6.16.19: Perceived Compromise and Individual Cabinet Agendas

We start in the Strait of Hormuz, a Middle East waterway that the world economy depends on for stability. Two oil tankers were attacked and Iran is believed to be responsible. The consensus throughout the program was that it is consistent with Iranian behavior, to borrow a phrase from Pete Buttigieg. There was also positive consensus on using the U.S. military to escort tankers through the strait to protect American interests and allies in the region.

However, as Richard Engel explained, there were many moments that had lead to where we are now - pulling out of the JCPA [the Iran deal], the Administration's continued support of the Saudi war in Yemen, and escalating sanctions. The latter of which, Mr. Engel explained that the U.S. has ratcheted up the sanctions to an unbearable degree, the Iranian hardliners would ascend and actions like this were likely to take place, something that National Security Advisor John Bolton would certainly know, again from Mr. Engel.

There's no cohesive plan coming from the Administration. The president's agenda differs from Mr. Bolton and for that matter Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's as well. The competing forces need to coalesce or mistakes will be made and we will find ourselves in a military conflict. In terms of using the U.S. military as tanker escorts, the decision comes down to 'what choice do you have?' versus 'are we just inviting a military conflict?' The circumstances would have been much better if the U.S. could conduct such an operation with the help and support of its allies, but the Administration has isolated itself, never seeing the bigger picture of foreign affairs and we lay that at the feet of the president.

Click to Watch Video

The New York Times just reported that military advisors didn't fully brief the president about planting malware into the Russia power grid for fear of how the president would react, which is no less than incredible. It says is that even though nothing has been evidenced that the president is compromised in some way, our military has the perception that he is. One could make the distinction between what the president says and what his administration does, but the president needs to lead his administration to lead the country and these mixed messages clearly indicate a lack of steady-handed leadership. However, as George Will elegantly explained, the president is a "complete amateur in American public life" and we should be appalled but not surprised. Little consolation...

Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA) said that he was glad the president was being aggressive with Russia with regard to meddling, but again its not the president but his administration. Mr. Scalise readily accepts that Russia did meddle with the 2016 U.S. election, but seemed just as worried about corporate security as much as election cybersecurity. Being part of the Legislature Mr. Scalise should mainly focus on election security; corporations are continually taking steps. Mr. Scalise said their were massive problems with the Democratic Party's H.R. 1 bill that addressed election security and voter rights. The Louisiana Minority Whip is entitled to his spin, like explicitly pointing out that Mr. Obama was president at the time of the meddling. This is true but when Mr. Obama got the leaders of the House and Senate together to put out a unified public statement about it, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) blocked the effort and wasn't concerned. However, by just reading the summary, you'll read that the main issue for Republicans is that it established an independent, nonpartisan redistricting commission in the states. In other words, no more gerrymandering to favor one party over the other.

On that alone, Senator McConnell would never bring it to the floor of Senate so the cybersecurity parts of the bill get scrapped out of hand. Why not have a clean bill on cybersecurity? Even presented with that, Mr. McConnell wouldn't bring it up for a vote. Even given the president's comments this week to George Stephanopoulos that he would take information from a foreign power and use it to win reelection, Mr. McConnell has no interest in an updated bill, one more explicit, about taking money from a foreign government. Why would that be?

Is it because Mitch McConnell's wife Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao's family owns a shipping company based in New York but with ships flagged from countries all over the world and  business in China? How does the Chinese government not know every business aspect of this company's dealings in country? They know it all, and this illustrates several interest conflicts across the spectrum.

There is no plan coming from this Administration for if it at least had that, the president wouldn't be floundering as much as he is. But because of his perceived compromising position and having every cabinet member with his or her own agenda, the rocky road with only continue.


Mark Leibovich, The New York Times Magazine; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; George Will, syndicated columnist; Helene Cooper, The New York Times

One more thing...
Totally agree with Helene Cooper that it's too early to be dissecting polls, or getting to hung up on every provocative statement aimed at a primary opponent, we just let you know that it will be changing soon as the first debate line-ups have been set:

          

6.9.19: Mr. Trump's European Trip

"Meet The Press" has been preempted today in lieu of French Open coverage.

