So theyre scrambling. Theyre trying to figure this out as well, chuck. No indication as to whether the president has been briefed on this. Hes about to hold an event with sheriffs. In fact im told he just entered and so well try to get more questions to him about all of this. But this is unprecedented, as you say, the fact we have someone inside sounding the alarm like that. Thats what it is, someone sounding the alarm. The call is coming from inside the house. By the way, i should make a point, no Press Briefing today, no Press Briefing yesterday. How many are we up to how many Press Briefings have we had in the last six weeks . We havent had one in two weeks and we had less this summer. I think then its typical, for the record. So its becoming sort of the diminishing Press Briefing. Now, they would argue, hey, look, you had four different chances to ask the president questions today. That is true, and well take it. But of course shouted questions, yeah. Exactly, exactly. Shouted questions, not in that format of sitting down with
Sarah Sanders, being able to ask her questions, followups in that seating, which of course there isnt a whole lot of Background Noise which makes it so critical. But this is a week that started out with its focus on kavanaugh, the midterms, really going on the offense and here they are on defense yet again. It gets to this crux, chuck, the bottom line whats in this oped hits to the heart of whats in the Woodward Book, which is there are people here trying to protect the country from this president , chuck. Kristen welker, youve got to go. Go do more reporting, but i beg you to come back before the 6 00 hour and well figure that out. Reporter i will. Go figure out what more you can learn. I have to say that last point there, ruth, which is its sort of combined with the Woodward Book, i think its setting off the debate. I thought brit hume tweeted about. This the message to never
trumpers, has it been better to be in there and stop him and to be a prevent defense, if you will, or not . And i think this debate is getting resparked up. Does the Woodward Book prove that actually the guardrails are a good thing and they can hold . Or is it proving that this is too much to take . Well, i guess we didnt assassinate assad, right . So no assassinations yet. So maybe some guardrails are holding. I want to back it up a little bit, though. I think the fact of this alongside the Woodward Book is really telling in the sense that we know what the president is going to say. He dismissed the Woodward Book as fiction. Hes going to call this fake news. Hes going to rail about Anonymous Sources and tell us ha, ha, ha, that you shouldnt rely on Anonymous Sources and were going to have a realistic journalistic debate. So that is a separate conversation. But the fact of the matter is that each of these books, for all its flaws, the Michael Wolff book for all its flaws, the
omarosa book, the reporting that shane and his colleagues do and you and your colleagues do every single day to talk about dysfunction in the white house, they are all if its fiction, everybody is telling the same story. That suggests to me its not fiction. All these people have done a great job. But if you just follow shane and carol lee on twitter, you didnt need to read these books. Were telling the story in realtime. Hugh, theres an interesting quote from ben sasse on your show today and i feel that it gets at this larger theme thats developing right now. Take a listen. Im not trying to beat up on the president here, but the truth is, you build a team by building a cause thats bigger than yourself. And right now, so much of what comes out of the white house is just trying to figure out how to divide americans. Hang on, hugh. The president is speaking. In terms of getting things passed and getting things through, an article was just
printed, just came out a few minutes ago, trump breaks the record for Budget Gridlock wins. Scores big win. So for 20 years its a 20year record. A 20year record, they call it the fouledup Budget Gridlock. Scores big win. Heres your thing. So this just came out. So in 20 years, it hasnt been like it is now. We broke it. Thats just really positive stuff. And then in addition to that, point after point after point, if you look, almost 4 million jobs created since the election. More americans now employed than ever recorded in our history. So we have more people working today than at any point ever in our history. Weve created 400,000
manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing jobs are growing at the fastest pace in more than 30 years. Economic growth last quarter was 4. 2 . As you people know, it was headed down big and it was a low number, very low number. It would have been in my opinion it would have been less than zero. It was heading to negative numbers. New employment claims recently hit a think of that, the Unemployment Picture in the country is the best its been in 49 years. Africanamerican unemployment lowest in the history of our country. Asian american unemployment lowest in the history of our country. Hispanic american unemployment lowest in the history of our country. I mean im just looking at these, just point after point. Under my administration, veterans unemployment reached its lowest in many, many years. Lets see, almost 3. 9 million americans have been lifted off food stamps just since my election. Then you go into all of the benefits that we got from the tax cuts. All of you people benefited tremendously from the tax cuts. We go into right to try. Right to try is where you have the right if a person is terminally ill, you have a right to go and try and see whether or not a drug thats not approved yet can be used and utilized. They didnt allow that. Point after point, getting rid of the individual mandate, the most unpopular thing there is in obamacare. Coming up with new health care plans. Weve never had a period, even if you look at the olympics, got the olympics. The world cup just got you just saw them, they were in my office, got the world cup. Nobody has and we have started the wall. Nobody has ever done in less
