The Ricochet Podcast - Mississippi

Episode Date: June 26, 2014

This week on the podcast we do a deep dive on the curious goings on in Mississippi both on our own and with Washington Post Capitol Hill correspondent Robert Costa (special Ricochet Podcast shout- out to Ricochet member Crabby Appleton 2.0!). Then, we go across the sea for a native opinion on what Russia is up to in Eastern Europe with the Hoover Institution’s Yuri Yarim-Agaev. Finally... Source

Activate program. More than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. Well I'm not a crook. I'll never tell a lie. But I am not a bully. I'm the king of the world! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. It's the Ricochet Podcast with Peter Robinson and Rob Long.

I'm James Lalix. Our guests are Bob Costa from the Washington Post talking about the Mississippi election and from the Hoover Institute, Yuri Yaremv, talking about Obama, Putin, America's place in the world. Let's have ourselves a podcast. Yes, everybody, this is the Ricochet Podcast, number 220. Two more and we'll be right back. for any title you want, 15% off. That's right, at EncounterBooks.com if you use the coupon code RICOSHAY when you check out. This week's featured title is Faithless Execution, Building the Political Case for Obama's Impeachment

by Andy McCarthy. And we're also brought to you by this incredible institution founded, well, almost simultaneously with the birth of the country, now celebrating its third century, Ricochet.com. And how does it keep going? Through sheer naked capitalism. And here's Rob Long to tell you exactly about that.

I like that. I think that's exactly right. Naked capitalism. If you are listening to this podcast and you are a Ricochet member, we are happy to have you with us once again. And we thank you for your membership and we're pleased and honored to be part of Ricochet with you. However, tens of thousands of people listen to this podcast and fewer than tens of thousands of people are members of Ricochet. If we could even – if half of the people who listen to this podcast signed up and became members of Ricochet, our horizons would be much, much sunnier. Here's what we need to do. If you like what you're hearing, if you like the other things that we're doing at Ricochet, the conversations between and among our contributors and members, you like our meetups, you like the other podcasts we do, you like the idea that it's a place for civil conversation on the web that is not too stuffy but also kind of fun, and you like the community we're building across the country, we want you to join. That will help support this podcast. That will help us grow.

That will help us even get more influential or get even more influential, I should say, in the corridors of power, which are important corridors for all of us. So go to Ricochet.com and please join. If you're listening and you enjoy it, know that we don't need everyone to join. We need half the people, and we want you to be part of that special half. Please do. That's right. And those important corridors of power, a place that Peter Robinson, of course, is known to have stored with confidence, arms swinging gently at his side. So, Peter, your thoughts on the matter here. Why people

should join Ricochet? If you could just backstop what Rob said. Because we need the money. Because we need the money. I'm not trying to get rich. Rob isn't trying to get rich. Lord knows nobody's trying to get rich on

this thing. We just need to, we are losing money more and more slowly each month, which makes us pretty good for the standards of Silicon Valley. Not so good by the standards of Silicon Valley and that nobody expects this company to be worth a billion dollars. But we need to keep it running and that means we need to cover expenses. It costs something to do the podcast. It costs something for the servers. And we have to hire about 3.8 people just to keep the thing running, and we need to cover those expenses. So if you like it, please join. Please join.

Join because it's fun. But join because you'll be helping to keep it up and running. And help us grow. Help us grow. And help us grow. Help us grow. There are those who say that we need the money was the reason that Thad Cochran

won in Mississippi. Poor state. He brings home the bacon. Lots of it. That could be one reason. But there was a bit of a fallout, shall we say, in the comments. Ricochet member Krabby Appleton. Great name. I believe Krabby Appleton 2.0. What was Krabby Appleton's

song? Get back, you better give away. Anyway, one hit wonder. Krabby Appleton wrote, when it comes to whatever tenuous faith in and respect for the Republican Party have had in the past, the Cochran victory in the Mississippi primary and the GOP's well-funded aggressive solicitation of Democrats to join in the vote against Cochran's primary challengers. The last straw. I have none left being the faith that was tenuous zero. I've long struggled to see any philosophical difference between the politicians of the Republican and the democratic parties.

Now I'm convinced there's also no moral difference between them. They are perfectly morally equivalent. Well, okay, let's, let's pick this apart. Is somebody required to lose nicely? And and B, can you look at at that Cochran's record and pick any Democrat and say that there's absolutely no difference between them whatsoever?

Because this idea that the parties is just a yin and yang, a diamond, you know, two sides of the same coin is nonsense. But yet it keeps coming up again and again and again. Well, it depends on which state you live in. I actually was in Jackson last weekend on another matter, as people say, and no one thought Cochran was going to win except me. I actually – I made a bet. I'm still waiting to collect. Mississippi is a machine state, both Democrat and Republican. And I'm not – I mean look.

Cochran has a pretty solid conservative record. He's been there too long. But that is true of many senators. I think there's a – it was an unusual event for Cochran to lose the initial race. In Mississippi, that doesn't happen. But it was not an earthquake. All these states are different and all these states are weird. And if you have an open primary, as Mississippi does, which I don't really think makes

any sense for Mississippi, but they tried it. They're entitled to try it. This kind of thing's going to happen. I think we spend too much time reading into the tea leaves of these really specific runs and cases and trying to nationalize every state election, statewide election. And I think it's a mistake, especially Mississippi, which is a very, very complicated,

very machine-run party state, both parties, by the way. Thad Cochran, who's now going to be in the Senate for six more years, will vote to bring – he will engage in as much dealmaking as he possibly can to bring home money to Mississippi. That is what you have to put against Thad Cochran. Question, would he be better than a Democrat? Oh, yes, much, much better than a Democrat. He will still caucus with his fellow Republicans, which means that if Republicans win the Senate, it will be because that, in part, one vote's worth because Thad Cochran is there.

He will vote against, this is peculiar to say, but it's true. Look at his record. He will vote against overall dramatic increases in the size of the federal budget. He will vote for strong defenses. He will vote against increases in expansions in wealth. He will be fundamentally conservative. What's that? So would McDaniel. So would McDaniel. Yes, but this person isn't saying I'm sick of the Republican Party because they did in the Tea Party. They're saying, I don't see any difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Furthermore, I am not so sure to tell you the honest truth that it's a bad thing that a Republican senator from the state

of Mississippi just got himself, well, he hasn't won the general, he will, but just got himself through the primary because he reached out to black voters. I don't think that's any bad thing. Well, you might say that reaching out to African-American Democrats in an election is a way of broadening the base. Isn't that what you're kind of supposed to do to win is to convince people from the other side that you are actually worth voting for? Especially in Mississippi. Mississippi has the highest proportion of African-Americans in its population of any state. It's a little over a third of the population is African-American.