So...
Just a quick comment about the president's European trip, specifically to the UK, France and Ireland.

When you start insulting the host city's mayor before you even get off Air Force One, and you know it's going to be a rough trip, for all of us. With a window seat on that bandwagon, Mr. Trump brought his entire family to Buckingham Palace, which makes it fair to ask who exactly paid for all that? The president waded right into the UK internal politics, which may not seem like a big deal to people in the U.S., however if all the leaders of the Five Eyes at a television press conference and collectively said that they were in favor of a particular U.S. candidate that wasn't Trump, how do you think Americans should feel?

The president said that he only saw but a few protesting him in London and many many people cheering for him, despite the thousands gathered in Trafalgar Square and having those images blasted all over the media. Images like this one...

Called the Duchess of Sussex 'nasty,' more faux pas's with the Queen of England, topped off with an interview with Piers Morgan, during which among other things said that "I think I make up for it Never mind the fact that it's Congress that appropriates the amount.
right now," seemingly justifying his deferrals from Vietnam on medical reasons because now that he's president he's giving a lot of money to the military.

Here's the full context, if you must.



And we would be remiss if we didn't say something the fact that Mr. Trump had a 90-minute meeting with Prince Charles, in which he tried to explain the causes and effects of climate change. Mr. Trump wasn't having any of it. In the above chip, Mr. Trump explained that it used to be called 'global warming' and then 'climate change,' but now it's 'extreme weather,' and that can go both ways.  Where even to start with that? This column couldn't tell you but it would end something like this: Yes, global warming [from human activity, e.g. carbon emissions] is causing the world's climate to change manifesting itself in extreme weather events.

In France, we'll give it to the president that he said the right things in his speech to commemorate the 75th Anniversary of D Day, the largest seaborne invasion in history, in Normandy, France. The president stuck to the script and the transcript, not deviating from the prepared speech, as presidents should. Mr. Trump clearly understood the magnitude and historical significance of the event. Then an interview with Laura Ingraham and the president airs, in which Mr. Trump is bad mouthing the U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives on foreign soil in front of the graves of the 9,388 tombs of U.S. soldiers who lost their lives in the Normandy invasion.

Then after a long day, the president flew to his golf course in Ireland to spend the night, which again you have to think about for a second. American tax payers float the bill for the president and his adult family to stay at the president's golf course that he still owns, essentially the president enriching himself off taxpayer money. Nothing revelatory there, but it speaks to the point why the Irish Prime Minister did not want to meet at Mr. Trump's Doonbeg resort because he wasn't going to contribute to that. Insisting that the Irish Prime Minister go to your resort in his own country and enriching even more in the process is a good look to say the least, for the Irish Prime Minister. So they met at the airport instead.

We're not really sure... How do you think it went?

6.2.19: A Country Tied Up in Knots

This column once again begins with a comment on another tragic shooting this time in Virginia Beach, VA where 12 municipal employees were gunned down and killed by a man carrying two 45 caliber handguns equipped with extended magazines and silencers. The president has offered his condolences and federal resources if needed and for the rest of the country, it's simply a matter of just being 'another.'

Extended magazines then bump stocks now silencers. The gun lobby has seen fit to make sure all of these firearm accessories are available under the guise of the Second Amendment. After Las Vegas, bump stocks have been banned in most states, however there are pending lawsuits against such bans. Where will it stop? One thing is for certain, it won't stop under this Administration, exhibit A: Mick Mulvaney.

In the interview today, Mr. Mulvaney said that we shouldn't be talking politics as the mourning period for the people killed hasn't even run its course. He also concluded the topic by saying that 'laws aren't going to fix everything.' In terms of politics, Chuck Todd countered that he wasn't talking politics but instead policy. To which Mr. Mulvaney, still the acting White House Chief of Staff, took credit for bump stock legislation that occurred on the state level. And though it may be a literal truth that laws do not fix everything, the president and Senate Republicans will certainly not take up any legislation and impedes Americans' abilities to slaughter one another with firearms.

The tragedy goes on...