than a twoyear period what weve done. So when you tell me about some anonymous source within the administration probably whos failing and probably here for all the wrong reasons, now, the New York Times is failing. If i werent here, i believe the New York Times probably wouldnt even exist. And someday and someday when im not president , which hopefully will be in about six and a half years from now, the New York Times and cnn and all of these phony Media Outlets will be out of business, folks. Theyll be out of business because theyll be nothing to write and nothing of interest. So nobody has done what this administration has done. I agree, its different from an agenda which is much different than ours and its certainly not your agenda, that i can tell you. Its about open borders, its about letting people flee into our country, its about a
disaster and crime for our country. So they dont like donald trump and i dont like them because theyre very dishonest people. Remember this also about the New York Times. When i won, they were forced to apologize to their subscribers. They wrote a letter of apology. It was the first time anybody has ever done it, because they covered the election incorrectly. So if the failing New York Times has an anonymous editorial, can you believe it, anonymous, meaning gutless, a gutless editorial. Were doing a great job. The poll numbers are through the roof. Our poll numbers are great. And guess what, nobody is going to come close to beating me in 2020 because of what weve done. Weve done more than anybody ever thought possible and its not even two years, so thank you very much. Now, this happened quickly. Yes, you did see that uncomfortable moment of him there bashing the press and the Law Enforcement guys clapping for that. Im going to set that aside. We do have the very top of the president s remarks. We missed those. Obviously everything is moving quickly here. This is where he addressed the oped specifically right at the top of that event. Here we go. When i was running, i think number one on our list was Law Enforcement, taking care of Law Enforcement, working with Law Enforcement, and really we have to create guidelines and principles for the incredible job youve done. And youve done an amazing job. And i will tell you a lot of times youre scorned and youre looked at by the media, because the media is very dishonest, much of it in this country. Very, very dishonest. And the job that youve done in light of all of the things that you have to go through, i guess a little bit like me also, but i will say that you have been
really outstanding, incredible people. So that was him doing a Media Bash Thing first, and i think we have now how he addressed the specifics of the article. Here it is. Somebody in what i call the failing New York Times talking about hes part of the resistance within the Trump Administration. You know, the dishonest media, because you people deal with it as well as i do, but its really a disgrace. I will say this. Nobody has done what this administration has done in terms of getting things passed and getting things through. A article was just printed, just came out a few minutes ago. All right. And you saw the rest of that. So weve shown you everything from the president. Hugh hewitt, i started with a ben sasse bite. I actually want to replay the ben sasse bite because that
event only underscores his analysis. Take a listen. Im not trying to beat up on the president here, but the truth is, you build a team by building a cause thats bigger than yourself. And right now, so much of what comes out of the white house is just trying to figure out how to divide americans. Mike drop. Well, it is Proof Positive when you get Law Enforcement to clap against the media, that is not useful. I am confused by this entire day. I began by Playing On The Radio Show its not just today. Were all confused. I hear you, man. The whole bob woodward, donald trump, Kellyanne Conway tape. Hes in control, hes calm, hes pushing back, hes making points. Its a measured its got nothing to do with the chaos that we have seen for the rest of the day. So whoever wrote this did not advance the cause of reducing chaos. And ben sasse also in that interview pointed out the senate is in chaos. The only thing that Isnt In Chaos is the Supreme Court and judge kavanaugh said he wants to be a part of the team of nine. Its the last Working Institution in the country. But ben sasse says weve politicized the courts because of a Second Branch of government, which i thought was spot on. To your point here, it didnt do anything to stop the chaos by writing this. This reads like somebody who wants to start a confrontation, who is calling out to the public and i think calling out to the Second Branch of congress, right, and saying this is what i am seeing. It comes on the heels of what bob woodward saw and all of the things that weve reported. This is someone who said they talked about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the president. This is an author i think saying do something. Okay. Where is the person who is willing to put his or her reputation and name on the line and resign and say, you know what, this is not okay. This is not normal. This is not good. This is whats happening. You people need to know it. You asked about guardrails earlier. I have been an arguer in favor of the guardrails are working and i am increasingly worried that theyre not. I ha i am increasingly of the belief that everybody with a reputation to protect or shreds of a reputation to protect should get the heck out of the house. Let me push back on this idea of whether it should be right for the person to sign their name. Isnt this oped getting more attention because it does not . Well, it depends who it is. No, but thats the Guessing Game will keep it alive. A, its the Guessing Game which is maybe to shanes point, part of the point which is to force everybody to have this conversation. Well, this conversation ought constitutionally to begin in