David and Rich give listeners an intense debate over the FBI counterintelligence investigation of Trump on today’s exciting edition of The Editors. Charlie and Michael chime in to discuss Theresa May and the recent Brexit news, and all the editors talk about the ongoing government shutdown.

Editors’ picks:
• Rich: Jessica Hornik’s poem in the recent print issue.
• Charlie: Alexandra’s Corner post on “Are Democrats Testing a Future Strategy against Amy Coney Barrett?”.
• MBD: Rich Lowry, on the FBI overstepping its authority to investigate Trump.
• David: Jim Geraghty’s “20 Things” series about Democrat candidates.

  1.  Twenty Things You Probably Didn’t Know about Joe Biden
  2.  Twenty Things You Probably Didn’t Know about Kamala Harris
  3.  Twenty Things You Probably Didn’t Know About Bernie Sanders

Light items:
• Rich: Lenny Dykstra followed him on Twitter.
• Charlie: His one-year old’s face when he met Daisy Duck at Disney World.
• MBD: 1983, an alt-history television series on Netflix.
• David: Fox’s adaptation of “The Passage.”

The Editors is hosted by Rich Lowry and produced by Sarah Schutte.

You can access the full archive of The Editors at NationalReview.com/podcasts, where you can listen to four episodes per month for free, or get the entire back catalogue with an NR Plus membership. Visit NationalReview.com/subscribe for details.

Subscribe to The Editors in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

There are 10 comments.

  1. Barry Jones Thatcher

    French never addresses the fact that the agencies mentioned never briefed the Gang of Eight Intel committee people in the House and Senate. At the very least, that makes one wonder. French is also highly biased and it shows…he becomes almost idiotically wrapped around his own logic…i.e. Yes the President can investigate himself…yes it is a silly thought, but he can still do it. Oh my.

    • #1
    • January 17, 2019, at 1:20 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  2. Conrad Inactive

    If the President murders someone on solely federal land, who would indict him? How could they get around an argument that he was acting in a national security interest? And what if it really, truly was? Would a jury of 12 in a federal courthouse have the final say on whether or not the killing was in a national security interest?

    • #2
    • January 17, 2019, at 2:23 PM PDT
    • Like
  3. DonG Coolidge

    Barry Jones (View Comment):
    he agencies mentioned never briefed the Gang of Eight Intel committee people in the House and Senate.

    Comey lied to Congress by not fully briefing them. Comey lied to Trump by not fully briefing him. These crimes prove the ill intent of the FBI heads. 

    • #3
    • January 17, 2019, at 9:20 PM PDT
    • Like
  4. DonG Coolidge

    David “Strawman” French was suffering under peak Trump Derangement Syndrome. He was fabricating things faster as fast as he could move his mouth. His complete lack of knowledge of specifics and certainty of opinion are straight from Leftist circles. This podcast is usually good, but David “Strawman” French should never be allowed to speak on the topic of Trump, because he talks too much and says nothing sensible.

    • #4
    • January 17, 2019, at 9:25 PM PDT
    • Like
  5. George Townsend Member

    Moderator Note:

    Rude and over the top. David French is a public figure and we are allowed to have an opinion about him, up to and including the fact that we might not think he knows what he is talking about and that he ought to pipe down.

    DonG (View Comment):
    but David “Strawman” French should never be allowed to speak on the topic of Trump, because he talks too much and says nothing sensible.

    How dare you write such a thing! Not be allowed to speak? This is indefensible.

    [Redacted]

    • #5
    • January 18, 2019, at 3:06 AM PDT
    • Like
  6. George Townsend Member

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    DonG (View Comment):
    but David “Strawman” French should never be allowed to speak on the topic of Trump, because he talks too much and says nothing sensible.

    How dare you write such a thing! Not be allowed to speak? This is indefensible.

    [Redacted]

    David French is also a Ricochet contributor (I assume that because he does a Podcast here). whatever you think me, I am not the one being rude. It is DonG. He said that French should not be allowed to speak. He also insults him by calling him “Strawman”. Even if he were not a contributor, he does not deserve to be called names or censured. 

    • #6
    • January 18, 2019, at 6:52 AM PDT
    • Like
  7. Lazy_Millennial Member

    The President can be arrested by law enforcement officials. We know this, because it already happened, in 1872. President Ulysses S Grant was arrested for speeding in his carriage. Even at the time, however, the law enforcement officials were unsure if they could charge him. The President’s “paying the fee” could be construed as not contesting their right to charge him with the crime. 

    • #7
    • January 18, 2019, at 6:57 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  8. Joe D. Lincoln

    Definitely with Charlie on the FBI – which is why when the liberals were protesting suggesting we should get rid of ICE – I thought the Republicans should have said “We’ll take it!” Thus closing a government organization and reverting what ICE did back to the states… and maybe giving some of what they did over to CBP.

    • #8
    • January 18, 2019, at 7:44 AM PDT
    • Like
  9. rdowhower Coolidge

    David strains out a gnat while swallowing a camel…who’s the megalomaniac now?

    • #9
    • January 18, 2019, at 10:46 AM PDT
    • Like
  10. mildlyo Member

    My problem with the defense of the FBI’s behavior is the question of what is “proper influence” by a foreign power. As we are now the most powerful country in the world, every other country in the world has an active program to influence the behavior of the United States.

    Political policy questions are not any business of police organizations, at any level. We have elections to decide these issues.

    I could see the FBI focusing instantly and narrowly on the way the election was conducted, as a counterintelligence question. Once they satisfied themselves that the election was a fair one, even that investigation should immediately have ended.

    • #10
    • January 19, 2019, at 9:45 AM PDT
    • Like