Mr. Mulvaney has proven himself to be a capable enabler of chaos in continually attempting to rationalize Mr. Trump's misguided positions on just about everything. The latest is the Administration's coming tariffs of five percent on all products shipped from Mexico starting on June 10th, and subsequently going up five percent every month unless the Mexican government takes measures to stop immigrants coming to the U.S. border from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. Mr. Mulvaney said that we must take these extraordinary measures because we are in extraordinary circumstances. These new tariffs will put more burdens on American consumers and hurt the U.S. economy and the Mexican economy. Republican lawmakers are beginning to speak up about the potential danger to the only thing propping up Mr. Trump's presidency, which is the good economy. We've already seen what the trade war with China is doing to American farmers, who the president is buying off with bailouts for the second year in a row, $28 billions so far. However, that bailout money, for the most part, is going to big agribusiness and has yet to make its way to local farmers. There are ways to be tough on China without causing the economic disruptions that are most felt by American consumers. The president has been abusing his power with regard to employing tariffs arbitrarily without any Congressional consent. However, the Senate has proven itself toothless in standing up to anything that Mr. Trump does.

With regard to the U.S. Mexican border, there is no coherent policy coming from the Trump Administration and if there is one thing Beto O'Rourke knows about, it's immigration policy having represented the district encompassing El Paso, Texas. Say what you will about Mr. O'Rourke's candidacy, he has it right that we have to go to the root cause of the problem and help those central triangle countries to stem the violence and hardship there, to have overwhelming positive influence in our hemisphere as he explained into today's interview.

As for Mr. O'Rourke's sputtering campaign, let's take a step back from that as it's early and we haven't even had a single debate yet, the first of which is coming up. With so many candidates, the debates will be crucial in determining where as the candidates stand in the eyes of Democratic voters. If Mr. O'Rourke has a strong showing then you'll be hearing about the 'big' turnaround he's had.

Lastly, this column came to the very same instant observation that Kristen Welker did when Mr. Mulvaney was asked about whether or not the president accepts that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. He hesitated and had had a hard time answering, and dismissed Russian interference saying that it didn't make any difference in the outcome, which let's be honest is a matter of debate.

Jon Meachum was correct in assessing that Robert Mueller's statement this week didn't help to clarify anything and that he needed to take a 'mulligan.' Let's face it, Americans writ large didn't read the report and Mr. Trump with the indispensable assistance of his Attorney General William Barr won the narrative. All Mr. Mueller accomplished was to tie the Democrats up in knots about whether to proceed with an impeachment inquiry or not, as Carol Lee assessed.

And that pretty much sizes up our collective existence in the Trump era, tied up in knots and right now there's no way to get free.


Panel: Carol Lee, NBC; Kristen Welker, NBC; Jon Meachum, author and presidential historian; Hugh Hewitt, Salem Radio Network

6.2.19: Chaos Enabler, The Sarah Sanders Interview

We missed last week for taking some much needed time off during the Memorial Day weekend, but we couldn't let Administration Press Secretary Sarah Sanders' first appearance on "Meet The Press" go by without comment.

Ms. Sanders, you have to hand it to her, is the perfect mouthpiece for President Trump. She is an expert at deflecting questions in other directions, being vague in lieu of substance and of course blame.

The mere fact that Ms. Sanders refers to Kim Jung Un as 'Chairman Kim' bestows a sense of respect that the brutal North Korean dictator hardly deserves, and that is understating it. She said that she agrees with the president agreeing with Kim Jung Un's assessment of former Vice-President Joe Biden. Think about that... Donald Trump once again siding with dictators over American citizens.

She also stated that Mr. Trump was able to get American hostages back from North Korea. Hostages? One hostage, Mr. Otto Warmbier, who died when he arrived back in the United States essentially murdered by Kim Jung Un. Explain this to Mr. Warmbier's parents.

Yet, it's all the Obama Administration's fault for the situation with North Korea and their advancement of their nuclear capabilities. Ms. Sanders said that the president is hopeful that Kim Jung Un will keep his promise to denuclearize the peninsula because of their good personal relationship. That's called 'getting played,' and everyone can see it. By conducting a missile test the other week, North Korea clearly violated a United Nations Security Council resolution, which even the president's National Security Advisor John Bolton clarified. Yet, the president is not concerned.