the house of representatives. Every democrat is running away from impeachment, but in fact if youre talking about the 25th Amendment seriously, you ought to be demanding they put forward articles of impeachment, period, ending of story. We might not be in an impeachment situation or 25th Amendment situation to be in a serious situation where people should, my argument is, have the guts to come forward and say what you believe with your name attached. Kristen welker is back after that. Okay. So the president is trying to address it. It was sort of a predictable pushback by him going after the medium rather than the substance of the piece. Do you get a sense behind the scenes that they are just feeling their way around on this . Reporter i absolutely do, chuck. I think that was true of the Woodward Book as well, which is so stunning, because they knew it was coming out. This was the program the president counterprogramming at his best. This is what he knows how to do. He whips out another article that talks about the jobs number. Of course thats his goto talking point. But i thought the optics were pretty striking. He sort of walked away from his event. He was isolated there with the reporters in full sort of fire and fury Mode Punching back at
the question that was asked by Peter Alexander about this oped. So what happens . What is the messaging going to look like tomorrow . My anticipation is that were going to see a lot more tweets. Again, i just go back to this point. When this first broke, we went up to the senior officials here to try to get some type of reaction, and they were just processing this in realtime. So that is the response of a president who is really responding in realtime almost, chuck. I mean the article just came out a short time ago. So i dont think they have a Communication Strategy at this point. Moving forward will they get one by tomorrow . Again, my bet is on the fact that were going to see more tweets. But this, again, i think fuels what has been a discord and a chaos here in the white house and raising questions about whether were going to see more highlevel departures here. Kristen welker, thank you. Joining me on the phone is mark lotter. He works on the political side
on the offsite of the white house. He is a former Special Assistant in the Trump Administration, in the Trump White House. Mark, thank you for doing this. Youre joining us on the phone, i appreciate it, last minute. Let me ask you straightforward, whats your initial reaction to this . This is perhaps a colleague of yours . Perhaps somebody that shared the same title as you, not some midlevel staffer. Whats just your gut reaction . Thanks for having me, chuck. I, like many people, just finished reading it just moments ago for the first time. And it concerns me for a couple of reasons. First off, we dont know the rank and the title and the position that this person holds. And while and ill include myself in this as well. While my Position Sounds you know, when i was in the white house, Special Assistant to the president sounds very senior. There are a lot of meetings that took place at a lot higher
levels than i was. And so we dont have that context to be able to fill out how this person might think. And to the point, i think, that was being made a little bit earlier, i do think its a little concerning that we do have someone that is unnamed, that is making these kinds of allegations, if they are so concerned about the white house, the presidency, that they would make these charges yet not so much that they were willing to risk their own job for it by putting their name next to it or stepping down. I think that theres a bit of a credibility issue there. So you would urge this person to resign, go public and resign immediately. If this is how you feel, if this is what it is, that would be your advice for this former colleague of yours . Well, first off, i think it puts you in a very difficult position when if you are working still in that administration and you are working with my former colleagues, they dont know who you are and so it creates a level of mistrust that we dont
know that this person, whatever role, whatever position, whatever duties they may have, are they in fact going to be carrying those out to advance the causes of the administration or are they now going to be working on some counterprogramming on or running resistance against the administrations goal . There needs to be a bond between those teams. Thats regardless of politics. White house staff are often very close because of the stress, the hours they put in, the sacrifices they make, and when you start catearing at those levels of trust, it tears those bonds apart and it will impact the administrations trying to get things done. Its true, its hard to imagine this doesnt create some sort of paranoia on a lot of levels. Marc, let me ask you this, and maybe you dont want to say, but do you recall conversations like this in the halls of the white
house . No. I can tell you, and thats without a doubt. I can tell you there were serious policy debates. I think one of the things that i took in the very first glance reading of this oped was what we see every day is that the president is willing to challenge orthodoxy, whether it be republican orthodoxy about free trade and tariffs, to achieve what he believes is the right move long term. That can definitely rub people the wrong way. And the president does surround himself with people who disagree. He had a very wellknown high profile democrat in gary cohn, not saying gary cohn was part of this, in the white house arguing against other people who brought a different perspective to things. And thats something that he has often done is making folks defend their position, pitting different positions against each other so you can reach the right conclusion. I can see how that can rub some people the wrong way. Weve seen that just using the