And until Thad Cochran got himself into trouble and began campaigning among African-Americans, the Republican primary was taking place among the other two-thirds pretty much exclusively. I don't think that's too terribly healthy. By the way, Haley Barber, I've discussed this. In fact, I've discussed this with him on the record when Haley was running for reelection as governor. It pained him that the state was so polarized and that he knew perfectly well even if he did get reelected as governor, he might win about 5 percent of the African-American vote. Didn't like that. I don't like it either. It's also just – again, once again, it's a very complicated machine state.

So – and it's got three maybe – one statewide media market in Jackson. But it's smothered in there with New Orleans and Memphis of the North. You want to win, it's shoe leather. It's shoe leather and it's machine and it's who you got on your organization and if you sleep and you sleep a little late one day, you lose. Cochran just kind of fumbled the ball in the primary, but it was an unlikely event that an incumbent would lose a primary challenge, an unlikely event that a Republican incumbent who brings $4 back for every $1 – which by the way, any Mississippi representative in DC is going to do. I don't care whether he's flying a Tea Party flag or a Libertarian Party flag.

You want to win and you want to stay in office in Mississippi. You've got to bring $4 back for every $1 they send, which is what happens there. I mean we may not like it, but that's the way the system works. So it was unlikely that Cochran was going to lose and I can sort of say that because I – By the way, I – you may have thought Cochran was going to win. I have to say I did not. Just for the record, I was wrong. I don't know quite why I take such pleasure.

I don't take pleasure. I do. I just feel as though I should say you were right and I was wrong. That's the last time in this podcast you'll ever hear that. I can say proudly I was in Jackson, Mississippi last weekend. But of course, not for this. So I can't – OK.

OK. Stop being – I was there for a board meeting. But I was the Southern Foodways Alliance. The Southern Foodways Alliance, which is what exactly? Foodways Alliance. It sounds like a trucker's association for sending barbecue ribs across the country. It's to document and celebrate the food ways of the American South. And I'll bet that when he goes down South that Rob does the Hillary business where all

of a sudden he starts to speak in a drawl. Yeah, I'll know that's true. And when people say, you know, what was the name again? Rob Long. He says, that's right, but you can just call me Huey. And then everyone's going to smile. You really call me Chester. He really is truly a man of the people that Huey Rob Long, you know, and if that means

nothing to you, there are several biographies available about Huey Long on Audible, as a matter of fact. You can go there right now. They're either ones that are going to be fictionalized, sort of dramatic versions, or you can learn exactly the nuts and bolts that created one of the most influential and charismatic southern politicians of his day. So if you want to

understand southern politics today and why it's a little bit different than those of us in the north may experience, this might be a good place to start and it's free it's free if you wish that's right at audiblepodcast.com slash ricochet audiblepodcast.com slash ricochet you can get this or any other of a hundred thousand titles and i know they got more than a hundred thousand too and it's fiction it's non-fiction it's whatever and because of the genius of whisper sync technology you can pick it up at one device, leave it down, pick it up at another and never lose your place. And this is the point, of course, where we ask our podcast founders to describe what they're

reading. My guess is that for Peter, it will be chapter or book number 137 of the Master and Commander series, which takes place now in an alternate dimension where it's vaguely Roman and they're wearing skirts. And for Rob, it may be some fascinating little mystery from another country that you've never heard of. Peter, you first. Como ganar amigos e influir sobre las personas. Oh, you did that last week. Last week you did that too with a magnificent Spanish.

Now stop that. No, no. This is son number two you did that too with a magnificent Spanish. Now stop that. No, no. This is son number two is still trying to learn Spanish. Listen to this now. See if you can get it. You'll be able to work it out, I bet. Como ganar amigos y influir sobre las personas by Dale Carnegie. Oh, how to win friends and influence people.

Isn't that great? El Código da Vinci. The Da Vinci Code. Exactly. So we're having a little bit of fun, we Robinsons, this summer by taking popular books, books that are frankly where the pros is.

You wouldn't want to listen to Henry James translated into Spanish, but Dan Brown. Exactly. So anyway, if you've got a kid in your family to Henry James translated into Spanish, but Dan Brown – Or English, yeah. Exactly. So anyway, if you've got a kid in your family who's trying to learn Spanish, you could give it a try. Download sort of a popular but simple book in Spanish and off they go. Huh. What a great idea. Rob, what language are you working on this week?

Well, only English, although I had a tweet conversation this week with a friend of mine, not a friend of mine, someone who follows me on Twitter who's from Holland and I was trying out my old Dutch. I didn't really do a very good job of it. I am reading Midnight at the Pera Palace, which is a great book and it's about sort of Istanbul, turn of the century Istanbul and it's sort of one shining moment in the sun it's really interesting that's non-fiction non-fiction non-fiction hmm of course we have we have to take their word for it with these non-fiction books but there you go two great picks go and get them or anything you want at audible.com audiblepodcast.com slash ricochet

audiblepodcast.com slash ricochet for your free 30-day trial and free book now we spin around and go to bob costa yeah need to tell you who bob is bob is bob the costa and now he's with the post and we ask him first of all welcome back to the podcast sir it's great to join you uh and secondly we've got a question from a member that you can probably uh field it seems that more republicans voted for McDaniel down there, and Cochran won with Democrats. What sort of trend, reason, meaning, lesson can we tease out of this that probably has no application to anything, but we've got to face it?