Lastly, Ms. Sanders continues enabling the lies with regard to corruption in the FBI and the Department of Justice and that individuals need to be held to account. Chuck Todd asked her specifically if James Comey would be arrested, to which she deferred. However, if there are arrests of such individuals as Mr. Comey or Andrew McCabe then democracy has truly lost.

It's been over two months since the last White House press briefing... And we pay her salary?

5.19.19: It's a Personal Medical Decision, not Political One

The first plank of fmr. VP Joe Biden's climate change policy is to beat Donald Trump. True. Bernie Sanders said today that, yes, Donald Trump is the most dangerous president in modern American history but we need to take on the fossil fuel industry. Also true.

The point is that Donald Trump is going to do nothing to reverse the effects of climate change, and in fact is rolling back regulations to do more damage to the environment. Our suggestion would be not to call the problem at hoax, which it's obviously not given the unprecedented severity and frequency of the natural disasters we're living through; but we need to lead on climate change and set the agenda for the rest of the world. The United States should be at the forefront of technologies that can create a more energy efficient world, creating the tools and systems that other countries will buy. Instead, because of the stubbornness and frankly fecklessness of the Republican politicians in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry, we're ceding this leadership to China.

Thanks for indulging that digression, and now onto the topic of the week - abortion and the bills that are being passed by states' conservative legislatures. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) stated that he believes that life begins at conception, but that there is a lack of democratic debate to come up with a legislative compromise. Several times he brought up the fact that the issue has been decided by unelected judges, which Eugene Robinson due noted and continued to explain that it can not be decided any other way because there is no consensus. However, the problem with having such a democratic debate to create legislation is that views, hence the legislation, would disproportionately not represent where the country stands on this issue. As Chuck Todd noted, by a 2 to 1 margin the country believes that Roe vs. Wade should remain as is. So Mr. Cotton's rhetoric sounds reasonable, it wouldn't represent where the country is on this issue. It would be a political decision, which brings us to Bernie Sanders' answer on abortion. Mr. Sanders said that it should be a medical decision and not a political one. As a medical decision, a woman's right to medical privacy about decisions that she makes with regard to her body should be her own. Those decisions should not be made through a political or religious lens.

It is this column's belief that a man does not have the right to rule over the decisions on what a woman does with her body. Do you think that men would stand for a law that said if a man commits a rape that he should be castrated? Think about it.

Conservatives such as Pat Robertson, Kevin McCarthy and even the president have expressed the view that the draconian Alabama abortion legislation that provides no exceptions goes too far. In the bill the doctor performing the abortion can receive up to 99 years in prison, a longer sentence than than the rapist. Other conservative states are rushing to pass like bills in the hopes that this issue will go to the Supreme Court where conservative advocates believe the conservative court will overturn Roe. Again, Eugene Robinson explained that it was unlikely to even reach the court. But if it were to reach the court, Janet Napolitano explained that the timing of decision would coincide with the presidential election season. And as Heidi Przybyla explained, the abortion issue front and center in the fall of 2020 will motivate suburban woman, particularly, to abandon the Republican party.

Chuck Todd pointed out that the hard right has been focused on the court like a laser, and one of the reasons for that focus is this very issue. However, this column would contend that there is something larger at play. The right writ large sees there voting majority perpetually in a more perilous position and the courts are the only way to save their agenda.

If Donald Trump wins reelection it will be with another electoral college win while losing the popular vote... Again. Republicans are fortunate that the Senate disproportionately stays in control of a minority of the population so getting rid of the electoral college is not an option. Conservatives are hoping the courts will help them advance their agenda, despite what Mr. Cotton says about unelected judges.


Panel: Rich Lowry, The National Review, Janet Napolitano, fmr. Governor of Arizona; Heidi Przybyla, NBC, Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post

5.5.19: Dems... Follow Your Leader

Suffice to say that the Democrats are divided on whether they should impeach the president or not. However, right at the top of this column there is some advice to be had - follow your leader. Nancy Pelosi, as the panel acknowledged, understands this president and the dynamic better than everyone. Impeachment shouldn't be off the table, as she said, but she also knows that the Senate will never vote for removing Donald Trump.