tariffs debate or also using the debate about how we are dealing with some of our allies, whether its in trade issues or in nato and their support with nato. That can rub some of the more orthodox, traditional, mainstream thinkers in these areas the wrong way. Marc, so what are you are you trying to argue that possibly the president sort of kneejerk reactions at times to things, that his staff took him too seriously maybe . Is that the im trying to understand. That they misinterpreted some of his rants or something . Well, no, i think there are a lot of people who think that when a republican is elected president , or a democrat is elected president in a given situation, that there are going to be certain longheld beliefs that will Carry Forward through that administration and policies. This is a president who has
basically said if i believe we are getting unfair trade deals, and we have been getting them for years and many president s from both parties have complained about it, i will talk about tariffs. I will use something that goes against republican orthodoxy to achieve my policy goal. For those who have made careers or have long lists of experiences, you know, supporting no tariffs or lower tariffs, that can rub people and create a tension between them that theyre just not on board with and i think thats where people have got to understand can you serve . Can you remember hes the man that was elected. Marc lotter, is this what needs to happen here, john kelly has to have a Staff Meeting or the president has to have a Staff Meeting and say, okay, in or out. You dont like me, get out. Is that what needs to happen . I dont know if it will be a Staff Meeting or something as broad as that, but i think, you know, there are probably some folks in there that need to ask themselves questions. They need to know whether they
can serve the administration and they need to make that decision for themselves but they also need to know that if youre staying, you are committed to the goals of this administration and this president. By releasing these things, youre creating more of that division that you say youre seeking to undo. Marc lotter, im going to let you go. Really appreciate you taking the time. As my people say here, youre a mench, so thank you, sir. Thank you, chuck. Much appreciate it. I want to go back to the white house, guys. Its an extraordinary statement, you all have read it, ive passed it around. I think this is a statement from the Press Secretary regarding the anonymous New York Times oped. I promise you i have a feeling i know who dictated this statement but let me read it from the top. Nearly 62 Million People voted for donald j. Trump earning him thicket 306 lorl votes. None of them voted for the
failing the New York Times. We are surpri this is a new l the socalled paper of record and it should issue an apology just as it did after the election for its disastrous coverage of the trump campaign. This is another example of the liberal medias concerted effort to discredit the president. It goes on but i think you get the gist. Kristen welker, i think i know i think all of us know this president well enough to know this isnt Sarah Sanders words because i notice we dont see her name here. Its a statement from the Press Secretary, but reporter and we know he likes to talk about his the Election Results. I mean thats the top of the statement. And so of course you have to think of the president himself having potentially dictated this, chuck, theres no doubt about that. But look, i think that you have in this statement something that echos what we just heard from President Trump himself. And in terms of the broader issue, i want to go back to a point you just asked marc lotter, did he ever hear these
types of conversations when he was at the white house. The reality is whether its the Woodward Book or this New York Times oped, both bombshells, they echo and sort of add more context to so much of the reporting that weve been doing along the way, chuck. This is not isolated in essence. This builds upon what we have been reporting on, whether it be that john kelly called the president an idiot, thats something that we reported several months ago, or former Secretary Of State referring to him as a moron. All of that sort of speaking to what officials here have described as dysfunction. So their strategy clearly is to remind folks of the president s Election Results and then to attack the media. I think thats going to be their strategy moving forward. But it doesnt get away from the fact that these headlines are not an anomaly. Nox they, theyre not. Anyway, kristen, thank you. Guys, you havent had a chance to talk. Im going to shut up, shane. One thing that strikes me were having this conversation
about, why doesnt somebody stand up, say who they are and resign. The author of this piece actually has an answer to that, which is they have decided basically to stay and fight, right . Theyre staying, they want to act as the guardrails. The author says they even believe in the administrations policy. A lot of the policies on National Security so theyre making the case we are here to serve and want to do this. That leads to a second problem, though, which is that we dont have governments run by selfappointed guardrails. So this person describes and in his words or her. Well, i think the tweet from the the times may be complying its a he but a twotrack presidency. Somebody explain to me what a twotrack presidency is. We elect a president and whether you like donald trump or not, he is the elected president. Now what we have from Bob Woodwards reporting and this oped, a group of people who have anointed themselves to make decisions about how the government is supposed to be run. You may like how those decisions turn out, but that is not how
