So what are the things i thought was interesting was to learn the rationale to address this in a fashion other than with your name attached to it. But that is an issue that why not attach your name to it . You are down at the white house every day what have you learned quex. To dispel some things that we already knew and one was his reaction there wasnt any major disclosures that surprised me because for much of the reporting of President Trumps style or to go into briefings for their talking points are put down to one bullet point that is known at this point. That doesnt make the book less important but thats not necessarily landing within a major impact because there is conventional wisdom. If you say no thats not true quex. I am not in a position but we get a lot of white house correspondence and certainly we are not in the room for everything. So im not in a position to judge. The book is written with the air or tone of a thorough one authority may be somebody who knows what the white house complexes like or how meetings work there are interesting details but they rang true and is at the era of authenticity and the details are interesting. In the way that you go about preparing a speech in the white house at one point the author goes through a description of what happens when there is a president ial speech i think its true across the administration and says it doesnt work that way in the Trump Administration because the president goes off script but the description how speeches put together for a president is true the last 40 years is described in some detail but again that if you see that from the inside it rings true. You both have covered white house is in the past are all white houses chaotic . I think the level of chaos described not only in this book but others if you are watching this white house closely is not something we have seen in many white houses before. With my resume president Obamas White House and President Trumps they are vastly different. Yes it is true any white house has a degree of chaos that you are making decisions going from foreignpolicy crisis to domestic policy or oil spills to who knows what at a moments notice and that creates a certain amount of chaos which is really the epicenter of the world but thats a different chaos from what this book describes from what we have seen and now he deals with the people around him. I think every white house has an error of crisis they dont get their unless its a problem where they cant get resolved someplace else. Certainly there is a crisis around any white house but the difference is the speed and the regularity seems to be completely different characteristic but also thats probably characteristic of the political system in general things tend not to get resolved and we are very hyper partisan and polarized and deeplyar emotional of a National Date the debate that is created by the trump white house. So it is different in that atmosphere is reflected well in this book thats what you get when you see the white house in action. Anonymous is called awarding and in the text that this is a threat to democracy. The author definitely takes a strong position whether or not the president is h qualified for the office and is trying to give advice to people who are evaluating their choices for 2020 and the strong suggestion if they supported him before they should rethink that this time of the case is bolstered by the evidence that he lays out in this book. But you will also see the reaction and talking to white house officials about this before coming on the show they dismiss what is in the book and say that fact the author hasas clouded him or herself in anonymity makes it not credible. So i think there are many supporters of President Trump who would consider that a legitimate line of criticism as well. Of people who dont like President Trump would make the dsimilar inference that what it this morning be more effective if it had a name and a face as opposed to anonymity quex so in that sense the critiques from both sides would be similar. From the book some will call thishe cowardice. My feelings are not hurt by these accusations. Would it be more effective with the name quex. Thats a judgment call i can understand why the author chose to do this anonymously because the argument that is made in the book for anonymity sometimes its more of a powerful interest going back to the federalist papers to say they put their concerns anonymously to say its not about me that the issue so thats a reasonable argument the other side is if you feel that strongly that you should stand up. Bad is a presumptuous tone he was simply making the argument sometimes what you want them to focus on the substance as opposed to the personality attached to it anonymous works better and thats the argument. Not really percolating his points are spot on but the debate on the anonymity piece obviously will affect this book and the impact that it has. Clearly of the author decided to attach a name it would add greater meaning to what we are reading because at this point clear if this is still a senior official or former orf official. Its easy to some extent extent to say im doing this to affect policy without actually attaching your name and allow Fact Checking and other journalists to do our own reporting to say is that true . Can we double check some of these . So that rigor one word apply to a book like this is not possibl possible. Is it being read by the White House Press corps quex. It just came out theres a lot going on thats affecting the book and at the fact this is coming at a time when there are lies