Another piece of advice for the Democrats would be more in the vain of Frank Lunz and that would be to stop saying that the Democrats should keep investigating. What they should say is that they will continue with 'rigorous oversight.' Use the word 'oversight' in place of 'investigation' and they'll keep opinion on their side. In this hyper-sensitive political climate, oversight is something the House must do whereas investigations sound politically motivated. As Eddie Glaude Jr. pointed out, Congress has an obligation to perform oversight.

The Mueller report didn't work out exactly how Democrats had hoped. As Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) so eloquently put it, they have a hair on their biscuit. However, there is little doubt that that hair has fallen out of Donald Trump's head, which is more like a wig throw over an entire breakfast. Part of that hairpiece is the Attorney General of the United States, William Barr who we've come to find out did indeed lie to Congress and then defied a subpoena to turn over the unredacted Mueller Report to congressional leaders and to appear in front of the Judiciary Committee. It's hypocritical of Mr. Kennedy to say that the Democratically-controlled House isn't acting completely in good faith, given what we had to endure when Republicans controlled it and had 6 years of hearings on Benghazi. Even if he were correct in saying that some of the House requests are politically motivated, that's just too bad. Republicans have no qualms about that when the situations are reversed. For Kristen Soltis Anderson to say that the Democrats are upset that William Barr gave Mr. Mueller's report a 'C,' not only trivializes the reports findings but put it in a juvenile context that questions the validity of her political commentary as a whole.

As for Mr. Barr, he had a decision as to whether or not to be the top law enforcement officer of the United States or Mr. Trump's personal attorney, and he chose the latter. He defied a subpoena to appear before congress, something that every other citizen of this country is compelled to do under the law and that he lied to the body, he should resign. That call shouldn't be controversial. However, he will not and impeaching anyone from the administration, let alone the president, will never happen and one need to look no further than Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) for the example. He is someone who you just see doesn't care about anything anymore except winning at the expense of Democrats, the health of the country be damned in the process. (But we digress.)

More grievously, and frankly worrying, is that the Administration is doing nothing in terms of Russian meddling in our elections. Mr. Trump's interactions with Vladimir Putin have been disgraceful inasmuch as they have not put the interests of United States security first. He didn't discuss meddling with the Russian president this week though they continue to do it. However, Mr. Kennedy said to today that the Russians are clever and they don't just go into your office and say we're Russians. Really? Hmmmm… That was about the dumbest thing to say as you can imagine. It's been talked about somewhere... about a meeting that the Trump campaign set up in the offices of the Trump Tower with individuals who they knew to be Russian. It's simply inexcusable to use such an example as that. Mr. Kennedy also added that the dispute between the House of Representatives and the White House is dangerous for the stability of our democratic institutions, and they should negotiate. This column agrees that it is a dangerous time and Mr. Barr has presented Congress with a Constitutional crisis (a politically perilous time Gerrald Seib from the Wall Street Journal called it), however since when do we negotiate the law?

Barack Obama had many detractors on both sides of the aisle when it came to foreign policy, but Donald Trump is on an incompetency scale all his own. Mr. Putin leads our president around by the nose it seems, and acts with impunity in defying the administration's foreign policy. Yet, Mr. Trump wants to recast the United States relationship with Russia. With regard to Venezuela, Putin backed Maduro telling the dictator not to step down as Russia has his back. Mr. Putin also met with North Korean dictator Kim Jung Un earlier this week and now Kim is firing off more missiles. Yet, Mr. Kennedy says that we need to keep talking to Kim.

Politico's Eliana Johnson made the good point that Mr. Trump welcomes impeachment to create the foil to help him in his reelection bid. Don't give it to him. Mr. Trump likes to play victim while bullying his way around the law. It's presidential harassment he says of the oversight. To that, the Democrats should stay in a presidential harassing kind of mood and continue pressing for answers.