this government is supposed to work. Thats a fair point. We have a u. S. Constitution for a reason. And theres another important point here. Marc lotter did an impressive job of trying to make it appear as if, well, this just describes a situation like Abe Hraham Linn and team of rivals where you have a its probably what youd be stuck having to say and that is the best attribute of the president s in that he doesnt mind having people in the room that disagree with him. But the point is not that the president has advisers that disagree, the point is that this oped and other renditions that we have had of this presidency throughout its course describes an erratic president who does not know his mind from day to day and changes on a whim and cant be either an Impeachable Offense or 25th Amendment triggering, i dont think it is. I didnt say it was. I dont think an erratic president is an Impeachable Offense. Hold an election. No, no, no, and i say this. Dont the november midterms in some ways, isnt this going to be the voters opportunity to make a case . And if somehow, i believe this, i think its the senate that sends that if the democrats win the senate, republicans have to look in the mirror and say theres only one reason that happened. Donald j. Trump. But if republicans win the senate, people have to say this dysfunction is producing extraordinary economic and judicial change. And the people are saying, look, we know its chaotic but were saying well tolerate the chaos. I think, shane, the november midterms, we keep raising the stakes. I feel like joe pesci in My Cousin Vinny what else do you want to pile onto this, midterms. But were piling a lot on these midterms. For a long time its all been about the midterms to be
instructive about where it goes next. My god, could the stakes be any higher. I wonder if things like the Woodward Book and this oped clarify peoples thinking. We are 60 days out from the elections we are entering into the sprinting sprint. So these things matter. I think that we shouldnt overestimate the number of people whose minds are up for grabs here. There are a lot of people who think that im not necessarily among them that weve been in 25th Amendment territory for a long time. There are a lot of people who will listen to the president and say gutless New York Times out to get him, fake news, dont believe it. So theres a very small segment of people who if theyre going to be moved by this, they have already been pretty wobbly. What happens to everyone who watched the circus in the senate yesterday . So the chaos is not just limited to the white house. It was a circus. The demonstrators its a broken branch of government over there. It is. And so they might just say, the
voters just might say to hell with all the 1 of america that watches cable news loves this. 98 watched hard knocks last night and think the browns will win eight games. I just want to know if theyre going to cover against the steelers. Let me bring in Michael Beschloss because this is we think historically unprecedented but thats why we have a president ial historian. Michael beschloss, we think this is unprecedented. I guess you could say there were times during wilsons illness that maybe staffers piped up, perhaps. Im trying to think of other times where you might have had Something Like this. I dont know. Michael, youre the expert here. Tell us yeah, chuck, if were straining for some kind of a parallel, in the last week the Richard Nixon, people around nixon were worried about how he might behave if he were pushed to the brink of resignation. James schlessinger, the secretary of defense, told
people in the pentagon if you get a message from nixon for Something Like putting tanks around the white house or using the 101st airborne or using the military to somehow keep himself in office, they were really talking this way, schlessinger says disregard that order unless it is countersigned by me. At the time henry kissinger, the Secretary Of State, was privately saying al hague, the white house chief of staff, was holding the country together and he, kissinger, was holding the world together. But thats not at this level, chuck. Ive never seen anything like this in modern president ial history. If you think about it, someone who is in place in a high position in the Trump Administration saying the president is unstable to the level possibly of the 25th Amendment. The president is amoral, thats the word that was used. Has weird views on russians and dictators and tariffs, is a dangerous man who has to be restrained. Plus the writer is saying there
is a group around the president who is doing exactly that. We have never seen anything remotely like this. It is, im just sort of i hear you describe this, michael. Would you describe it in sort of when i hear you, i hear it in historical terms. Hugh, its sort of hard to put this in perspective in the moment that were in right now. Im fairly close to nixon as i am, and michael knows this very well. I spent a lot of time with president nixon in his retirement in san clemente and new york. Were not anywhere close to watergate land. I listened to the woodward trump tape. And his personality is a feature, not a bug. Many, Many Americans are comfortable with that. Conrad black has written a book about him. He uses the term, i dont like it, truthful hyperbole but if you put a Real Estate Developer in the white house, you get a Real Estate Developer in the white house. I worked for a lot of them. A lot of them are just like this. So i would like to say that his personality may be a feature for a lot of people, it may be a
bug for being president. I am flashing on jeb bushs warning that he was a Chaos Candidate and he was going to be a chaos president. I say this to poor jeb. We all mocked him for that line because it just was weird at the time. It is the most precient analysis from that era. Its never felt like anything other than chaotic. Hugh, im sorry, i do not think a Chaos Presidency is healthy for the country. Whether or not you agree with its goals, whether or not youre happy with its Economic Performance or the judges that its getting confirmed. I dont think its very good for the beltway, but the results of the last two i know you said country but i will say beltway because the constitution is working. The president is not a king, he is not an authoritarian. He cannot aspire to be an authoritarian. He only gets to do what hes allowed to do and he has a team around him that is making it work. But this author is describing a team around him that is keeping him from acting like a tie ranting, that is keeping him from ordering the assassinations
