Speaker 1: When you're ready to ride Metro, we want you to
Speaker 1: know we're ready for you. Here are just a few
Speaker 1: of the people at Metro to tell you how we're
Speaker 1: doing our part to keep riders safe. We're cleaning like
Speaker 1: Noble before Great you're found half sign of sound of statist,
Speaker 1: no mask, no Metro need one. We have a few
Speaker 1: extras at Metro. We're doing our part to keep the
Speaker 1: DC area moving. Find out more at well mata dot
Speaker 1: com slash doing our part. You know, we could have
Speaker 1: signed something that I couldn't signs something today. We actually
Speaker 1: had papers ready to be signs but it just wasn't appropriate.
Speaker 1: I want to do it right much around, to do
Speaker 1: it right than do it fast, just like in prison.
Speaker 1: Um you so sometimes you gotta walk away. That's what
Speaker 1: the President said about the North Korean summit. Sure absolutely
Speaker 1: to discuss the summit and other matters political. We are
Speaker 1: pleased to welcome back to the Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 1: Lon Heach and most of the podcast Crossing Lines with
Speaker 1: lanh Chen, also a Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Director
Speaker 1: of Domestic Policy Studies, Lecture and Public Policy at Stanford
Speaker 1: University of Quaint Little Community College in northern California. Loni,
Speaker 1: how are you, sir? Good morning, gentlemen, how are you?
Speaker 1: It's merely my inferiority complex that makes me make those
Speaker 1: little jokes at Stanford's expense. I hope you will forgive
Speaker 1: me and or pity me. Okay, I'm sure you already
Speaker 1: pity me anyway. So Hey, my theory I Joe have
Speaker 1: been saying for quite some time the most likely outcome,
Speaker 1: by far is that North Korea gets a usable nuclear
Speaker 1: arsenal and we just have to live with it, and
Speaker 1: any hope to the contrary has been a long shot.
Speaker 1: Would you agree or how do you see the question? Well?
Speaker 1: I think that a fair amount of pessimism is warranted
Speaker 1: in this entire process, and you know, from from all
Speaker 1: along leading up to the Hannois Summit, leading up to
Speaker 1: the most recent set of discussions, I was warning people that,
Speaker 1: you know, to expect a deal I think is overly
Speaker 1: optimistic because of the conditions on the ground that we
Speaker 1: know of in North Korea. And I say we know
Speaker 1: of because the reality is, we really don't know how
Speaker 1: far along they are in many respects. They've got elements
Speaker 1: of nuclear capability that we're not aware of, which, by
Speaker 1: the way, was one of the reasons why in this
Speaker 1: negotiation the United States was demanding a full accounting from
Speaker 1: the North Koreans of what they had and and even
Speaker 1: that they were unwilling to do so. I do think
Speaker 1: to a certain degree, the North Koreans are far enough
Speaker 1: along in their nuclear program, they have enough to sell
Speaker 1: material developed, they have warheads, they're able to put that
Speaker 1: material on warheads, that that this is a serious set
Speaker 1: of considerations. And so I'm glad that we're engaging in
Speaker 1: discussions with them, but I'm not surprised we weren't able
Speaker 1: to reach a breakthrough in this summit with North Korea.
Speaker 1: If if, if they just are accepted as a nuclear
Speaker 1: state by the world, would they be the craziest nuclear state?
Speaker 1: Or with Pakistan still have that tidally thing. Well. This week,
Speaker 1: I mean there's been a lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: conflict between Pakistan and India in the Castian Region, which
Speaker 1: is the disputed region between the two countries. The pakistanis
Speaker 1: the problem with Pakistan is that it's never entirely clear
Speaker 1: he's in charge. You've got the sort of triumvirate of
Speaker 1: authorities there, You've got the intelligence services, which are incredibly powerful.
Speaker 1: You've got the military, and then of course you've got
Speaker 1: the civilian leadership. And the problem with Pakistan is less
Speaker 1: that there is unpredictable or eccentric as Kim jonga, and
Speaker 1: it's more that you just never know who's in charge when.
Speaker 1: So we are out of places. Yeah, well, and and
Speaker 1: and it's it's not unusual to see in in that
Speaker 1: part of the world. So I feel like the North
Speaker 1: Korean we shouldn't simply accept that North Korea is a
Speaker 1: nuclear power. We should we should want to do something
Speaker 1: about that the Korean peninsula to seek the nuclearization. But
Speaker 1: the reality is they're quite far along, and we have
Speaker 1: to we have to accept that they are where they
Speaker 1: are and do our best to try and push them
Speaker 1: away from nuclear folly. One of these we like best
Speaker 1: about talking to you, Alan, he is that you're you're
Speaker 1: thoroughly acquainted with the conventional wisdom, but you're not a
Speaker 1: slave to it. Having said that, what do you think
Speaker 1: of the unconventional Trump approach to summits and getting together
Speaker 1: with world leaders and and Kim Jong un in particular.