Panel: Kristen Soltis Anderson, the Washington Examiner; Gerrald Seib, the Wall Street Journal; Eliana Johnson, Politico; Eddie Glaude Jr., Princeton University

One more thing...
Did you ever notice that when you see photos and videos of Kim Jung Un with his people in North Korea, he's the only one overweight? Just saying...

4.28.19: We're Getting Slimed by Donald Trump

First, this column would like to take a moment to recognize the tragedy in San Diego of another shooting at a synagogue where one person died and three others injured. Their families and the community will forever be affected, for that our deepest sympathies. We should also recognize that too many communities in this country are feeling similar affects of sadness and are worn to the bone from the frustration that our politicians refuse to do anything about it.

A moment...

In the post-Mueller report world that we now live in, the two numbers of note are the 56 percent of the American people believe impeachment proceedings of the president should not happen, but that 58 percent of Americans believe that the president lied about his actions, especially when it comes to obstruction with regard to the investigation.

So what does this tell us? It tells us, first, that in this polarized political climate, impeachment (a political act) will not go through for various reasons. If you're a political sycophant and hack like Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) then you believe that the entire investigation was a witch hunt. However, maybe you believe that the president has committed impeachable offenses but know that an impeachment trial in the Senate will never happen. Robert Costa explained today that through his sources in the Senate there is zero Republican support for an impeachment hearing or trial. In fact, given that it's Trump's Republican party, that they may turn the tables an start investigating the investigators.

Mr. Johnson said he wouldn't have used the word 'scum' to describe law enforcement as the president did, but that he understands his frustration.  He also said that he's concerned with Russian interference but that we shouldn't blow things out of proportion, and explained that the Department of Homeland Security is doing a pretty good job in handling this.  Sorry, if we don't feel reassured Senator Johnson, but to say they're doing a 'pretty good' job kind of sucks.

The fact is that there were 140 contacts between Trump campaign officials and his transition team and never once did anyone report this to the FBI. Now the President of the United States calls senior officials of his justice department and the premier law enforcement agency in the world 'scum.'

As referred to on the program today, here is the clip of Lindsey O. Graham on the Senate floor in 1999 taking about Bill Clinton, in which he says that impeachment is not about punishment but cleansing the office.



As Helene Cooper explained, this is why people are so disgusted with politics because of things like this - that Senator Graham displays brazen and admitted hypocrisy simply to retain power and be reelected. Those are the reasons, plain and simple.  Senator Graham, like Senator Johnson, has forfeited all principle.

Andrea Mitchell, filling in for Chuck Todd this week, asked Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) about the president's stonewalling and his refusal on letting current or fmr. administration officials testify in front of Congress, to which she answered that that is what the subpoena is for. Most prominently, one said current official Attorney General William Barr has not agreed to a hearing with the House after he testifies to the Senate this week. Mr. Barr has a lot to answer for, especially since he is not at all acting like the top law enforcement official for the American people but solely for Mr. Trump. Ms. Klobuchar mentioned that it not only about the Mueller Report though she did note his conflicting answers about obstruction and what constitutes it, but also about repealing the ACA and the justice department's support for a lawsuit that has the potential of taking away the protections Americans now have about being denied insurance based on a preexisting conditions.

When the president speaks of getting rid of the scum in our government what he's really saying is that he's trying to get rid of any individual, like a career law enforcement official like Sally Yates, unwilling to blindly protect him or do his bidding unequivocally.

Talk about slimy.


Panel: Peggy Noonan, the Wall Street Journal; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Robert Costa, The Washington Post; Carlos Curbelo, fmr. Congressman from Florida

4.21.19: Because of The Attorney General's Dereliction of Duty, We're Left With Lawful But Awful

As Amy Walter pointed out, it is definitely worth reading the Mueller report no matter what side of the aisle you're on as there is something there for everyone. You can read it here.

On the one hand in the first half of the report, it outlines how the president did not collude with Russia. On the other in the second half, it shows a president rooted in obstructing justice at any cost. Now, there are qualifiers and context that are attached to those rudimentary assessments but if you're looking for Rudy Giuliani to provide any cogent explanation, you're looking in the wrong place.