and impeachment hearings and people who are describing interactions with the president and his team about a policy issue risen to the level of coming to the impeachment inquiry that critics would say it makes the author look less courageous whether its about courage or not the timing of this book landing in the middle that makes a difference. It resonates in the current debate to say a lot of the conversation about the impeachment process that has to do with President Trumps activities dealing with ukraine with the policy establishment to put pressure on ukraine as favors as the impeachablee offense. That conversation that has trump fans calling the deep state for Career Foreign Service and Civil Service and government professionals are ndembedded in the establishment have it out for the president is a dynamic of the current debate. The author says i dont think as deep state but our job is to keep the governmentt moving steady as we go to the windstorm so the idea that he or she is making an argument for people who do this not as the deep state that does resonate with that dialogue. 1996 and another autonomous book called primary colors about the bill clinton election of 1982 the author turned out to be joel klein columnist. Eddie feelings about this book to resonate with the what happened w to you in 1896 quex. First of all i have not and second comparing what i did to what this author has done is light comparing apples and freight trains i wrote an e entertainment and a satire i was inspired it by whimsy and victorian naughtiness it wasnt meant to be taken seriously. This is allegedly this current anonymous is a nonfiction account about an actual person. And a recognizable person through President Trump and as the other panelists have pointed out and which i pointed out in an oped a few weeks ago i am the proud father of us foreigneo service officer. There are people who are my sons colleagues who over the last few weeks have risked otheir careers by stepping forward and telling the truth. And it seems to me i want to post this as a question. Do you think a lot ofac actual details of truth were withheld of this book to protect the authors anonymity . Would we know more in greater detail if this person had just ponied up to put their nameis on it. I think the answer is yes. If you know who was in the room because they cant say i hold this position in government or the white house work with Jared Kushner or various chiefs of staff then that lends credibility and fills out the picture of what the author tries to say in the book and in thee introduction talks about he or she has withheld details that would be identifying so it makes it clear that details are not in the book but otherwise what have on the front cover. That probably limits the impact of the book it limits the factual details this person knows he or she could not have reported to maintain their anonymity. Thats true generally but the flipside the identity of the author were known that the response to the book those would attack the author or not address the substance that the argument to do it this way thats the argument author actually makes i want this to be about the problem that i see im not taking one side or the other on that debate but the argument fornt anonymity if the name is attached the name is the story and not the story. I could argue that either way i dont know the right answer the author clearly had to pull punches describing anecdotes and meetings where you know youre missing details because it would give away the identity of the person telling the story. We remember 1996 primary colors mister klein for those six months you were anonymou anonymous, was that a fun process because of the nature of your book quex. No. It started out as fun and i was shocked my editor i was working at newsweek at the time was shocked he said books like this never sell and random house published and they were shocked because they kept lowering the printing up until the moment it was published and exploded like a bomb. I think that caused me to have some very lighthearted satiric ptsd and impaired my judgment over the next six months. I probably stayed anonymous too long. It did become a matter within our family we have youngr i kids my wife was adamant i dont come out because it would be a circus on our front lawn and our kids walked to public school. She thought it would endanger them. And also it was really really exhausting lying to my friends and not telling the truth to my friends. And my case which was entertainment was far darker because my colleagues misinterpreted what i was doing. They saw that as an expose and i intended it as a satire. There were no revelations in the book so it was even more painful with the important lesson is when i was exposed. Was their reaction from the clinton whitero house quex. No. But first of all i was not banned from the white house after that. I continue to go in there and do my reporting. I think over time i talked to both hillary and bill about it and we joked about it. The president gave me many hours of interviews in 2004 apiece in the new yorker about what he had accomplished in the white house and hillary talked about military matters after she became a senator and i returned to journalism after 9 11. And from what i heard she kind of liked the book. She thought it was funny. Is there a chance journalist wrote the book quex. I dont think so. If ao. Journalist wrote this book that it is a lie because the book is written under the guise of somebody who was genuinely on the inside. We are not on the inside. They could be witnessed to a lot of