Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Today, Jay turns “Q&A” into an old-fashioned “Need to Know,” with his “friend, colleague, heroine, and podcast partner,” as he puts it: Mona Charen. They talk Trump-Ukraine-impeachment, of course. And then Greta (the teen climate-change activist), China, Turkey, Egypt, etc. A lot of laughs, a little yelling, and some keen analysis.
At the beginning, Jay asks Mona a potentially sensitive question: What is your middle name? He has never known …
Subscribe to Q & A, Hosted by Jay Nordlinger in Apple Podcasts (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 Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
I really like Jay, always have, but when he gets together with Mona, I can’t listen, because it is like listening to Benjamin Wittes talking to Jeffrey Toobin.
Find a topic that is not worn out, and a crashing bore, please! We know all about Trump’s flaws (I didn’t vote for him either).
This is a hard topic for most people to be very cogent.
Fortunately, Rufus, in the context of a podcast, it isn’t necessary to be cogent. One can simply be passionate.
So, for example, Jay characterizes the Mueller Report as “the most damning thing in the world,” while Mona says that, while Obama abused the authority of the executive, Trump “really abused it.”
Both of them speak of the Ukraine call as an open-and-shut impeachable offense and, pretty clearly, of those who see it otherwise as sad sell-outs to the cult of 45.
I haven’t listened to Jay and Mona for a year or more, because I find their tone too sanctimonious, too morally preening, and entirely too confident in their own assessment and that of the handful of like-minded intellectuals who agree with them.
It’s said that when everyone in the room says you’re drunk, you should sit down. Everyone in the room isn’t telling Jay and Mona that they’re wrong, but enough thoughtful people disagree with them that a tiny hint of, if not humility, at least caution seems appropriate.
But no. And so it’s going to be another year before I try them again, I think.
Thank you for posting that. Both of those guys are smart enough to understand the details of a cogent impeachment case. I think it’s an interesting topic, and plenty of really smart people that know the Federalist papers backwards and forwards can explain it.
I just can’t tolerate listening to Trump haters that don’t have strong libertarian sensibilities like Jonah Goldberg and Kevin Williamson. I never buy what they’re saying and I never learn anything.
Nuff said. Couldn’t agree more. I’m embarrassed I even listened to five minutes of this.
FWIW, I just heard another fact about impeachment. As long as Pelosi doesn’t formalize it with a vote, the Republicans don’t have any subpoena power. That is a huge detail I haven’t heard before.
Well I enjoyed it. I have really missed Mona and Jay in “Need to Know.”
Thank you both Goldwaterwoman and Henry, for confirming what I suspected, and thereby relieving me of the gruesome urge to satisfy my morbid curiosity by listening. It’s been well over a year since I left Need to Know, on account of the insufferable virtue signaling, moral preening, and denial of reality.
, said the sanctimonious, morally preening like-minded intellectual.
High holy AntiTrumpers never seem to mention that moving the embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing Israel sovereignty over Golan Heights, and bombing Russian-assisted Syrians who had attacked Israelis, were each the right thing to do by any definition. Neither do they mention that other Presidents could have acted similarly, but lacked the moral courage to do so.
High holy AntiTrumpers never seem to mention that Trump is the staunchest defender in American history of the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.
Yet these high holy AntiTrumpers never seem to miss an opportunity to preen sanctimoniously.
I enjoyed it too. Thanks Mona and Jay.
Oh, I think Mona gets a great deal of support concerning that Dreadful Ruffian from those who visit her private loge at the opera.
Sorry to be negative but this podcast was the most painful to listen to I have ever heard.
Just one point Mona, my sources differ with yours regarding Biden’s reason for having Ukrainian
prosecutor fired.
/thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story#.XY02ewYDEV8.twitter
Now I’m intrigued. lol
You mean you don’t believe Quid Pro Quo Joe’s words on it ?
Nice….bringing back Mona for UkraineGate week. Thank you Ricochet (and Jay). High quality discussion as always. Mona says yes on impeach, Jay still skeptical. Both make strong cases.
Based on what I’ve learned, this is just nonsense. You have to name a crime or a specific abuse of power.
The President is quoting someone. Those weren’t his words. Regardless, he didn’t say “cause a Civil War.” He said “cause a Civil War-like fracture” and I completely agree. David French is so unhinged he can’t understand basic English. Or he’s deliberately misrepresenting what was said.
David French is not on the side of the citizen class, and it’s long past time for someone to take the shepherd’s hook and yank him off stage.
You can’t just impeach him for what the voters clearly knew him to be when he won. The ruling class, the GOP TDS, and the Democrats don’t get to do that.
You can’t impeach him for “maladministration”.
Trump clearly lacks some civic management knowledge he ought to have. He lacks civic executive experience. Everyone knew that going in. He’s still painting within the lines.
I’ve been watching this very closely. Obama clearly should have been impeached for fast and furious, the IRS scandal, and the way he handled his Iran deal. Nobody says squat.
Since he was elected, there have actually been around 85 reasons they’ve given for impeachment. Someone compiled a list recently. I’ll see if I can dig it up.
EDIT: 86, actually.
https://news.grabien.com/story-things-democrats-have-said-trump-could-be-impeached
I still say the old conservative guard was too tepid in their support of Ted Cruz. Now we have Donald Trump, and the alternative of him winning reelection is probably electing a Democrat with the most socialist tendencies since Woodrow Wilson. What happened to Jay’s political position being “Stop Socialism Now”.
$40,000,000 and counting of government resources chasing Trump and still no impeachment vote.
#WhatAcountry.
Excellent point.
It was replaced by “Orange Man Bad.”
None of those guys understand the problem or how to stop it. This country got far too un- libertarian to deal with the changes from globalized trade and automation, so it’s screwing a ton of people. China never should have been let into the WTO. Then throw in cultural Marxism. The political system is going crazy for good reason.
A President can be impeached for anything.
A President must be removed from office if he’s impeached for, and convicted of Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Obama (and Hillary) intentionally concealed from the public the identity of a known enemy of the United States that committed an act of war on the United States at the American consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Thus, Obama gave aid and comfort to that known enemy of the United States.
Obama should have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office for Treason against the United States.
I think you have to show that it erodes The Republic in some way, not just general “maladministration” or bad behavior.
It can’t be purely political and you can’t use it to override an election.
You might be correct from a political perspective, but constitutionally the House’s power of impeachment is absolute, and the basis for impeachment is undefined.
Look I’m not an expert, but I think the point you are making hasn’t been adjudicated.
Where would it be adjudicated? Here’s everything the Constitution says about the House of Representatives’ sole power of impeachment:
–US Constitution, ARTICLE I, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 5
I don’t think it takes an expert to interpret the words “sole Power of Impeachment.” The House’s power of impeachment is absolute. No necessary or minimum basis for impeachment is defined or even mentioned.
Here’s what one expert claims:
—Stephen B. Presser, Sullivan & Cromwell Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law
Presser Professor goes on to say
but there’s no constitutional text to support such an obligation being placed on the House of Representatives.