Mr. Giuliani, with every television appearance, embarrasses himself further and today was no exception. The prime observation from the interview with Chuck Todd is that Mr. Giuliani is arguing that it's OK to use information provided by a foreign adversary against your opponent in a campaign, trying to normalize it. As a general proposition, it's difficult to make sense of all of Mr. Giuliani's gibberish because he's in the position of being Mr. Trump's defense attorney, but gives examples of when he was a prosecutor. First, he said that the special counsel never took the position of Mr. Trump being innocent, adding the Mr. Mueller is incapable of this. However, he assumed that FBI was politically motivated against Mr. Trump without any evidence for that assertion. Not to mention that fact that when Mr. Giuliani was the District Attorney of New York and his advocacy for stop and frisk, it's safe to say that he did not believe in people being innocent even if they weren't committing a crime. Also, when Hillary Clinton was questioned by the FBI and said some form of "I don't remember" thirty-seven times, Mr. Giuliani said that since that was the case, she must be hiding something. When Chuck Todd confronted him with the fact that on Mr. Trump's written answers, he said "I don't recall" over thirty times. As a matter of fact, Mr. Giuliani said that he couldn't remember how many times the phrase was used in his written answers. Also, he added that he wouldn't advise his client to volunteer any extra information.

When asked why didn't Donald Trump Jr. report to the FBI that he was offered dirt on a political opponent by Russians (a foreign adversary), Mr. Giuliani said that it was a set up and that people had the right to know to this information. If it actually were a set up, and Don Jr. had the idea that it was a set up then he should have spoken to the FBI.

Rudy Giuliani is to the say the least being hypocritical on a farcical scale, and to that he can never again be called "America's Mayor." Frankly, what is Rudy smoking that he can say with a straight face that he believes that Mr. Trump is truthful. Jonah Goldberg called his answers completely nonsensical and for that he has thoroughly disgraced himself.

At the top of Jerrold Nadler's (D-NY) interview, the congressman, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, laughed at the mention of Mr. Giuliani's interview because he has long known of Rudy's ramblings.

We like to say in this country that no one is above the law. However, Attorney General William Barr seems that that is not the case and that the president is immune from the law. On this point, Mr. Nadler flatly stated that the Attorney General is wrong. And to that end, Mr. Nadler's committee has subpoenaed the full Mueller including the portions that have been redacted. On top of that, Mr. Nadler is calling William Barr, Robert Mueller and former White House Don McGahn to testify.

When asked straight up by Mr. Todd whether what is outlined in the Mueller Report is cause for impeaching the president, Mr. Nadler paused for a moment and then said, "Yeah, I do." Then he said that he's going to see where the evidence leads, but it seems that minds are already made up for Democrats.

In response to a clip of Senator Kamela Harris saying that she wanted to hear from Robert Mueller before making a decision on impeachment, Joshua Johnson rhetorically asked "What game are you playing?" When it comes to impeachment, it's a political action and that's the game that the Democrats are playing, a political one. As for the Administration, Hallie Jackson said that from her reporting the White House wants to turn the page, close the case, and muddy the waters. Democrats shouldn't allow that to happen.

On impeachment, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is right that impeachment is not worth it because politically it wouldn't be beneficial for the Democrats to proceed in that direction, as it could backfire on them in 2020. Not to mention that Republicans in the Senate would never take up impeachment. - Would. Never. Happen. Amy Walter explained that the Democrats are looking for that 'aha' moment, the smoking gun, but in agreement with her, they have to give up on that when it comes to the Mueller Report.

What the report clearly shows is that this Administration requires strict oversight and that's what the Democrats need to provide. Does it seem that the president obstructed justice? He certainly wanted to. President Trump has widened the divisions in this country, only professes to want to govern part of it and has made us a laughing stock internationally.

The Attorney General is the one who should be impeached for committing acts that are in the interest of the president solely, and not the American people.

So what we're left with is what Joshua Johnson called, "lawful but awful."


Panel: Hallie Jackson, NBC; Amy Walter, the Cook Political Report; Joshua Johnson, NPR; Jonah Goldberg, the National Review

One more thing...
Joe Biden is finally putting up and will announce he's in the race.