Well, first, I'm wary of confirming that because Mississippi has open registration. They don't do registration by party. I think certainly a lot of Democrats turned out for that, Cochran. But at the same time, we're really just not sure. But I think Cochran did reach out to Democrats. He had a big government message. And I think the lesson is that even in some of these red states, there's still some appeal to some of these Democrats, independents, and Republicans to have a pork barrel or in the Senate bringing back money. Right. Hey, Bob, it's Rob Long in LA. I was following you on Twitter and other places, and you were in Mississippi. I was in Mississippi for a week earlier in June and then for a week

this past week. So where were you? Were you in Jackson – one thing I've learned, Rob, is Mississippi is one of the biggest freaking states. It is. It is. It's deceiving on the map. I mean you think it's, oh, just this little thing. It's probably seven hours from Corinth in the top and over by Memphis. I almost went over to Memphis, and then you go all the way down to the Gulf. So I was everywhere. Okay. So were you surprised? Here's why I said it because I was in Jackson last weekend, and I was talking to a lot of different people, and I was not surprised that Cochran won, although it was just my sense of it.

I know I feel like one of those reporters who talks to a cab driver and says, let me give you the sense of the town, but were you surprised? I was surprised because I thought that whenever I saw McDaniel, it wasn't overwhelming Tea Party energy, but he certainly had a lot of it behind him. And Cochran, I mean he was a tired campaigner. He was someone who was barely audible most of the time. This was not a dynamic campaign. But I think McDaniel, for all his momentum, he did have a lot of controversy swirling around him. And the biggest thing I noticed when I went there earlier this month, right after that first round of balloting, was that he wasn't prepared for a runoff.

He had a lot of outside support, but he didn't have a game plan for this three-week runoff. Got it. Hey, Bob, it's Peter Robinson here. So we know some Democrats – you're not going to confirm that Cochran won with Democratic support because you just don't know. Hard to confirm in a state where there's no registration. A lot of Democrats voted for him. Do they stick with him in the general? Oh, yes.

I did speak to some Democrats at the polls on Tuesday. And this idea that Travis Childers, the former Democratic congressman, has a shot at beating Cochran. It's just not going to happen. Why would they trade – if they are so obsessed and like the idea of having a senior appropriator in Washington on the Democratic side, they're not going to put in a rookie. That's part of the reason they didn't of questions. One is Tea Party hasn't won any – hasn't toppled, let's put it this way, any incumbents. On the other hand, you've got Ted Cruz backing 20 people in the Texas primary and 19 out of 20 of his candidates won. So what does that mean? Does that mean that the party as a whole has done a pretty good job of responding to the Tea Party? I think so. I think it's been kind of a mixed year though, right? I mean the Tea Party itself seemed to be surprised by its own Tea Party victory against Cantor. But I think in a lot of these Senate races, you're having the Tea Party – they have energy on the ground. They have a pretty decent organization. But Matt Bevin, a flawed candidate against Mitch McConnell.

Chris McDaniel, a flawed candidate against Thad Cochran. There's the national apparatus that's really gunning for these candidates on the ground. But when it comes to the candidates themselves, I think they're limited, and that's been a big problem for the Tea Party. Arkansas, how's Tom Cotton doing against incumbent David Pryor right now? It's a great question. The thing about Cotton, I just keep talking to my Arkansas sources, and they said Cotton has all the national conservatives behind him, the national Republicans behind him. But the one stumbling block Cotton seems to have is his own campaign skills. He's a good speaker.

He's articulate. He's well-educated. But when it comes to connecting with voters, there's a sense that Pryor has more of that Clinton style. He's a low-key guy, but big family name in Arkansas, a lot of money behind him, and he's a good campaigner. He's been doing it for decades. There's a sense that Pryor's not out of it yet. And I think Cotton has to sharpen his skills. He's only a first-term congressman. This is his first statewide run. So I think there's a lot of expectations on his shoulders, but no one's really sure how this is going to play out.

Got it. Okay. Before I let Rob back in, I want to get all my questions in here for you, Bob. So over to the House of Representatives. IRS hearings, of course, the commissioner of the IRS has been called up for hearings in the Senate as well, but all the heat is over in the House. You've got Trey Gowdy going after him. You've got Paul Ryan going after him. And then yesterday, we get the news that Speaker Boehner is accepting a rather novel interpretation of the Constitution under which Congress has standing to sue the president of the United States for dereliction in failing to enforce laws as he is sworn to do. So Obama has – the statistic I read was that he has unilaterally made 38 changes in Obamacare, for example. You can't do that under the Constitution until I – as far as I was aware, up until yesterday, everybody believed, yeah, you can't do that under

the Constitution, but Congress has no standing to sue. They're going to sue anyway. So the question is, is Obamacare still enough of an issue to carry Republicans into November, or will some of these other issues supplant that in the public mind, or are they just grasping at straws two things one the politics of bainer's lawsuit is very interesting because everyone who thought john bainer is going to retire you got to look at this lawsuit in the way he's talking about it the arrogance and incompetence of the administration this is a speaker who's looking to run again for the gavel he's not going to leave he's trying to shore up his support on the right two i think your your your point about messaging is spot on. A lot of Republicans internally say polling on Obamacare is some kind of wave to carry them to November. Not enough. We've seen them focus on Benghazi oversight. We're

now seeing Boehner focus on executive orders. This is part of the growing Republican argument that's going to be bigger than Obamacare, that it's about oversight. It's about an administration gone amok,ok perhaps on regulations. Hey, so Bob, I got a question. Today the Supreme Court unanimously struck down – or I don't know if it's unanimous now anymore. It struck down the executive appointment. So Barack Obama made some recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. The Supreme Court said that was unconstitutional in this sort of weird twist where the Supreme Court stepped in to protect the Senate from a former senator's overreach. What happens now? Do all of the decisions they made, are they all vacated now?

Are they all just – they have to redo it or those guys have to go home? It's a complicated ruling. It was narrowly done, and it was unanimous in his judgment that Noel Canning, this guy who challenged the vacancies on the NLRB, was going to get what he wanted. I think the court did affirm that the president is allowed to fill vacancies during these breaks, but it's just a question of how he did it. And what a break is, right? Exactly. And what defines a break, yeah. Right.