of world leaders, that is keeping him from the bob Woodward Book. Keeping him from starting world war iii. Yes, there are people perhaps executing his policies, but the description is also a group of people keeping us from going Over The Edge of the cliff. And by the way, this is a week that has featured president ial tweets about how its outrageous for his Justice Department to bring serious cases of corruption against members of his party because it might cause him a problem. That is not okay. No, its not. Thats very troubling. Michael, let me get you back in here for one more bite at this apple, which is how is how would history judge a decision where if somehow the entity of the government at the end of the day we have never the entity of government has never removed a president , okay. Right. They resigned. It never got to that point. I look at how we would judge other democracies when we see a president removed. The most recent example in a semidemocracy was egypt in some form. How do you think history would treat this era if the government entities, the constitution, was used to remove a president. If were talking about the 25th Amendment . Or theres obvious lly or impeachment or conviction. Where the voters arent having the say, the institutions are making this decision. They would say, chuck, that the system worked. You know, thats the reason we have those things. Thats the reason we have impeachment and its also why we have a 25th Amendment, which only came up by 1967 because people worried about a situation exactly like this. And the congress made it specifically difficult. As you know, you want to throw a president out by the 25th Amendment, youre going to have to get twothirds of the house,
twothirds of the senate. Not going to be easy if the president is saying im fine, i shouldnt be removed. Thats well put, that it was that we have high we have high bars for this. Absolutely. And with the 25th Amendment we really were talking about physical disability. That was at the point we didnt have a Vice President. It was that moment everybody was worried and lbj and there was no Vice President too. And thats been used twice, we know how it works for anesthesia. So getting rid of a president for being kind of emotionally erratic and volatile would be very, very big actually if i might interrupt for a second. 1987, howard baker became white house chief of staff. There were rumors that Ronald Reagan was not what he was mentally. Baker took those seriously enough that he had some of his close trusted aides sit in on meetings with Ronald Reagan and observe him closely to see whether there was any truth to the worry that the president might not be functioning 100 . He quickly concluded that there
was no ground to feel that way, but they were talking 25th Amendment. But isnt it, michael, a question for you because you brought up the impeachment. In federalist 69, if the congress thinks this is really a crisis, it ought to move articles of impeachment. Democrats ought to stand up. Were not talking about people resigning from the administration. Democrats are not running or impeachment but running for impeachment. I cant think were in a crisis when no one introduces articles of impeachment. How would you 69 this, michael . Were in deep weirdness. We are in deep weirdness, but our institutions arent sure how to respond to it. Were having a very semi normal Confirmation Hearing going on across town, but its for an appointment of a president that a lot of people are right now having concerns about. How do you square the New York Times anonymous oped with the president s ability to appoint Supreme Court justices . The difference is that, for
instance, with Richard Nixon what really made him begin to decline and endanger his impeachment and removal was not when the democratic opposition came out for Impeachment Removal but when members of his own party did. In early 1974 you had people like ed brook, james buckley, the conservative senator from new york, others one by one said that Richard Nixon can no longer serve. He has to be removed either through impeachment or resignation. Contrast that with nowadays how Many Republican senators, for instance, have come out and said this is a president of our party who cannot function. Thats a fair point, michael. Shane, thats why i go back to the end of the day, the voters have to have a say in this. I think the midterms look, i think i think at the end of the day, elected republicans are not going to change their view publicly until they feel pain politically. And losing the senate would be real pain because they dont expect it. Yeah, the year plus now of
crisis or weirdness that we have been in, i have always believed the ultimate answer always comes down to republicans in congress and if they lose and the political balance has changed, support for this president is going to change along with it. So Election Night if four republicans were up to 55 republicans in the senate because bill nelson has lost to rick scott and Heidi Heitkamp has lost, do you sit back and say i think it changes the equation. Okay, voters, its 2020. You got an issue with this president , go to the ballot box. No, im with you, hugh. I think if you have a split decision, even if its 60 house seats for the democrats, but they hold that senate we dont live in a parliamentary system. We dont. This is a case where the voters are sending a message, right, in some ways his base isnt ready if they lose the senate, his base has given up on him. Thats the takeaway. And in all those races, this conversation with Brett Kavanaugh today, which i think has a high viewership, has been