And it's worth noting what Chuck Todd said at the very end of the program - there are still 12 unknown cases going on as we speak... Some of which will probably hit right around election time (our words).

4.14.19: No Semantic Debate - Crisis on the Border, Crisis in Leadership

Let's put this out there at the top - what's happening at the United States' southern border is a crisis. We're not going to debate semantics, however, it's a crisis that has been accentuated and exacerbated sharply by the president. Kasie Hunt explained that the president when faced with either policy or politics, Mr. Trump opts for the latter, meaning he is less interested in fixing problems than in using them to his political advantage. This is something that David Brooks called performative narcissism.

This brings us to Chuck Todd's interview with White House advisor Kellyanne Conway in which he challenged her on the fact that she was presenting proposals to fix immigration that the president is, frankly, loathe to utter. Closing the border, getting rid of judges and cutting off aid to Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala are not policy prescriptions that will solve the problem, but only serve to bolster the president in the eyes of his political base. If anything, on all three of the aforementioned rhetorical pieces, if you want to solve the problem, you need to go in the opposite direction. Keep the border open, hire more judges and hearing officers as Governor Jay Inslee (D-WA) suggested and provide more resources to the Northern Triangle countries. On the last of which, not only should the U.S. up its aid to those countries but make it conditional on allowing more U.S. advisors in country to help combat the problem.

Ms. Conway, denied by Mr. Todd her usual verbal filibustering by being forced to stay on topic, sounded as if the administration wants to work with Democrats but the fact is that the president has no inclination to do so. Why? Because the president needs the issue of immigration for the 2020 election so that he can continue charging up his base support.

Conversely, Mr. Todd put forth the notion that Democrats in Congress don't know where their base is on immigration so we'll try to provide an answer here. First, let's just say that Democrats are not for open borders, but also they are not for the inhumane treatment of people at the southern border. The zero-tolerance policy that the administration put in place caused family separations, permanently traumatizing thousands of children. It makes more sense to put more administrative resources on the border to speed up the hearing backlog, create a path to citizenship for dreamers devoid of political quid pro quo and employ better technologies along the border to combat illegal crossings and drugs from flowing in. Obviously, bipartisan immigration reform is needed and the Gang of Eight in the Senate did come up with it, but the Republicans in the House had killed it so now we have to start all over when in reality that bill should be dusted off and put on the table again. Having no illusions, the president would indeed veto it. It's difficult not to agree with Eugene Robinson generally and he explained that the United States is the wealthiest most powerful nation in the world so we do have the resources and we should be able to fix this. However, again, the president has no interest in fixing the problem. Instead, he wants to weaponize, to use Mr. Inslee's term, the situation and punish Democrats by shipping illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities, which by the way is illegal.

Suffice to say that we agree with Danielle Pletka's use of the word 'crisis' when it comes to the southern border, but we also agree with her use of the word when it comes to the president and what she sees at a turning point this week inasmuch as the widening chasm between the president's rhetoric/ actions and proper governance. She explained that the president's staff is struggling to keep my with Mr. Trump's off-the-cuff proposals that have no constitutional basis and a proper response to them. She is having a difficult time seeing how this can last for another year and a half.

But when you consider that Mr. Trump has indeed found his Roy Cohn, a former mob lawyer, in the person of William Barr, well then he's going to say and do whatever he wants. Mr. Barr in his so far in his second stint as Attorney General has protected Mr. Trump at every turn, Kasie Hunt's assessment that the Democrats' trust in him is basically nil is an easy call. Mr. Barr chooses his words carefully so when he said that he thought there was 'spying' on the Trump campaign by his own Justice Department, he knew Mr. Trump would use that to attack his critics. Mr. Barr, it seems right now, will give cover to Mr. Trump no matter what he does and says.


Panel: Kasie Hunt, NBC; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; David Brooks, The New York Times

One more thing...
The president this week said that 'I know nothing about Wikileaks, it's not my thing... It's not my deal in life." Really? Talk about BS... He mentioned Wikileaks over 150 times on the campaign, holding up papers on campaign stops. Exasperating...