And I think this question about what is recess appointment power is going to continue. But I think the president has this – it's going to hurt him at least politically because it gives more fodder and fuel for the Republican case. And it becomes part of that same narrative of a president sort of overstepping and throwing his weight around, being arrogant, arrogantly – arrogant abuse of power. Do you have any preview on Monday's – the really big ruling coming I think on Monday is the Hobby Lobby case, which is the Obamacare contraception mandate. Any idea how that will go? I'm not really sure. I mean it is maybe, though, going to insert religious freedom into this midterm season in a way that we just haven't been talking about it at all. And I think this is going to be – regardless of how it goes, I think Republicans can pick up on it as a part of their critique against Obamacare. But it's hard to predict the court. But it's interesting how they're going to do these consolidation of cases on Hobby Lobby

versus Sebelius and Conestoga versus Sebelius. And see, if the government gets fines for threatening these family businesses, for violating their religious beliefs, I mean Republicans are going to have a social side of their argument that they haven't been using really. Right. And Chief Justice John Roberts is supposed to be writing that opinion. So they recognize that it's a big one. Exactly. Hey, Bob, Peter here once again. I'll go back to, this may well have been before you were born, my friend, Bob. But during Iran-Contra, when I was in the Reagan White House, and what it's like to be – Dinosaurs roam the earth. Exactly.

That was a long time ago. Exactly. Thud, thud, thud. It's another brontosaurus on the way. But I remember what it felt like to be in the White House, and even more so, this is my question to you, what it felt like to be in Washington when it looked as though the President of the United States was on the ropes. Charlie Cook of the National Journal, it's Charlie Cook, isn't it? Yeah, Charlie Cook of the National Journal wrote a piece earlier this week in which he said, just as it did with George W. Bush, the country has stopped listening to Barack Obama. They have turned him off.

Foreign affairs, we've got Putin moving into Eastern Europe, ISIS moving in, marching toward Baghdad, Iran rising in this country. The poll rating suggests that his approval has sunk almost to George W. Bush-like levels. You just get the feeling, at least you do if you're on this side of the political equation, reading the blogs that I read and talking to the people that I talk to, that Barack Obama is just somehow sort of through. Is that what it feels like in Washington? It does to a certain extent. I mean, it's sometimes I have to step back and remember that there are more than two years left in this administration, yet it seems everyone's leaving. It seems like all the cabinet positions that people are vacating them. I think when you're on Capitol Hill, the biggest indicator of what you're talking about,

Peter, is when you talk to House Democrats, and there's just no one running on being a President Obama ally. No one's running on Obama's message. They've almost taken the word Obama out of everything they say and it's about working families and generic stuff like that. The Obama magic seems to have just fizzled. Well, Bob, that's what I sense from out here. The question is, has the magic sizzled within the breast of the POTUS himself? People have talked about how he seems disengaged.

He'd rather golf. Yeah, it's a hard job. And the last few years might not be as exciting as the first few. But the nation and the world can't afford a president who's checked out. Is part of this thing, the mood that you're feeling there, is the sense that the president himself is disengaged and bored with the Obama presidency. I mean, after all, the world has failed him. The American people have failed him. Israel has failed him.

Our allies have failed him. The Middle East has failed him. Everybody has failed to live up to the lofty expectations that he set for them. And that's got to be hard on a guy. So does he still seem connected or is it just golfing and fundraising from here on out? I think – I've been covering Congress, this Congress, for about five years. And one thing I just – it's such a stark contrast between now and 2009, 2010 when Democrats controlled all the chambers. And there you felt like the president was getting a lot done.

There was a ton happening. But ever since January 2011 when Republicans took over the House, really nothing has happened in terms of major legislation, immigration, fiscal deals. Everything has fallen to the side. And of course the president blames House Republicans. House Republicans blame the president. But we're seeing a president who really for the last few years has not done anything major, sweeping, bipartisan. And I think that is really the sense of things now. Moving ahead, there's no even immigration reform, for example. A lot of advocates keep trying to make it happen on Capitol Hill, but Republicans don't feel like they can deal with this president and make any kind of deal that would appeal to the conservatives as well as some Democrats. And so we're really just at this continued standstill. That's why Republicans are focusing on oversight. There's really no legislation to be done. And the

president turns to executive orders. It's an odd moment in Washington. And it's one where the president does at times seem out of it, out of the political fray, out of the day-to-day legislation. So on immigration, Peter here, Cantor loses. We know that Paul Ryan was still pressing. Is immigration just dead for this session? It is. I mean – excuse me. Sorry about that. Immigration is dead because Cantor was – its only real major force in the House behind it was Eric Cantor.

Eric Cantor didn't want to do anything comprehensive, but he was doing this Republican version of the DREAM Act. And we've already seen Kevin McCarthy, who does come from a district in California, Bakersfield, that has a lot of immigrants and immigrant community. But he doesn't have the motivation, and he also doesn't have the political capital. He just got into this majority leader position. He's not going to want to move. And you see with Boehner suing the president, as Boehner sues the president and the administration for executive orders, it's not exactly the right time for him to then try to do this center-right deal on immigration. So I think a lot of the hopes that come from the left and the center-left about immigration are really just that. They're hopes that are fueled by people like Luis Gutierrez and others, but the political reality is it is dead, at least

from the mouths of lawmakers here in Washington. Got it. It's all over. And from your mouth to the Ricochet listeners' ears. Thanks, Bob, for coming by. Next time we have you on, I want to talk about what it's like to be working for a newspaper that I believe is about to leave its historic gold location for a new one, right?

Aren't you selling the building and getting out? You know what? Everyone cherishes this building, this Washington Post building, and it is cool. It looks exactly like it does inside during the Woodward and Bernstein years like it did in all the presidents' men. It's almost spooky. Same herbs, still the same carpet, I understand. There's also a lot of mice inside, and it's a little dank. So it's a beautiful place, but I'm looking forward to the new building just for me.

Yeah, when I was there, I remember jumping up and down on the carpet and the cigarette ash would just envelop you. It was an astonishing place. Thanks a lot for coming by, Bob. We'll see you again down the road on the Ricochet Podcast. Bob, thank you. Thanks, Bob. Enjoy that sweltering, miserable D.C. summer. Soupy

though it is. Man, I remember, I don't know why anybody would want to be there during that time. But then again, that's August, isn't it? That's July and august when nothing really happens uh at all except this lawsuit that baylor was talking about and apparently i don't know if anybody you saw it neil cavuto took apart michelle bachman i hate to say destroys because that's what you always hear on msnbc watch step Stephen Colbert destroy Ted Cruz. I hate that word. Apparently, he argued strenuously with the devotion of resources.