history and there is no exception to that but thats not the same to say you are in on decisionmaking so triggering the 25th amendment. So we could witness and describe but if this is written by a journalist than it would be very hard to take it seriously. The 25th amendment. It is referred to in the New York Times people can make it what they want on the central part of this story. I dont take it that seriously. Looking at thatal apocalyptic time and i dont think thats the burden of the story and about to invoke the 25th amendment this is a much more subtle story than that. I do think that is a sensational tidbit and then wants him to focus on other things. But we go back a long way and i was around during that whole. But a lot of the conversation is simply who did this because they will look at specific episodes and what i would add it is well written to say is that a journalist because some of them are and a lot of that conversation will be about who you think that was. I asked for it. Really. [laughter] it was obvious if you write a book anonymously. By the way and is claiming to be a trump insider i did not claim to be ain journalist or anything. That this is a novel and novels are fiction. And it was i made up every line of dialogue and it perk i was honored when elaine who wrote the screenplay the screenplay that new the were speeches word for word from the book. Did you find yourself ostracized by colleagues quex. Yes. But i that they were being utterly ridiculous. I found several things after a pressft conference and was turned into a pariah for about 15 minutes although i must save my relationships with people like jerry who i had known for a long time, they all survived and prospered and i have a great many friends in the business still. But it is interesting that politicians reaction that i receive serious phone calls after politicians after i came out they had no ideological consistency of people like Newt Gingrich on the right to people on the left and people i did not even know and the message was always the same. That the way we do with it is keeping the head down and thats what you should do and by the way you came pretty close as a guest of how things operate. So it makes me wonder what it would be like if you had written that kind of aad book in the era of social media like we do now. That w is amplified. And that the social media attacks like alexander and men are far more serious than the attacks then what i took. People just called me a liar. Thats one way to look at w it. And calling jane austen liar to say sense and sensibility was written that is the tradition and thought it was perpetuating what is going on now in social media and the attacks of these people who are standing up they are just reprehensible. And frightening i just want to dispute jerry a little bit to say business as usual. We are in a real crisis in our country right now. And i am pretty pessimistic because what President Trump has done has conducted an all out assault on the truth. As a journalist i learned at the time neither side has a monopoly on the truth but you can have legitimate differences and discuss them. What President Trump does is call the reporting that many of my former colleagues is doing which is courageous and honest fake news. You hear this all the time to say i dont know what you can believe and when you get to that point in a democracy you are in big trouble. So because of the importance of this moment, thats why i think this anonymous person and everybody else all those republicans in the congress who are sharing their true feelings have a moral responsibility to come forward. I understand that i was not trying to suggest business i as usual or normal. This is it normal it is very abnormal for sure on many levels but is there chaos in every white house so talking there yes it just isnt a constant crisis day after day or minute by minute that is completely different and its not healthy for anybody in this environment so that there is a lot of prepublication attention with 100,000 copies sold prior to publishing, a record. Back in 96 did your book have that kind of attention cracks or did it just come out quex. I think they wound up print was the first 35000 and they started around 60 but people were not getting very much reaction from the booksellers so they kept lowering the printhe run. Also my boss had warned me this book is a lot of fun but these dont sell then all of a sudden it exploded in a way i had not anticipated and then they had a print 1 million weeks. The president in this book is described as a moral no focus no concentration, not curious, a bully no selfcontrol, weakness and carlos in his review of the Washington Post says this is in the category of stuff we already know. Can you impeach a president with these qualities . Yes. We have now three years after his out one election a body of work of journalist and others who have written about this and a very robust and long record of his tweets that explain who and what President Trump is about. The review that you referenced is true that we know who President Trump is and a lot of people like that. A lot of people dont that they saw in 2016 was disqualifyingg people thought that was exactly what the country needed. This author apparently was a supporter initially or wanted to be and thats why he or she came into the white house and now views these to be disqualifying. Certainly we will find many people who agree with that but there are a lot of people who dont. I see that when im traveling with the president when he does his rallies around the country. He is very proud of