Speaker 1: Let's put all of that out there as well, so
Speaker 1: we can pass judgment about how the how the investigation
Speaker 1: was conducted, or at least the predicate for the investigation
Speaker 1: was conducted during the Obama year, right. Going to one
Speaker 1: of the more interesting aspects of this, the whole Steel dossier,
Speaker 1: the Carter Page warrant and the rest of it, that's
Speaker 1: going to be one of those topics we hit at
Speaker 1: greater length tomorrow. I suspect but a gentleman who worked
Speaker 1: with Marco Rubio, who we just heard, Lanhachen, the host
Speaker 1: of the podcast Crossing Lines with lanha Chen, also the
Speaker 1: David and Diane Stephy Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution
Speaker 1: and the director of Domestic Policy Studies and Lecture in
Speaker 1: the Public Policy Program at Stanford University, joins us now
Speaker 1: loan here. How are you, sir, Joe? Good morning, How
Speaker 1: are you terrific? Thanks? It's a it's an really really
Speaker 1: interesting day on so many levels. What have you found
Speaker 1: yourself thinking about most in the last forty eight hours
Speaker 1: or so with the Muller report out, at least in
Speaker 1: summary form. Well, it's interesting because I think, on the
Speaker 1: one hand, it didn't really change the dialogue of either side.
Speaker 1: You know, the Democrats all along have been banking on
Speaker 1: this investigation. You'll notice that they have expanded the field
Speaker 1: of their discussion to say any investigation of the president
Speaker 1: that in some ways it almost didn't matter what was
Speaker 1: in the Mulla report, because they have now expanded the
Speaker 1: field beyond just the allegations of Russian collusion to say, essentially,
Speaker 1: look at all these misdiefs the presidents engaging. And then
Speaker 1: of course, for conservatives and those who support President Trump,
Speaker 1: it's a it's a vindication of what they've been saying
Speaker 1: all along regarding the president's alleged collusion with the Russians.
Speaker 1: So it's funny. Yes, it is a big deal, and
Speaker 1: I think it is clearly a huge victory for the president,
Speaker 1: but it does not, in my mind, change the political
Speaker 1: dialogue that we're in, this really toxic cycle where Democrats
Speaker 1: and progressives believe what they believe in Republicans and supports
Speaker 1: of the president believe what they believe, and that's not
Speaker 1: going to change. Tell me if I'm wrong on this,
Speaker 1: because you could be right, and in a way I
Speaker 1: hope you're right, because I would prefer frankly that the
Speaker 1: Republicans win the next midterm. I don't hide my my
Speaker 1: political leanings. On the other hand, I think it'd be
Speaker 1: insane if the Democrats continued down this road, because the
Speaker 1: strategy might not have changed. But it's like I'm watching
Speaker 1: a football game and and they said, we're gonna come
Speaker 1: out and throw the ball. Well, now the winds blowing
Speaker 1: at sixty miles per hour. And by that I mean
Speaker 1: the American people have become very, very cynical about investigations
Speaker 1: in general. Is has made clear by the poll that
Speaker 1: came out last week. I think it was before the
Speaker 1: results of the Muller investigation even came out. You have
Speaker 1: fifty saying yeah, this is a witch hunt. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you continue to throw a ball in the face
Speaker 1: of that sixty wind, I think you're crazy. You. I
Speaker 1: think you're right, Joe. But I think what the challenges
Speaker 1: for the Democrats is this, they have a progressive base
Speaker 1: that is increasingly becoming influential in in how the Democratic
Speaker 1: mainstream thing, and and those folks I'm talking about Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders and Alexandriacagio Cortez, etcetera. These folks are going to
Speaker 1: continue with that same strategy visavi the president. So they're
Speaker 1: not going to change, and they're gonna place tremendous pressure
Speaker 1: on those who might want to take a more moderate line.
Speaker 1: Let's say, someone like Joe Biden or even Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker 1: who wants to say, look, let's focus on ways in
Speaker 1: which the Trump administration might not be serving the American people.
Speaker 1: Whatever the line they want to take is, those folks
Speaker 1: are going to be outshouted by the progressive left. And
Speaker 1: I think the progressive left would love to continue to
Speaker 1: go after President Trump. And and it doesn't matter what
Speaker 1: the Mulla report says. I mean, they've been laying the
Speaker 1: groundwork for this for the last week. They've said, look,
Speaker 1: the Mulla Report is fine, we want to First of all,
Speaker 1: they're at the same they want to see the whole report.
Speaker 1: And second of all, they're saying, you know, regardless of
Speaker 1: what happens in the report, you've got all sorts of
Speaker 1: different pending investigations in the Southern District of New York, etcetera.