And, you know, you kind of get the point. Either leave it alone or impeach, and nobody's going to impeach, even though there's a case to be made. And the guy who made it, actually, is Andy McCarthy. And that's why Encounter Books would like you to read his new book, Faithless Execution, Building the Political Case for Obama's Impeachment. That's my dog barking in admiration of that segment. My dog is too hot to bark at the moment. From the Bracey's, as Faithless Execution will demonstrate, it's a straightforward matter to plead articles of impeachment derived from these episodes of the president's maladventures, shall we say, to establish high crimes and misdemeanors.

It's a term of art borrowed from English law signifying maladministration and abuses of power by holders of high public trust. To focus on the individual episodes, though, is to miss the overarching offense, and that's the president's willful violation of a solemn constitutional oath to faithfully execute the laws, such as the example of the Supreme Court slapping down several overreaches this morning. Anyway, the modus operandi for the transformation he promised is to concentrate power into his own hands by flouting the law and not lobbying the Constitution, statues, judicial rulings, you name it, and essentially daring the coordinate branches of government to stop him, which they're starting to do. But yet, as I'm saying here on my own behalf, lawsuits and Supreme Court decisions are not the same as the galvanic and polarizing action of impeachment. So if you want to see the case made, Andy builds it in faithless execution. 15% off this or any other title at EncounterBooks.com if you use the coupon code RICOCHET at your checkout. And we thank EncounterBooks as ever for sponsoring the ricochet podcast you know while we were talking here my email bings and pongs and i'm sure you guys see emails that you get as well

uh i i was a bit taken aback to see at amazon two things one amazon is uh selling uh school list items for back to school it It can go straight to hell. And the other is apparently because I bought some kitchen implement for my wife, I am not on the list for all these others. And the company apparently – You may also enjoy – Right. People who bought this chopping block, this butcher block also bought these large – this

one is my favorite though. It's from a company called Progressive International. It's not enough to have progressive – Two things I love. Together. Finally together. It's peanut butter and chocolate. So I'm looking at the Progressive International H-84 Greater.

Now, if H8 is hate, this is the Progressive International Hate 4 Greater. And I love it. I almost want to buy it until I realize I already did. I will only share this story, which is that I in an attempt, which was successful, to get my good cholesterol, but my triglycerides

were a little high. To get them down, I took I take metamucil capsules two in the morning and two in the evening. Not for any digestive thing. You take two of them and it totally brings it down. But I buy them

from Amazon. You can only imagine the suggested products. I know. Half off on Depends, that sort of thing? It's considerably worse. Oh, I know.

I bought an S&M gag ball, and I'm telling you, the books alone are just astonishing. Well, the one thing that they don't offer me on Amazon is because I haven't bought major appliances there yet, but I'm waiting for the day when I do. I was looking the other day at vacuum cleaners, believe it or not, and I found that Hoover actually makes a satellite vacuum cleaner. I think it's called the Constellation or something like that, that they made back in the 50s. It looks like Sputnik. It's absolutely beautiful. And there ought to be some place where you can study exactly the history of vacuum cleaners. And you might call it – well, you can study exactly the history of vacuum cleaners. And you might call it,

well, you can't call it the Hoover Institution. Speaking of which, we have... Get the dog to bark again, Rob. Not for that one. At that fine establishment, a scientist and human rights activist, a visiting fellow at the very moment, is our next guest on the Ricochet podcast, Yuri

Yaryam-Ageyev. Yuri, this is Peter Robinson. James Lilacs, in introducing you, just introduced you as a fellow at the Hoover Institution. I want to give a little bit more of the back story. As a young man, Yuri was a brilliant physicist. He's still a brilliant physicist now, but what I mean, he became known as a brilliant physicist as a very young man and became a dissident working with the likes of Andrei Sakharov. In 1980, when the KGB was cleaning up the Soviet Union to get ready for the 1980 Summer Olympics,

they picked up Yuri in Moscow and gave him 30 days to get out of the country. So Yuri is one of those people who in my place holds a special position in world politics. He has paid for his beliefs. Yuri, you have family in Donetsk in eastern Ukraine. What's happening? Well, I have my brother. My immediate family is here. My wife and my son live with me in the United States for all those years, but I

have my brother, his wife and nephews, and I talk with them every second day. Well, what happens in their everyday life deteriorates with every day. It's quite dangerous to walk

even in the center of the city. There are some armed men walking with Kalashnikovs all around, and you never know what they could do with you. They see scars from private citizens and definitely never return them. Well, the food is still there, but they have a shortage of water all around the Donetsk region because so-called separatists or terrorists blew the main channel of fresh water with supplies of water to all major cities in the Donetsk region, and those are very large industrial cities. Donetsk is over 1 million people. So they have warned that the water supply may last maybe not more than 10, 12 days. So that's about everyday life there. Yuri, what do the Russians want? Do they want to annex eastern Ukraine the way they annexed Crimea?

Or is Putin simply trying to make a point and somehow make Ukraine crawl, recognize Russian hegemony? What does he want there? Yuriy Shumov Tepesov Well, he definitely never wanted to annex eastern Ukraine. Actually, it would be against his plan. What he wanted from the very beginning, I mean, his main reason of all his action was revolution. Ukrainian people, independent revolution, grassroots people movement, and

which he as a KGB officer and his crowd cannot stand, and they act instinctively and politically they had to suppress this revolution by all means. So instead of those independent people they needed the government in Ukraine which they could control. Now eastern Ukraine to them would be the major pressure point to control politics of the whole Ukraine. So they were not interested in annexing it, because had they annexed the eastern part of the Ukraine, they would completely lose control over the rest of Ukraine, which would only consolidate and completely get away under Putin's control. So they wanted eastern Ukraine to stay part of the whole Ukraine,

but where they would have real great influence and through this eastern part influence on – influence the politics of the whole country. That was his initial plan. So one more before Rob Long comes in. What does Putin want generally, Yuri? Does he just want to extend Russian hegemony so that it overlaps with the borders of the old Soviet Union? That is to say he wants hegemony over Ukraine. He doesn't want to annex it. He just wants to be in control. The Baltic states, are they going to remain free? Does he have designs on the Baltic states? Or is he happy? Is he simply trying to shore up his position in Russia?

