Lisped, sweats, right or five really well, When I looked I later Jim Geraghty, Sir his research Sing of the logo is the new Trump pack onward to get her yeah What about your and its programme? Well In national view. On line just yesterday, Tom Rogan published a really terrific piece about outrageous behaviour of President airlines protective detail and really it's not the protective detail, calling the shots. It's really era, one himself who allowed his presidential guard to beat up protesters on? U s soil. During a recent visit in Washington DC, simple

Outrageous and the kind of thing that the government of the- U s- government should condemn, there was a despicable act of of thuggery my pick is little bit out of the new cycle, thankfully, in state French is leave. Jimmy Foulon alone on National Review online Jimmy fallen the subject of a long, profound, the New York Times this week in which express some some bafflement at the the nasty treatment he received. from fans after his quote, unquote controversial interview with Donald Trump last year during the can, pain, cycling and fallen says, look I'm just here to have some fun and bring some joy and people's lives and David defends him nobly, and I liked I editorial reaffirming our opposition to the drug war. There was a line and the problem with the drug war is the drug war,

is my own view, and that has indeed been national reviews view for a long time. Whenever we publish these editorials as we do from time to time, we see pieces pop up and even NASH, nor of your of course, even the national review. Sixty years later, that definite article still entreats, well, my floor view has been, I think, officially, against the drug WAR fought and he one years but William Buckley before that and other additives in including the editorial board, had flirted with this position. I think the argument is that it is a failed government programme and conservatives awe and should be against fell government programmes. I liked this editorial a great deal and I was proud to share it. Well, that is all we have time for this week. We are the editors I'm here with in total right, Righthand Salaam and no rich Larry myself. Instead, I'm chasseed over the. We will see, see

Rick.