Speaker 1: So I don't imagine Joe the strategy is going to
Speaker 1: change a whole lot for many Democrats. But I would
Speaker 1: hope um for the same. The political competitiveness that they
Speaker 1: would take a different line. So, Lanie, if you were
Speaker 1: in charge then of White House messaging, and I think
Speaker 1: that would be a huge step forward if you were, UM.
Speaker 1: But if you were in charge, what other than obviously
Speaker 1: there is no collusion, what themes would you really hammer
Speaker 1: in the coming weeks and in a few months, UM,
Speaker 1: in contrast to what you just described, well, I would
Speaker 1: I would come back to this basic point, which is
Speaker 1: that the that the fundamentals of the economy at this
Speaker 1: point looked looked pretty good. Americans by and large are
Speaker 1: doing well, which is not to say that there aren't
Speaker 1: any problems. President Trump's policies have been UM, have been
Speaker 1: relatively positive for many Americans. I would focus on how
Speaker 1: the administration is trying to do what it can to
Speaker 1: improve the lives of Americans while Democrats are busy, uh,
Speaker 1: perpetuating this witch hunt that even Bob Mueller, even somebody
Speaker 1: that they had said was it was a neutral arbiter
Speaker 1: of the fact, even he has said that there was
Speaker 1: nothing there. And yet they continue to be obsessed with Trump.
Speaker 1: While they're obsessed with Trump, Trump is obsessed with helping
Speaker 1: the American people, and and that's the message I would
Speaker 1: come back to. I imagine that they're going to spend
Speaker 1: a couple of days, by the way, because the president
Speaker 1: will want to take a victory lap on this, and
Speaker 1: I do hope they move beyond that to to begin
Speaker 1: to address the substance, because I do think the President's
Speaker 1: got a case to run for re election on that's
Speaker 1: pretty solid. Right Well, Listen, I may be asking a
Speaker 1: horse to play the clarinet here, but I've got to
Speaker 1: believe if in the last month of the campaign, Trump
Speaker 1: could adopt a Listen, I know I rub a lot
Speaker 1: of people the wrong way. It's just it's me and
Speaker 1: and I don't I'm sorry about that, but I really
Speaker 1: care about this country above If he could be a
Speaker 1: little self, if facing a little I understand, I piss
Speaker 1: you people off. I understand I'm a tough guy to take,
Speaker 1: you know, Assuming that there are no giant historic changes
Speaker 1: as to what's going on in the country, I could
Speaker 1: see that being really, really effective. Yeah, And I think
Speaker 1: he could. He could do quite well. I mean I
Speaker 1: think he could. Um, he could win more states than
Speaker 1: he did in sixteen even and and a larger percentage
Speaker 1: of the of the popular vote. I would also say,
Speaker 1: you know that the one thing, just to go back
Speaker 1: to the short term impact of this report. There's been
Speaker 1: a lot of talk, you know, amongst the media, especially about,
Speaker 1: you know, will there be a Republican challenger to the president.
Speaker 1: I think the outcome of the Mulla report all but
Speaker 1: guarantees there will not be a serious challenge to the
Speaker 1: president from within the Republican party. So he's gonna be
Speaker 1: running unopposed or as the Democrat. We're going to have
Speaker 1: a blood bath here over the next six months. Lani
Speaker 1: Chen is the host of the podcast Crossing Lines with
Speaker 1: Lanha Chen. Do you have any thoughts on the question
Speaker 1: of obstruction of justice? I thought that was really interesting
Speaker 1: to me. The Special Council said, yeah, there's stuff that
Speaker 1: looks like it, but there's stuff that makes it look
Speaker 1: like probably not, and there wasn't an underlying crime, So
Speaker 1: just done. I'll know. I mean, that's more or less
Speaker 1: what he said. Yeah, I mean what it was interesting
Speaker 1: us The line obviously that opponents of the president are
Speaker 1: seizing on to say that that the Special Council wasn't
Speaker 1: able to exonerate the president of the charge of obstruction.
Speaker 1: There's two things to bear in mind here. One is
Speaker 1: the Special Council makes the point, according to the Attorney
Speaker 1: General's letter, that everything the president had done potentially that
Speaker 1: could make up an obstruction charge was done in public.
Speaker 1: So it's not like there's anything secretive or furtive that's
Speaker 1: going on here. If you believe what the president did
Speaker 1: made out a case for obstruction, everything he did was
Speaker 1: in public. That's the first point. The second point is, look,
Speaker 1: it's up to the charging authority in this case, the
Speaker 1: Attorney General, to determine whether whether the accumulated evidence makes
Speaker 1: up a charge of obstruction, and and and so I
Speaker 1: think the Special Council felt, look, we we certainly don't
Speaker 1: have enough to pass judgment. The Attorney General felt that
Speaker 1: that he and his team didn't have enough to pass judgment,
Speaker 1: and and and so I think this is one of
Speaker 1: those things where, to the extent there is any political
Speaker 1: wiggle room for the Democrats to argue the Mueller report
Speaker 1: was full to Trump, they're going to seize on this point.