Well, it's difficult to say. I don't think it can be formulated in such precise terms. What he wants to do, he wants to restore the former glory of the Soviet Union in all its capacities. And, I mean, one of it was, as we call it, internal empire, which included 15 republics, which, by the way, included Baltic republics. Another part was external empire, and the third part was global influence. So, I mean, I don't think there is absolute design in terms of piece by piece to replicate everything. But overall, his aspirations are in all those directions, and we can see that, for example, in the third direction of global influence, he made some very noticeable step recently with Iran, Syria, and other countries. So that's his overall plan to try to expand his influence in all those three directions. Hey, it's Rob Long in Los Angeles. Thanks for being here. Putin, whatever his ultimate and specific designs are, we know he's consolidating and expanding his power.

Why should Americans care? I mean if you ask Americans now, they're sort of exhausted with overseas intrigue and overseas influence and wars and threats and red lines and things like that. What's in it? What's the American interest here in what happens in Ukraine? Well, American interest is that, let's say it simply, anti-Americanism is one of key element of Putin's overall strategy. And it's important for him in his domestic policy as well. His popularity pretty much is based on his anti-American stance. So he would pursue anti-Americanism in all possible forms, which wouldn't mean direct maybe threat to our national security,

but which would definitely mean that he would try to spoil American situation in whatever means he can. For example, if you take all global involvement of the United States, would it be Iran, Syria, Iraq, North Korea, mind you, Putin actually acts against us in all those points and makes our life much more difficult. I mean, as long as we have any foreign policy, he requires us to spend more resources, while actually American lives are lost in some areas like Iraq and Afghanistan. And mind you that Putin doesn't help us and makes it more difficult.

So as long as we don't isolate ourselves completely from the whole world, and I don't think that we are planning to do that, then we would feel it every moment and every part of the globe where we are present now. So the more his power and expansion is, the more we would feel it. So that's one of the reasons for us to be concerned about it. James Lilacs here in Minneapolis. Given that the President of the United States doesn't listen much to his advisors because he's smarter than them, essentially,

if you were an advisor to the president, how would you advise President Obama to handle Putin? What would you tell him is the wise strategy to pursue? Well, before getting to any specific advices, you need to determine context in which you operate. And I believe that's the main problem with Obama's foreign policy.

Well, the first step in foreign policy is to know who are your friends and who are your enemies, or at least force. Now, Russia was mistook all this time as our ally and even friend. At the same moment, Russia would never consider America, at least Putin's Russia, considered America as its friend. Actually, it's considered as its major enemy, and it continues its ideological war against, let's say, Western world and the United States in the first place. And until we recognize that reality, until we recognize that we are dealing with four rather than allies, all other specific advices do not make sense

because you act completely differently with respect to your friend and with respect to your foe. So we haven't yet over this first step of recognition of the reality, which precedes every more specific actions, you know, which are required after that. Well, given the recent Polish officials' remarks about exactly what an American alliance is worth, you get the sense that many countries have soured on America as a friend. I'd like to think that that's not irreparable, that actually a lot of the antipathy that people feel is directed toward the administration and not toward the nation itself.

Is there enough residual goodwill in the East, in the Baltics, even in Ukraine, to welcome America back once we have a change of leadership, a different hand at the wheel? Are they waiting for us to come back, in other words? Oh, absolutely. Actually, I mean, in Ukraine and Baltics and Eastern Europe in general, you have the most devoted friend of America. And even now, although they feel that America somehow doesn't support them properly, that it is weak, all those countries would be more than happy to see America stronger, more determined, with more clear and defined international policy. And as I say, you have friends even now with the current government and the lack of foreign policy. And the stronger and more determined America becomes, the closer friends all those countries would be.

Hey, Yuri, Peter here once again. Hi, Peter. You said a moment ago it does no good to offer specific counsel until you understand the context. And the context is that Russia views us as its principal enemy. But Russia has some of the same problems we have. They have a rising China to contend with. Along the entire southern tier of Russia, they've got a kind of rising

energy and anti-Western Islam to deal with. Why on earth when we share the same civilization, the same Western fundamentally Judeo-Christian civilization, and when we face some of the same strategic challenges, why on earth should the Russians view us as their enemies?

Well, we have the same civilization and Judeo-Christian civilization and culture as people maybe, but the current government, Putin's government Russia, doesn't share those values. Let's be clear. I mean, the gang of people who is in charge for last years is the former KGB clan, who still was brought up in the Soviet mold. And no, they are not our allies in terms of ideas and values. That's very important to understand. And their mindset is still the Soviet mindset of KGB officers, to whom the main enemy is imperialism rather than Muslim religion, Islam,

or whatever other problems exist. Now, they feel much more close to China, as you see, and if you take all votes in the United Nations, in security council of the United Nations, it's virtually given that Russia and China almost always vote together, and they almost always vote against America and Britain. So that's a fact, right? So effectively, I'm not talking about whether there are party memberships that they're signing up for.

Effectively, they're still part of some sort of sense of worldwide communism. Is that right? Communism is still an animating force to these people? Yeah, absolutely. Yes, it is possible because they were brought up. Look, they were brainwashed. Look, in that idea, for all the formation years, they ganged together and kind of self-support the same mindset. Look, communism is not a ruling system in the Soviet Union any longer, but it doesn't mean that it's fully eradicated there.

Unfortunately, it stays there in some structures which are left from the Soviet Union, which is KGB, which hasn't changed a bit since the Soviet communism collapsed. And more important, it's still in the brains and the minds of many people, and particularly in those people who rule the country now. Not that they are communist fanatics, but simply some basic ideas and animosity, for example, to freedom, human rights, free enterprise, is in the hands of those people. And if you follow Putin's comments all through his leadership, you will find it very clear. For example, in the period of financial crisis, global financial crisis, if you heard at this moment Putin's comment, it would be classical Marxist comments which would say that this is a crisis of capitalism, it's inevitable, and we wouldn't have such

crisis because we still are different. Meaning different what? Meaning that there are more socialists in communist countries than the United States and the West. So yes, we have to take into account that fact, which is very important in understanding who is for and who is enemy, and to develop very specific policy toward Russia.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you indeed, Yuri Yaryam Agayev. Thank you. It's been a pleasure talking to you, and we hope to have you on the podcast on the road. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Take care, Yuri.ev. Sam, thank you. It's been a pleasure talking to you, and we hope to have you on the podcast on the road. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much.