the crowd he could generate. And that is real. Those crowds are real and the people that attend those rallies eat it right up and they are supporters and they are a mixture of america and the president knows that that gives them a lot of bank now whether or not that is strength electorally to win the election in 2020 we dont know the answer to that and the extent of this book or others from democrats or republicans will have an impact on that is something we cannot judge until election day next year. When i returned to journalism september 12, 2001 for very obvious reasons i began to spend time with the military embedding in iraq and afghanistan spending time with those great kids they all had a strong sense of citizenship and of service and reality. They do politicians could send people off to die. It seems to me that the qualities by the way i spent 19 of them last week that have been elected to the house but there is a contrast between the way they see the country and the way the rest of the countryf does. We are trying to do democracy without citizens and there is a significant number of people in this country i would say between 30 and 35 percent that support trump no matter what you cannot tell the difference between reality and reality tv. And unless we start making a major effort to make our citizens better citizens we will be in trouble because the power of the new media forms. There iss a lot to that and this goes to the basic nature of civil discourse or the lack thereof tohek say a lot of peope are in the echo chamber of their own choosing and they stay there. The voices are very familiar to them getting louder and louder. And that is where we are. So i think jeff hit on something important w that people say if only people had known but donald trump was like. I think they knew who he was and now they know more. Will that stop them for reelection or to drive them further in the process cracks i dont know. W. But the problem is that people dont know whats going on but the shouting is so loud they cant hear anybody with a different opinion. Yes everybody knew who he was in 2016 and that this is a rehash and if you follow the at all. And that struck me as well. A lot of the episodes or the little bits that come into the book some of them were new but many things like the description of the president s remarks after charlottesville. I was in trump tower for that myself. I was there that day and shouted questions and listen to his responses. That is now part of our history so having that recounted here it didnt really add a new element. I was there but even if i wasnt i there were tv cameras rolling it trump tower and people could read and to see and listen to the president s reaction. Now the fact somebody apparently deeply inside found that offensive is interesting but thats not new. Others found it offensive and some left almost because of that so those are details are utnot un interesting better already part of the historical body of work that we already have about President Trumps tenure. True but theres nothing wrong with revisiting these themes with the impeachment process so i dont have any problems with that. Im just saying that a lot donald trump like him are or hate him are pretty well known and this will not bring any new ones to the table. I will give all three of you a chance to respond. I dof see value as well to remind people whatdi had happened because the pace of the last two and half years in the news cycle is so quex that sometimes i forget what happened instead of two weeks ago. But they had to go what has occurred. A month ago seems like two years ago. Talking about his interviews or a his talks with the clintons President Trump gives access and with the and then to ask questions and a way to do with the Daily Briefing but we value that accessor seems to be more than a previous president. Of a certain sort. The daily helicopter moment that is a certain kind of access but the white house is that i covered with the bush clinton and obama that there were other sorts of access that were far more important. During obama there would be a group of us to specialize in Foreign Policy at that point every two or three months to ask us what we would see because we were going places he could not go and also to give us his staff it was valuable and off the record and it seems to me even in white houses where i was considered a local columnist even the Bush White House i still had access to the top people including the president. In this case trump has cut off access to a lot of people he does not agree with. And cut off access to the working foreignpolicy process or domestic policy as well. I think thats true so now you have a lot of access that is soundbite access but less contemplative serious policy discussion and that is regrettable i agree. Heres the quotation. Your question isnt therefore is it better or more valuable the way access has been handled we do value that but i dont think that makes up for the things of the quality versus quantity. Here is a quotation from the book you all have sources i would like to hear your. Iews behind closed doors senators and congressmen rattle off all the ways our administration has undercut their mandates or flat out ignored them and im not just talking about democrats. Are you hearing this from your sources cracks mister client used to have active sources in the congress quex. I told you about a meeting i had last week that the people that i know are active in journalism now and some of the people i know that are active in politics very clearly indicate everybody who has been in T Public