Speaker 1: You want to go, you want to meet to share,
Speaker 1: I'll meet where you were when, Okay, I'll be there talk. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean I I he is someone who obviously has
Speaker 1: managed throughout his whole career to get things done in
Speaker 1: an unconventional way. So I'm not going to sit here
Speaker 1: and say that his technique is wrong because it doesn't
Speaker 1: follow ninety years of the way we've conducted diplomacy. That
Speaker 1: having been said, I think there's a reason why you
Speaker 1: want the subordinates to get together and hammer out something
Speaker 1: and then bring it up to the next level and
Speaker 1: let them hammer something out and really just let the
Speaker 1: leaders come together. But you know, I was thinking and
Speaker 1: reflecting last night, guys on the discussions that Reagan had
Speaker 1: with Gordon Shop in the eighties, and recall that that
Speaker 1: took several in person meetings I think five before they
Speaker 1: were able to reach some substantial agreement. Reagan had to
Speaker 1: walk away from the table at one point. Reagan wasn't
Speaker 1: hesitant to meet directly with gorbu Chaw. So I don't
Speaker 1: have a problem with Trump trying to do this one
Speaker 1: on one. What I hope though, and actually I don't hope.
Speaker 1: I know this is happening. There are very good people
Speaker 1: in our government who know a lot about these issues,
Speaker 1: who very much want to describe the reasonable agreement with
Speaker 1: North Korea, who are putting in an awful lot of
Speaker 1: time and effort into UH into getting things done. I'm
Speaker 1: very close to someone who's very deeply involved in the
Speaker 1: process now, and I know that with the negotiations partly
Speaker 1: in his hands, and I feel very good about the
Speaker 1: possibility of the good outcome. I also felt very good
Speaker 1: by the way that President Trump wasn't gonna sign a
Speaker 1: bad deal. I know there's a lot of people on
Speaker 1: the left were like, oh, Trump's gonna give away the farm.
Speaker 1: Let's not forget we have a system around the president.
Speaker 1: And at the end of the day, the President, I
Speaker 1: think did the right thing by listening to the Council
Speaker 1: of people like Pompeio, the Secretary of State, and John
Speaker 1: Bolt in the National Coecurity Produces probably told him, look,
Speaker 1: trading sanctions for the destruction of one non nuclear facility
Speaker 1: is probably not a good idea. Well, Kim swung for
Speaker 1: the fences, And my theory is they got smart people
Speaker 1: watching cable news all the time they're here, and all
Speaker 1: the talking heads say, you know, the Cohen hearings are happening,
Speaker 1: and Trump's under the gun and he might give away
Speaker 1: the farm. They thought, why not, why not throw him
Speaker 1: our best deal and see if he bites. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean it's it's a negotiation, and that the North Koreans
Speaker 1: are clearly savvy enough to have gotten to where. I mean,
Speaker 1: let's just step back and take a look at North Korea.
Speaker 1: It's a country with a miniscule g d p Uh.
Speaker 1: They've got massive areas that don't even have power. They've
Speaker 1: got people who are starving. Uh. The number of people
Speaker 1: who are doing well economically is probably fewer than the
Speaker 1: number of goolags in the country. So, you know, for
Speaker 1: them to have gotten to this place suggests that they're
Speaker 1: actually pretty savvy, pretty savvy bunch. And so yeah, absolutely,
Speaker 1: I think they looked at the conditions that we're gonna
Speaker 1: do everything we can to try to seize on the press.
Speaker 1: Isn't when they proceed, he's weak. But obviously they said
Speaker 1: that the system in place, the system was effective, and
Speaker 1: I'm glad to see that we ended up where we did.
Speaker 1: His podcast is Crossing Lines with lon Hea Chen. You
Speaker 1: should check it out. Did you see the videos of
Speaker 1: Kim smoking cigarettes during the breaks? His sister has to
Speaker 1: run around with the ashtray. I don't have a sister,
Speaker 1: but if I did, I don't think she'd follow me
Speaker 1: around with if I wonder, it's quite it's it's really
Speaker 1: terrific service they had over there. That's pretty awesome. Good
Speaker 1: to be a dictator, soln he as long as h
Speaker 1: Jack brought up the unholy specter of the coin hearings yesterday, um,
Speaker 1: and and your specialty is indeed in domestic policy. Overall
Speaker 1: impressions of the spectacle of that hearing the testimony, how
Speaker 1: much did you get to see? Um? I thought a
Speaker 1: decent amount of it. Actually, that was on a plane
Speaker 1: yesterday and they had the direct TV on. So how
Speaker 1: many people seem to be watching it on the plane?