Take care, Yuri. See you soon. Thank you. You know, the thing about Russia is, of course, is that they're held aloft by their energy, which we can produce more of, and their population and their demographic is cratering. So, you know, there's two F-words. One of them is fracking that we can use to essentially – Yeah.

And I'd love for a president to run on that. Yeah, a president to run on energy security. As a national security issue and domestic energy resources, we could produce everybody. Let's take a look at Colorado, right? We've got a governor's race coming up there, and the current governor, I believe – correct me if I'm wrong – has been on the side of the green saying we can't frack we can't we can't we can't you've got another in the in this day and age when you have somebody who comes along and points to north dakota and points to texas and says are we nuts can't we why give me a reason why we can't be like these guys i think that resonates with the with the electorate and the middle. I think enough people remember what it's like to have guys like the Soviets or the Saudis with their hands on the short hairs and the nape of your if you ride alone, you're riding with Hitler or you're riding with Mussolini because the idea was that you're wasting gas and you need to conserve because the boys overseas are fighting.

It's pretty effective stuff, and it's almost like now. Like if you're buying gas that is not part of – and we're not producing enough. I mean obviously there's a giant worldwide market, but it would reduce the hegemony of those countries. You are giving money to terrorists, which is actually true. Which is true. Did you guys – go ahead, Rob. No, I was just going to say. So there's also a technological argument, and I think the people are ready to hear that we're not talking about – the only people talking about 1970s-style industry and 1970s style bureaucracy are the democrats is obama

everybody else has got a tiny little computer in their pocket that's more powerful than the one that landed a man on the moon and did you see did you see this i'm sorry i'm now i can't contain myself no i know you stories there was a story a couple days ago as best i can recall only the wall street journal picked it up and placed it on the front page or a front page of an inside section. Quietly, almost as if it was embarrassed to do so, the Obama administration changed a couple of regulations making it possible for the United States to export oil for the first time since the 1970s. Now, here is what Barack Obama should have done. He should have caused that change in regulation to take place in the Rose Garden. He should have talked about the brilliant American technological breakthrough that has enabled us to become the world's leading producer of natural gas, that has enabled us to

become an oil exporting nation. He should have talked about our ability within a very few years to become totally energy independent, a goal first enunciated by Richard Nixon and finally, finally within our grasp. But of all the nations that signed the Kyoto Protocol, only one has actually reduced its CO2 emissions significantly. Even though we did not ratify the protocol, the Senate refused to do so. The United States of America, because of the shift from coal and gas over to natural gasoline, that is coal and oil over to natural gas our air is cleaner than we're reducing co2 emissions more than anybody and instead of taking all of that and trumpeting it they say to each other well now how can we sneak this out quite we don't want anybody to know we're going to let them export oil because it's unbelievable bananas well i mean it's unbelievable and and you know it's it's one of those things that I feel like Republicans are behind the country. The country is prepared to hear an argument and prepared to hear a thoughtful argument about harvesting energy resources in this country in a safe way, right?

In a way that's – we're not going to strip mine or cut off the top of a mountain anymore. These things can be done and they can be done safely and they can be done well and they can be done in a way that preserves the natural environment but also gives Americans some energy independence. And that I think is an argument that most Americans at this point would be willing to hear seeing as they're surrounded on all sides by all sorts of technological advancements. Instead, we still have this sort of retro 70s argument and we get dragged – we get dragged into their party of the old and i think it's a real mistake i expect him now to approve the keystone pipeline but actually say it's a

high-speed train tunnel that's just above it's just above the ground i mean that's a great point peter why didn't he trumpet this in the Rose Garden? Well, that's because – I mean, again, we have a fundamental refutation of a fundamental idea. The idea that I'm sure the president has had in the back of his mind since the Chum Gang is that if you give a billion dollars to a company and say, make me a solar panel the size of a playing card that will have the output of a nuclear reactor, they'll spit in their hands and say, we're going to get right to it, Boston. It's all – Because they're the party of science. Right. Science. All the things – the only thing required to get us off dirty, nasty, stinking, evil oil is just money and will.

That's all it is. That's all it takes. And fat guys around a boardroom saying, we're going to destroy this environment. All the cartoon villains they have from, frankly, from movies that they all watched in the 1970s. I think the Choom Gang reference is perfect because it does feel retro. It does feel like those old anti-corporate movies, the China Syndrome and all that stuff. Oh, don't get me started. I'm sorry.

I didn't mean to. I remember that movie and I actually watched it a little while ago. And there's a moment in that movie where Wilford Brimley – Wait. Before we go forward, we should just announce to people who are under 79 that this is a movie in the 70s that made a – it was a very, very popular picture. And it was Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon and I'm sure Hal Holbrook played some kind of evil character in there too. And the movie was about how unsafe nuclear power is and it had the luck or the – I don't know. It was unbelievable.

Great fortune. That's right. Of being released a few months before the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant disaster. Exactly. So if you're under 79 and you're not spending time in the day room covered in blankets, that's a little background. Go ahead. From that movie, people concluded and I think quite logically that the entire nuclear power industry should be shut down because according to the movie, there was some brace on some piece of equipment that was shimmying like a 16-year-old full of Red Bull. It's going to explode and we're going to melt in China.

Right. And obviously the real world analogs are everywhere, and so this is completely unsafe. But there was a point in that where I think it was Jack Lemmon who was in the control room where he'd shut the doors and I can't remember what nonsense they ginned up for the end of it but he says those magic words he said that there was a cover-up and michael michael douglas that you know the wild-haired iconoclastic filmmaker shakes his fist yes that word had been spoken that

wonderful magic word cover-up conspiracy that that-up conspiracy that flowed through every great 70s film at the time because that's what the world really was, was a series of institutional cover-ups over truths. And that once we invented and got enough Democrats into office, all of the libs would be off and there wouldn't be any cover-ups or conspiracies anymore at all. It would be nothing but transparency and sunshine and the rest of it. And from that, people concluded that nuclear power isn't safe. So what do we have now? Well, we have the institutional deep state, which is Democrat through and through as example – as evidenced by the VA and the IRS.