Service for a long time and not an extremist is an embarrassment by this guy. I certainlyly have heard the most recent big story of the week that communication between the white house and the hell is not how republicans would like i cannot testify from my own point the general feelings of lawmakers on the hill because i dont spend as much time there is some of my colleagues. But is not surprising to me. It doesnt come across as hard to believe. What i hear a lot from republicans essentially actually i kind of agree with the president is doing i just wish you wouldnt do with the way hes doing it i hear that from republicans in congress. I think they recognize in 2016 candidate trump he walked through the door and found a lot of the country agreed and he understood that moment and they understand that. And they accept that but you dont have to do the things that the president is doing in the way hes doing them. That is my characterization from the republicans. What it is interesting to me about that with my own observation a lot of these people on the hill do feel this way and are members of the republican partynd are also cloaking themselves in anonymity so that they will say thatcae perhaps to a reporr or friend or an acquaintance but not in a public way with their name attached and thats different. There is a footnote there is a cure to this problem if you are in congress then do the job of congress for the institution and i think it goes back for several administrations not just the Trump Administration people of congress have given away their powers and authorities to the other end of pennsylvania avenue fairly steadily the last couplepesy decades one wayo not complain anonymously is do something about it. But thats an editorial aside. I am doing some research into the roosevelt presidency, Franklin Roosevelt and i can tell you that this argument goes back 100 yearsth and the power has been shifting to the white house for 100 years in prevention of the priorities set by the constitution remember article one establishes the Legislature Article twoes establishes the executive. And the Founding Fathers i think really thought congress is where it was going to be at and because of technology and the speed a lot of power has moved down pennsylvania avenue. But it is also true too much ha has. From a business perspective does your book sell outside of washington . [laughter] i dont know if there are people inside washington. It sold in 33 countries and was on the bestseller list in australia, germany, england, a lot of places and i think because it was fun. People laughed and they learn stuff. But where they learning about bill clinton quex. I think some people might have it in a certain way on the emotional level rather than facts they were learning something about clinton who inspired the main character jack stanton. I will tell you a quex story. Barack went said tory be i just got married again but i married my High School Sweetheart and i want to thank you because she hated politics until she read primary colors and then thought it could be fun. I had that more reaction over the last 20 years than any 20 othe other. I ask that question not very articulately but was this book a washington read or just in oklahoma or wherever quex. I think it certainly has struck me the last three years is how we engage and informed people are all over this country or all over the world for that matter about this president. People are watching and reading and tuning in and so for that reason alone this is not just a washington book. Hundred thousand copies is not chopped liver. I came to washington in 1880 when i first got here. This is the most lockedin people havee ever been whats happening in washington. And with this fascination of donald trump. I agree with jeff. Go back home i am from kansas i visit relatives all they want to do is talk about donald trump. This is not a washington phenomenon. Why do you think that is quex. Hes a forcesh of nature and character of modern American History and he is controversial and master at creating controversy because by definition he draws attention to himself that could be good or terrible for the country but it is a method of operation for him that has been successful b longterm. N every president since kennedy and arguably eisenhower have had to become a tv character to become successful and i believe if you look at the history of president ial debates the candidates are moree successful on tv that project warmer with av couple of exceptions win the election but donald trump is the first president who is a fictional tv character. [laughter] and that that really moves the ball of the strange and dangerous area. Fictional because he was never kind of guy he was portrayed to be on the apprentice. That was a game show that was rigged his role was rigged. He and i graduated from university of pennsylvania the same year. I knew him as a developer from the eighties. And a show boat. And thats how he made most of his money by selling his name so developers can put his name on their buildings. But the role they saw him play on thehe apprentice which was smart and decisive was scripted that is not who he is. So from the book the president s war on Democratic Institutions is that he has toured the government of the United States into one of his companies a badly managed enterprise by a sociopathic personality. I think if you feel that way about the National Human being who is your boss you should probably quit or make your views publicly and make them known. You are a neutral working reporter so our columnist will have more but now