Speaker 1: But this point is such a specific point of law
Speaker 1: that I don't think they're going to have a very
Speaker 1: very good time trying to actually make headway out of
Speaker 1: this one. And if a political fodder. To be sure,
Speaker 1: would you agree with me that I posited earlier in
Speaker 1: the show that Donald J. Trump, real estate magnate, simply
Speaker 1: took too much of his management playbook into the Oval
Speaker 1: office with him and saying, look, this project is dead.
Speaker 1: It's it's stupid, like for instance, the Flynn investigation or
Speaker 1: the Russia collusion investigation. He was being a ceo saying,
Speaker 1: you know this, this hotel is never gonna make money.
Speaker 1: We gotta close it. It's dumb, and which is fine
Speaker 1: as a real estate magnate, but as president, it looks
Speaker 1: like obstruction of justice. I think that's probably what happened. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think you're right. I mean, I think that there
Speaker 1: are a lot of things about First of all, nobody's
Speaker 1: prepared to be president on day one. I don't care
Speaker 1: how many jobs you've had before that might qualify you.
Speaker 1: And and added at the fact that you know, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump came out of a private sector culture that's pretty
Speaker 1: different from a political culture, from from being a politician before.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I think there was a learning curve. I
Speaker 1: think the way that he conducted himself probably was very
Speaker 1: similar to how he conducted himself in the private sector.
Speaker 1: So I think you're absolutely right on that account, and
Speaker 1: I and I do think that. Again, the Special counsel
Speaker 1: by by saying essentially, look, if you wanted to claim
Speaker 1: obstruction obstruction of justice, there is nothing else you need
Speaker 1: to know, or there's nothing else you need to look
Speaker 1: at than what he did publicly, you can decide that.
Speaker 1: In my mind, the President can certainly use to his
Speaker 1: favor because he can say, look, the only thing they're
Speaker 1: alleging is stuff that's out of the open. So you
Speaker 1: you'd be the judge if you think this was what
Speaker 1: it was. But I think you're absolutely right. It goes
Speaker 1: back to his conduct as a businessman, and I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people would say, yeah, I mean as
Speaker 1: a businessman, I completely understand that. Now as president of
Speaker 1: standards different, but um, you know, I don't think it's
Speaker 1: enough to to to create a debt in Trump's armor
Speaker 1: going forward. What's crossing lines with lanh Chen going to
Speaker 1: be about this week? Well, we haven't done an episode
Speaker 1: a little while, in part because I've been on vacation. Uh,
Speaker 1: we are gonna we are going to spend back up.
Speaker 1: I've got a couple of guests in the hopper for
Speaker 1: the coming week. Some I'm working on the on on
Speaker 1: economic policy. Some I'm talking a little bit about the
Speaker 1: future of the healthcare debate. But this week we're gonna
Speaker 1: do something on Mueller. Have to figure out who the
Speaker 1: guests is gonna be. But but but hopefully it'll be
Speaker 1: something good and we'll have that episode out by the
Speaker 1: end of the week. I think, well, if you run
Speaker 1: out of actual smart people to talk to, we'll talk
Speaker 1: to you. But anyway, that would be fun. We have
Speaker 1: to do that sometimes, we really do. That'd be a
Speaker 1: lot of fun. We'd be delighted. Absolutely, it would be
Speaker 1: an honor. Lana ch Chen is the host of the
Speaker 1: podcast Crossing the Lines. Lani chen Fellow with the Hoover Institution,
Speaker 1: heads up the domestic Policy department at Stanford. Lani, it's
Speaker 1: always a pleasure. Thanks a million, thanks to a good day.
Speaker 1: You got it? Uh so, yeah, I just it's funny.
Speaker 1: I'm so much more into governance than politics. Jack's usually
Speaker 1: the guy who really really wants to talk about the
Speaker 1: politics of the stuff. But I'm telling you, just going
Speaker 1: forward the whole we've got to investigate. I just think
Speaker 1: the the amount of eye rolling on the right and
Speaker 1: in the Center over that very idea is well, I
Speaker 1: think it's gonna be overwhelming. And listen, I'm not saying
Speaker 1: it's completely nuts. If you can uncover the fact that
Speaker 1: you know, Donald Trump actually was the guy who committed
Speaker 1: the Son of Sam murders in the eighties or something
Speaker 1: like that, I mean, well that was the seventies, I guess,
Speaker 1: But I mean, go ahead, I suppose because that would
Speaker 1: hurt the hell out of him in the election. But
Speaker 1: I just I don't love your chances and coming up
Speaker 1: with something like that, and you got fifty of Americans
Speaker 1: at least thinking it's all witch Huntissa, Well, good luck,
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff. You're listening to the Armstrong and Getty Show.