And we have what would be in those 70s era an almost perfect example of a movie where you're right, where Hal Holbrook or Cliff Robertson or somebody back there is using the devious levels of federal power to investigate political opponents. And it would be a movie. It would be a miniseries. Dare I say it might even be something that animated Democrats to seek articles of the I word. And yet and yet the IRS scandal is not exactly front page stuff yet. Let me ask you guys. Do you think, as somebody pointed out I think on Hot Air, that the events are actually moving too fast and too many of them for the press to ignore as I'm sure it would like to? Peter? Oh, the mainstream press. Well, that's hard to say. The mainstream press – this much is true.

The mainstream press will ignore it. The New York Times is just not going to pay any attention at all. The question is how much of the mainstream press is there left? And to me, the real sort of the test here is Politico will be all over it. Will Jeff Bezos' New Washington Post begin to write about it? And will that, because if that's the case, then that will isolate ABC News with Diane Sawyer, which would rather talk about Oprah's latest Zen saying on cups at Starbucks. She quit. She quit. But the man – anyway, ABC News and The New York Times will be all that's left. Right.

All that's left. Well, I mean here's – ordinarily, temperamentally, I'm against all congressional hearing grandstanding and always kind of eye-rolling. Let me ask you, sir, all that stuff. I'm not a fan of it. I don't think it does – I don't think it's effective. In this case though, I think this is a perfect example of why it's valuable because there's good TV coming out of it. You've got a pencil-necked evil villain in the face of the IRS commissioner who's there sort of smirking

and basically twirling, everything but twirling his mustache and lying essentially. Just everyone can see he's lying. And then you have a bunch of sort of young congressmen just tearing into him. And that is great television.

And if it's not great TV, it's great – their video – my Facebook feed was filled with clips of this. And so I think it's going to be hard as long as they keep pressing and the IRS keeps lying. So obviously I think it's going to be impossible for people to ignore. And it's a great issue because everybody hates the IRS anyway. And then you have these people arrogantly choosing who – how to audit and auditing groups that they don't like and the IRS commissioner is a partisan democrat. I mean it's really good stuff and one person is going to take it up and that person who takes it up is going to get all the ratings. Think about the casting, Rob. I mean in the old days, remember it was the republicans who just could not look cool to save their lives.

John Ehrlichman, Bob Haldeman with his crew cut and now this IRS commissioner? I know. I didn't – He could be in the China syndrome. He could be. Exactly. I didn't see him as the sort to twirl his mustache. I expected periodically for a long tongue to shoot out of his mouth and nail a fly somewhere.

He should be stroking a cat. I don't recall the exact date, Mr. Bond. That kind of thing. It was just completely – so I can only hope because the more good TV that comes out of it, I suspect it's just going to be this overwhelming pressure. And look, all we really need to do is to plant the seed. A lot of – considering how unpopular the president is, a lot of that is what Mickey Kaus calls the under news. And I think he's right that there's news that people see. What a great phrase. Yeah, it's a good – the kind of thing – you see a clip on your Facebook wall or on Twitter and you know you're not going to see it on MSNBC or CNN or CBS or ABC or NBC or The New York Times or Washington Post.

You're not going to see that. But it still happened. You can watch it. It still happened. And it's something that people talk about and it has a huge effect I think on the way people think about this president and this administration, I hope. Well, I just got an image of Mickey Kaus in his underoos. Yeah, well, there's that. So we're just going to leave it right there.

Well, at least he's not taking two capsules of Metamucil with a glass of water. I'm going to tell you something. Triglycerides plummeted. I mean, it is a genuine miracle cure. Okay, just as long as we can make an agreement right now that none of the three of us is going to start talking about prostate. Oy! Yeah, no. yeah no oh no absolutely not um because if ej doesn't have the worst possible out of this not bait i've i've i've i've got it right now i i see i see rob uh as some old wilford brimley type character pitching metamucil. I see Peter snapping on a white glove and we're out of here

right now. Hey, James, you're going to... Actually, I'm going to step away for a little while here. I've got some stuff to do. I have a book to get out. Dang it. I've got a novel that is just ready to go but a little tweak here and there

and so I'm looking for the middle of July for Casablanca Tango as it is now. That'll be fun. And it's going to cost money too. It'll be $3.99 and your dog already approves. My dog approving of the low price. I'll put the blurb in the back.

But $3.99, I wanted to put it at that price point to use a term I hate to use because that leaves people money over to give to Ricochet. And it's not giving in the charity sense. It's giving to get, right I hate to use because that leaves people money over to give to Ricochet and it's not giving in the charity sense. It's giving to get right. And to keep it coming. Right. So go to Ricochet where you probably are right now, join up, sign up and make sure that this podcast continues into the foreseeable future. And also don't forget, you can go to audiblepodcast.com slash Ricochet audiblepodcast.com slash Ricochet and start your free 30-day trial and once you start it

you'll be hooked and you'll be listening to books in your car as you run at the gym can't beat it we also think encounterbooks.com which sponsors the podcast 15% off any title if you use the coupon code Ricochet at your checkout and that includes Andy McCarthy's new book about the impeachment of that

president fellow there that about sums it up it's been great, folks. Thank you, Rob. Thank you, Peter. And we'll see everybody in the comments at Ricochet 2.0. Thanks, fellas. Take care, boys. Your days are numbered So unmerged Time is piling up

We struggle and we stray Where all boxed in Nowhere to escape City's just a jungle For games to play Trapped in the heart of it City's just a jungle for games to play. Trapped in the heart of it, trying to get away. I was raised in the country.

I've been working in the town. I've been in trouble ever since I set my suitcase down. Got nothing for you. I had nothing before. Don't even have anything for myself anymore. Sky full of fire. Paint on down. Nothing you can sell me I'll steal your blood

All my powers of expression I thought a source of blood Could never do you justice In reason or right Only one thing I did wrong Stayed in Mississippi a day too long Ricochet!

Join the conversation. Say anything you want to. I haven't heard it all. I was thinking about the things that. Roses there. I was dreaming I was sleeping in roses. Walking through the leaves. Falling from the trees Feeling like a stranger

Nobody sees So many things That we never will lose I know you're sorry I'm sorry too Some people will offer you the hand I know you're sorry, I'm sorry too Some people will offer you their hand and some won't That's the kind I'm through here tonight, I don't

I need something strong to distract my mind I'm gonna look at you till my eyes go black. When I got here following the southern star, I crossed that river just to be where you are. Only one thing I did wrong Stayed in Mississippi a day too long