about can a president be indicted, can a president be called trying to push him on roe v. Wade, Chevron Doctrine. I think the voters in Middle America like judge kavanaugh. I think they like what they see and that will play out. Its a very highend nonchaotic i dont know. I dont think anybody knows who this guy is. His numbers are so low, positive and negative. Im talking about people who watch today. I know, i hear you. The Chevron Doctrine crowd. Kristen welker is still with us. Kristen, ive got to check in. I mean i just feel like every 10 minutes something could change out of that press office. Is it you know, hows reaction now . Well, chuck, look, i think that they continue to sort of absorb the remarkable events that weve all been witnessing and reacting to in realtime. Theres not been any fresh reaction since that statement went out from Press SecretarySarah Sanders, which again very
much echoed what we heard from the president touting the jobs numbers, touting his election. But i think theyre still trying to figure out what their strategy is going to be moving forward. And again, i go back to this, they were caught flat footed by the revelations in the Woodward Book. They werent expecting all of the quotes from some of the top officials, which woodward attributes to a number of sources. He says he spoke to a number of Senior Administration officials, past and present. Has hundreds of hours of interviews. And so i think theyre still trying to figure out how to respond to that and compound that with this oped. Theyre certainly scrambling. One official started the day by telling me, look, were just laughing all of this off. And i said, well, your boss isnt, and i think thats the challenge for officials here. How do they respond when the president is growing increasingly infuriated by all of this, chuck. Thats a fair point, kristen welker. Thank you very much. Lets talk about one thing that i punted, essentially about this point in the conversation. The media ethics decision here, right . The New York Times, this is this is on one hand its a bombshell oped. On the other hand, they have made a decision they know the identity and theyre not revealing the identity. Well, Carl Bernstein and bob woodward held their secret for 30 years. Ruth, youve seen do you think you would have done made the same decision . Youre a Deputy DeputyEditorial Page of the washington post. You could have had this oped perhaps too. I oversee the oped page. So if that had come to us, which it did not, we would have had a very serious conversation about that decision. I dont want to be the kind of media judge of my esteemed colleagues in new york. I will say that it has not been our practice to do anonymous opeds. For the reason that kind of goes
along the lines of what i was saying earlier, that if you are making an argument, you should have the wherewithal and the belief in putting your name to that argument. At the same time, i completely you know, i cant say whether we would have done it or not, so i dont want to sound churlish. And it is using anonymous is a very important tool in the toolbox for my colleagues in the newsroom. So not judging. Shane, you and i have had a back and forth about the issue of Access Journalism and sort of this is an interesting test case of Access Journalism. Like the times wants access to this oped. The price of it is anonymity. Its a tough decision. Im with ruth, im not sure, you know, if i were offered to interview this person, put him in a black curtain, voice change, i dont know. Yeah, its a very tough call. I recognize i am on the news
side where we have that tool available to us. Lets be honest, its not one that we really relish using, certainly on National Security journalism, its indispensable but i think most of us would like to get people to get people on the record, and we do press for that. It goes back to the question of who is the author. If youre trying to determine whether or not this is really important, that has to go into the calculation of whether you grant the anonymity. If it is somebody at a very senior level, somebody who works for the president or high up in the Vice President s office or somewhere very high in the management as opposed to a Deputy Assistant secretary level maybe you make that call and say, look, this is a name that everyone knows, were going to shield that. And that is something, i will have a bigger problem with the times decision here if its a mid to lowlevel person. Its poison. I will be shocked, honestly. I do think that because we all know that when you give Somebody Anonymity, when you give Somebody Anonymity about this, you are putting your own credibility on the line. It better be fairly high. If its mid to low level it becomes then all of a sudden it looks like the times was trying to stir the pot . The president will be empowered. Anonymity is poison, especially online. Some have stepped forward to say over the years, of course the nixon had great trouble with the final days. We pushed back at the time at Woodward Books. They say he does his homework and knows how to report. Shane made this point, im not sure, youll have to tell me, ruth, whether oped editors have the same do they have the same antenna for just straight b. S. From someone who thats what they pay me the big bucks to do. James bennett, you and i both know him well, ive known him for a long time, he was the editor of the atlantic when i worked at the national journal,
that dude is high ethics journalist. He knows what he did. This is a this is just like ruth, was a Practicing Journalist for a long time before he became an editor. They might even tell them, hey, in this case, its coming. You have to tell the publisher. I can only speak to our organization, certainly i would not make that decision on my own. I would make it with Editorial Page Editor fred hyatt. Where it would go from there i dont know. It would be very unlikely to tell the news side. Let me ask you this. You have an oped that you know is making news, and youve had kw quite a few of them. Yes, thank you. Do you go to marty barron no. Marty goes oh, look, weve got news in our own paper. We try to let both our pr operation know to get it out