Speaker 1: A lot of people, I would say about sel around
Speaker 1: me were watching it. I was shocked, actually, maybe because
Speaker 1: there was nothing else to watch. That's it. Yeah, although
Speaker 1: although although there was a spring training which was which
Speaker 1: was a nice distraction. But I tend to think that, Uh,
Speaker 1: there's a couple of things about the testimon I mean one, obviously,
Speaker 1: Cohen's credibility is not the greatest out of all of
Speaker 1: the witnesses we've seen appear before. Congress. That having been said,
Speaker 1: the fact that he was with the president before he
Speaker 1: was the president for so long, and you know, I
Speaker 1: recall Michael Cohen in two thousand twelve when I was
Speaker 1: working for Mitt Romney as a as a senior aid
Speaker 1: on that campaign and we were dealing with the Trump orbit,
Speaker 1: the Trump community. Uh, it was Michael Cohen who we
Speaker 1: dealt with primarily. And so Michael Cohen is somebody who
Speaker 1: has clearly been around the president, knows a lot, has
Speaker 1: reason to know a lot, and so I don't doubt
Speaker 1: that at least some of what he said yesterday was true.
Speaker 1: I do think it was a spectacle in the sense
Speaker 1: that both sides have already decided what they want to use.
Speaker 1: Is for the Democrats are going to use it to
Speaker 1: pursue impeachment. The Republicans are going to use it as
Speaker 1: an opportunity to defend the president and to slander Cohen.
Speaker 1: So he bothi'es already decided what was going to happen.
Speaker 1: I don't know that we learned a whole lot of
Speaker 1: new stuff from the hearings yesterday, but what I do
Speaker 1: think is that for the Democrats who have held the
Speaker 1: hearings during the North Korea talks was not an accident,
Speaker 1: and I do wish that they I think they could
Speaker 1: have accomplished the same thing that they only waited a
Speaker 1: few days. That's a really really weak Is there a
Speaker 1: fictional voter out there that doesn't believe Trump's the kind
Speaker 1: of guy that Cohen presented him as yesterday? I just,
Speaker 1: I just I think everybody knows when they heard he
Speaker 1: you know, he got a phony bidder to buy his
Speaker 1: own painting. I think most Trumps reporters think, yeah, I
Speaker 1: think he's Donald sounds like Donald Trump. To me, I
Speaker 1: still like him better than Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I think that someone I forgot who was put
Speaker 1: it well yesterday when they said there was a lot
Speaker 1: of embarrassment but not a whole lot of illegality. I
Speaker 1: do think there was a lot of embarrassment. Now that
Speaker 1: the the bigger investigation than the Mueller investigation, I think,
Speaker 1: is this investigation that's going on in this othern district
Speaker 1: of New York, which is the district which covers New
Speaker 1: York City and obviously has prostratorial oversight on on violation
Speaker 1: of the federal law that happened in New York City,
Speaker 1: and so the question is, did the Trump organization or
Speaker 1: any that Trump charities violate UH campaign finance and other laws?
Speaker 1: I think I think that may be the legal exposure
Speaker 1: the president has. But it's not like I walked away
Speaker 1: from yesterday thinking, you know that the president had colluded
Speaker 1: with Russia anymore than I saw before, which is I'm
Speaker 1: not convinced that happened, and so we didn't learn anything
Speaker 1: new legally, but it was embarrassing for the president and
Speaker 1: probably not a great thing for him to had to
Speaker 1: had to go through or to watch for that matter.
Speaker 1: I do find myself wondering what the fate of the
Speaker 1: Trump empire is going to be, though, given the investigation
Speaker 1: you referenced and the complexity and creativity of their dealings
Speaker 1: through the decades. Um we will see, I guess. H
Speaker 1: lan is the host of the podcast Cross Thing Lines
Speaker 1: with Lana he Chen. We will have a link so
Speaker 1: you can find it and listen to it easily. He's
Speaker 1: also a David and Diane Stephy Research Fellow with too
Speaker 1: Over Institution, Director Domestic Policy Studies at Stanford University. Lanhi,
Speaker 1: it's it's always enlightening. We thank you for your time
Speaker 1: when you're ready to ride Metro, we want you to
Speaker 1: know we're ready for you. Here are just a few
Speaker 1: of the people at Metro to tell you how we're
Speaker 1: doing our part to keep writers safe. We're cleaning like
Speaker 1: never before. You've found half stunt of sound, of stations,
Speaker 1: no mask, no Metro need one. We have a few
Speaker 1: extras at Metro. We're doing our part to keep the
Speaker 1: DC area moving. Find out more at well mata dot
Speaker 1: com slash doing our part