another quote from the b book as a jockey for positions in that they have incentive and that in order to advance. It does sound like any workplace. What i think is interesting is how many people have left the trumpum administration that this writer portrays and to a large extent for what they have done are gone. I dont know if that is jockeying right now but i do know and we have all learned that President Trump is the ultimate decider thats the job of any president but he really really follows his own instincts everything from foreignpolicy recently with his decisions to his marketing. He is his own Communications Director his own National Security advisor. So there may be jockeying really it all comes down to one person and thats the man sitting behind the desk. Thats a big change from the first and second and third years from the trump white house. My observation has been that it evolution of the white house to where trump can be trump and now he can be trump and now he is the press secretary and National Security advisor thats the way he ran his business so it shouldnt surprise anybody thats how he runs the whitet house. You can debate if thats good or bad for a long timeut that that is a factual observation. And one of the points of the book to be acting chief of staff so that makes them more tpowerfu powerful. His supporters would argue hes getting things done. They see that as a badge of honor a non politically correct president is getting things done i think if we have a broader discussion if his base will leave him i dont think they will leave him if they were to dwindle its not because of hisla language that what his opponents consider outrageous behavior but w because he cannot fulfill some of those promises that he made about the economy and so far has been able to demonstrate. When i covered the Trump Campaign in 2016, i would ask his supporters why do you support him cracks there were two reasons. One is he will bringnd back jobs and the other is he talks to People Like Us watching the democratics debate this past week look at amyy klobuchar who was starting to build by the numbers by their acronyms and i think a lot of people out in the country donald trump was a refreshing change from that language i was shocked people would still takely him seriously after he attacked war heroes like john mccain but apparently the idea that he would be willing to Say Something likee that made him different from the run of the mill politicians they were used to. I think that is true for republicans in congress to say if we have to bring this much china and what i worry about is harming institutions along the way and to those committees in congress and split into rival camps there are institutions that are damaged in thisge process that may create longterm problems. One more quotation as we close. Our representatives are not the source of washingtons problem we picked them if you give the founders credit for anything that democratic systems when we are willing to compromise if we are angry and unyielding partisan they will display the same traits. Sure. Those who want to complain about trump can do Something Else they could vote for representatives better than those who did again but voters have to take some responsibility they just cant complain about it thats a throw forward to 2020 and that is a challenge people that are happy whats going on with the Trump Presidency and no doubt a warning the way to continue for those that will mobilizemo against that is to show up. Im just happy my son is the east asia expert instead er Eastern European expert. [laughter] but i am optimistic that the eperformance of these career professionals weve been watching the last couple weeks should give all americans of conservatives and liberals except for the extreme should give people a lot of faith in the strength of ourur country of our state department and my own experience with the military and Intelligence Community leading me to have similar faith in those institutions we are not going down the tubes yet and these people demonstrate that. Word you venture a guess to who wrote this quex. I would not. Is this a parlor game at the white house . It was when the oped came out there was a lot of ecspeculation for go this time t we said it so dominated by the impeachment hearings is not generating as much as the initial column. Your 500 miles away who wrote the book quex. I know i did it which makes me very happy. [laughter] to a certain extent i dont care. We havent touched on there is no rationale for the bad one oped there were guard rails in place people like jim mattis or gary cohen and the others. Or john kelly. All this people are gone now. So i think the rationale for this book is different for the rationale of the column and it t is shakier rationale. I have no idea who wrote it i will not spend too much time guessing. Does it matter quex. I dont think because if you take the message seriously then you have the message. Joe klein and jerry side gentlemen thank you. Articipatin. There is absolutely no subculture other than who the enemy is in the nature of the enemy those are a complete anarchist and to do a citizen of the world that i dont own allegiance and those that will get the country back. Other than who you are against because the press would be painted the same but when you sit down sometimes they are actually favor so it is hilarious. Of how many different factions there are. Or the hillary types are the Bernie Sanders types that genuinely loathe each other. Genuinely loathe each other. We are
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.