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 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.

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 71 comments.

  1. Duane Oyen Member

    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).

    • #1
    • September 27, 2019, at 2:45 PM PST
    • 1 like
  2. RufusRJones Member

    This is a hard topic for most people to be very cogent. 

    • #2
    • September 27, 2019, at 2:56 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  3. Henry Racette Contributor

    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.

    • #3
    • September 27, 2019, at 3:28 PM PST
    • 20 likes
  4. RufusRJones Member

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    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.

    • #4
    • September 27, 2019, at 3:34 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  5. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    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.

    Nuff said. Couldn’t agree more. I’m embarrassed I even listened to five minutes of this.

    • #5
    • September 27, 2019, at 4:19 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  6. RufusRJones Member

    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.

    • #6
    • September 27, 2019, at 4:33 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  7. Gary Robbins Reagan

    Well I enjoyed it. I have really missed Mona and Jay in “Need to Know.”

    • #7
    • September 27, 2019, at 8:59 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  8. LibertyDefender Member

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    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.

    Nuff said. Couldn’t agree more. I’m embarrassed I even listened to five minutes of this.

    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. 

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Well I enjoyed it. I have really missed Mona and Jay in “Need to Know.”

    , 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.

    • #8
    • September 28, 2019, at 3:17 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  9. JuliaBlaschke Coolidge

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Well I enjoyed it. I have really missed Mona and Jay in “Need to Know.”

    I enjoyed it too. Thanks Mona and Jay.

    • #9
    • September 28, 2019, at 10:18 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  10. Eeyore Member

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    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…

    Oh, I think Mona gets a great deal of support concerning that Dreadful Ruffian from those who visit her private loge at the opera.

    • #10
    • September 29, 2019, at 12:14 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  11. Steven Iverson Member

    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

    • #11
    • September 29, 2019, at 1:37 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  12. RufusRJones Member

    Steven Iverson (View Comment):
    Sorry to be negative but this podcast was the most painful to listen to I have ever heard.

    Now I’m intrigued. lol

    • #12
    • September 29, 2019, at 3:38 AM PST
    • 1 like
  13. Kozak Member

    Steven Iverson (View Comment):

    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

    You mean you don’t believe Quid Pro Quo Joe’s words on it ?

    • #13
    • September 29, 2019, at 5:09 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  14. rgbact Member

    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.

    • #14
    • September 29, 2019, at 3:50 PM PST
    • Like
  15. RufusRJones Member

    Based on what I’ve learned, this is just nonsense. You have to name a crime or a specific abuse of power.

     

     

     

     

     

    • #15
    • September 30, 2019, at 1:50 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  16. DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey Member

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    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.

    • #16
    • September 30, 2019, at 6:07 AM PST
    • 6 likes
  17. RufusRJones Member

    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. 

    • #17
    • September 30, 2019, at 6:16 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  18. RufusRJones Member

    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.

    • #18
    • September 30, 2019, at 6:20 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  19. RufusRJones Member

     

     

    • #19
    • September 30, 2019, at 7:19 AM PST
    • Like
  20. DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey Member

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    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

    • #20
    • September 30, 2019, at 7:32 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  21. Joe D. Lincoln

    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”. 

    • #21
    • September 30, 2019, at 7:36 AM PST
    • 1 like
  22. RufusRJones Member

    $40,000,000 and counting of government resources chasing Trump and still no impeachment vote. 

    #WhatAcountry. 

    • #22
    • September 30, 2019, at 7:37 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  23. RufusRJones Member

    Joe D. (View Comment):

    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”.

    Excellent point. 

    • #23
    • September 30, 2019, at 7:39 AM PST
    • Like
  24. DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey Member

    Joe D. (View Comment):

    What happened to Jay’s political position being “Stop Socialism Now”.

    It was replaced by “Orange Man Bad.”

    • #24
    • September 30, 2019, at 7:40 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  25. RufusRJones Member

    DrewInWisconsin, Thought Leader (View Comment):

    Joe D. (View Comment):

    What happened to Jay’s political position being “Stop Socialism Now”.

    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.

    • #25
    • September 30, 2019, at 7:48 AM PST
    • 1 like
  26. LibertyDefender Member

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

    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.

    • #26
    • September 30, 2019, at 8:29 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  27. RufusRJones Member

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):
    A President can be impeached for anything.

    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.

    • #27
    • September 30, 2019, at 8:37 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  28. LibertyDefender Member

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):
    A President can be impeached for anything.

    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.

    • #28
    • September 30, 2019, at 8:44 AM PST
    • 1 like
  29. RufusRJones Member

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):
    A President can be impeached for anything.

    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.

    • #29
    • September 30, 2019, at 8:49 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  30. LibertyDefender Member

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):
    A President can be impeached for anything.

    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:

    The House of Representatives…shall have the 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:

    The near-unanimous view of constitutional commentators is that the House of Representatives’ “sole power” of impeachment is a political question and therefore not reviewable by the judiciary.

    Stephen B. Presser, Sullivan & Cromwell Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law

    Presser Professor goes on to say

    The House is constitutionally obligated to base a bill of impeachment on the standards set out in Article II. (See Article II, Section 4.)

    but there’s no constitutional text to support such an obligation being placed on the House of Representatives.

    • #30
    • September 30, 2019, at 9:12 AM PST
    • 1 like