there, and, you know, probably not in that order. The news side, i had a piece about the Trump AdministrationTrump White House requiring people to sign on disclosure agreements. I felt a little competitive with my former colleagues. The minute that posted, i said i have something coming that could be newsworthy, i let everybody know. Thats the price of we call it the separation of church and state, i would be really surprised if james brought in dean beck, the editor on that. You were saying predicting how the president was going to do this. The president has tweeted simply failing New York Times. He is going to try to make the times the story in this. Understand, if this person who wrote this is not a senior person, or is carrying out a vendetta against someone whose job he or she wants this will deeply injure the reputation, not just of the New York Times, but everyone. Thats why the stakes are high. It becomes the deep state
like reenforcement tool to the president if it turns out to be something not what it appears. You can have a journalism on ethics debate there, but i think chuck and i are both saying that we have extreme respect for james bennett, the editor. Yeah, i cant like i said, i think hes a man of high integrity. Ive got to imagine this. Michael beshlos, on the media aspect here, it seems like every sort of president ial moment thats aweed in american history, has a challenge for the press of that time. This feels a similar moment. No, i think thats exactly right, and the press is the only business thats protected in the constitution very much the idea the founders that they would save the country if necessary. And one other thing, chuck, if i could bring this sort of full circle, we were talking a few moments ago about the fact that this all what is being written about in this oped
piece, could those kind of tendencies with donald trump could lead to impeachment, conceively conviction and removal, and also very serious legal trouble for him. I have to come back to the fact that donald trump has nominated for the Supreme Court, maybe just about the person, you know, of those he was considering with the most extreme views about a president should be shielded from being investigated and subpoenaed while in office. And just this very morning it now seems about four days ago judge kavanaugh was asked do you think a president should be subpoenaed in office . He refused to answer. He said that was hypothetical. Its a fair point there. Michael, always helpful on unprecedented moments like this. Hey, i guess you have even more to write about these days. So Michael Beschloss thank you. Thanks. Shane, i come back, do you think well see this anonymous
person testify on capitol hill in the next three years . I mean, if theyre is this john dean . If theyre identified and im just making a bet here, i feel like the name is just going to come out. The reporting around the white house right now is Strong Enough youre going to get a short list pretty quickly. I mean, if this person is like how do you not call hearings now and say, okay this is somebody who according to his firsthand account is witness to extremely troubling things that any congressional investigation, certainly any committee of impeachment would want to know about, again if democrats take one of the chambers you can bet that if this person is identified hed be very high on a witness list. Again it does raise this question of why not come out publicly reveal who you are . I wonder if were inching towards that . When the woodward excerpts came out this week, i thought, great that they talked to woodward, its a fantastic way to corral this journalism and reporting. How much more powerful would it be if jim mattis came out and
said them publicly. So ive been arguing that, for that, and i think at this point the likelihood of that is way less because it hasnt happened. Im more doubtful than you are that were going to know the identity of this person. You know, any time within, you know, think about it, the 30 years it took us, right, to find out that mark felt was deep throat. Why the timing today . We have the Brett Kavanaugh as the headline. Is someone attempting to derail Brett Kavanaugh, for whatever reason, why would you release this today . Its funny you say that. I agree. I have a question about timing. Is it, woodward gave them a spine . Is it that . I dont know, youre right, is it somebody that wants to derail kavanaugh. Doesnt sound like somebody who wants to derail. It sounds like a true believer. The whole point, i do think its a fair point, if its woodward that motivated, then
katy bar the door, youre going to have more and more doing this. Is it a vendetta . I dont know. Do you think it was written in the last 24 hours . It could have been weeks in the making. Youd need more vetting than that, from my point of view, from the logistics of this. You would assume this is a weeklong project, at minimum . How much would you vet this. I would vet it a whole lot. Even if you immediately knew the person, a pretty high level person. If it was john kelly calling me and telling me anonymous oped, how quickly . I could act pretty quickly. The person is high enough that you know, oh, wow, this is credible, ive you know yeah. But you also have you have to run sort of your internal processes as well. A 24hour turnaround from woodward, just 24 hours ago, by the way, would be awfully quick. And let me go back to something about something that a
pollster said to us very quietly that july actually was a horrendous month for republicans, and then august wasnt a great month for House Republicans because trump kept disrupting the messaging. First week of september, not a good time to be a House Republican because trump keeps interrupting the messaging. A mercurial president means a mercurial eight weeks ahead of us or six weeks ahead. Good luck planning a campaign. A virginia congressman put on the ballot, removed from the ballot. Handed the democrats a house seat. Might be enough. I dont even know where to begin, how to wrap this day up. But it did begin with the kavanaugh hearings, and woodward came out with a book. And michael capuano. And delaware senate, carper