Walter Dellinger Explains Why Trump is Impeachable and Kamala Harris Bows Out
Impeachment scholar Walter Dellinger explains the difference between a crime and the impeachable offenses committed by this President. James Carville and Al Hunt react to Kamala Harris calling it quits. We admit we are addicted to our phones on Christy Harvey's 'Got Our Number' segment, and we wrap the show with the 'Back Page'.
Al Hunt: 00:05 Hi, I'm Al Hunt, welcome to the show. You're in the War Room, subscribe, rate, and review the show on Apple podcast or ever you get your podcast. Now, let's get on to impeachment and politics. We're discussing the constitutional questions of impeachment and Attorney General William Barr and we are joined by the premier guest.
Walter Dellinger, Professor of Law at Duke university where he once was acting Dean, he headed the office of Legal Counsel and was Solicitor General in the Clinton justice department. He has argued scores of cases before the United States Supreme Court. As a university of North Carolina man, he will appreciate this. He is the Michael Jordan of constitutional experts. Walter, it's good to have you.
WalterDellinger: 00:51 I just aspire to be Dennis Rodman. Come on, that's my [inaudible 00:00:54].
Al Hunt: 00:56 All right. Let me just start off by saying the impeachment is going in full gear, an hour in the impeachment process. Let me just start off with a couple of the Republican arguments and then turn it over to James. One, they say, "Hey, no crime was committed, so no impeachment."
WalterDellinger: 01:13 Well, first of all, it's a two part response. First, it is not necessary by any means that an impeachable offense be a crime. And secondly, yes, of course crimes were committed. There was an attempted obstruction of justice, an attempt to extort or bribe a foreign country and the president didn't even have the good grace to use, to put his own money on the line. $400 million of taxpayer's money was used as the bait. But let me address the first question because I think it's going to be important in other contexts.
And that is why an impeachable offense is something different from a crime. The worst offense is committed by a president, may not be anything that Congress ever thought they needed to pass a federal statute admitting the penal code. Two, for example, make it a crime for a president willfully to refuse to defend the United States against foreign attack.
You could search the penal code and all the drug, narcotics offenses and everything else and not find a crime of a presidential refusal to defend the United States against foreign attack. And so, it makes no sense by no means is everything that is criminal, an impeachable offense, only a small category of matters that a criminal would be impeachable offenses, because to be true to the reading of the constitution would take something much more serious.
So I mean, I think that if we can take just a minute, if they are outside here to see what the framers thought, before they settled on the current and familiar phraseology that the president and all other officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. At the very beginning of the convention, the president could be impeached for maladministration or neglect of duty.
When they gave more power to the president, they thought that that was too vague. That meant you served just at the pleasure of Congress. They tried treason and bribery alone, but thought that wouldn't cover many very serious offenses by a president. So, they added this phrase from the English high crimes and misdemeanors, which was a term of art, a phrase that meant a very serious crimes against the state.
And they have to be things like treason and bribery in the same level of seriousness. So, I think the best definition from the classic Nixon era work by Charles Black is that that high crimes and misdemeanors or offenses, which are one extremely serious, they are in some way corrupt or subvert the political and governmental processes. And finally are plainly wrong in themselves to a person of honor. So, I think here it is plainly wrong. The worst way to characterize the offenses of this president is that he has attempted to use the powers of his office corruptly to influence the next presidential election.
Al Hunt: 04:42 Which is what he was doing in Ukraine. I would point out you were the prize protege of Yale Law School, Professor Charles Black who did write the definitive work on impeachment back in 1974. The second point they make is, okay, fine shouldn't have been done, but Ukraine got its assistance. The president over there did not announce an investigation on Biden's, so no harm, no foul.
WalterDellinger: 05:03 Well, the three word answer to that is he got caught. He attempted to extort from them a public statement, and there's no indication that he wanted Ukrainian officials to investigate young Mr. Biden. He wanted an announcement on CNN that Biden was under investigation. And that because he got caught, because someone reported that, that Washington Post was all over it, Congress demanded to know what was going on. They were rushed out [LaFond 00:05:41] having completed this attempt.
So, what we're really talking about is a president who has shown that he is not willing to abide by the constitutional processes of fair elections. He got caught before he completed the demand for a public statement of investigating Biden. But let's stop just for a moment on this particular point, because it maps so perfectly on Watergate. The one misstatement that I think has been made by Adam Shift is a statement that Watergate was a third rate burglary. Now the president, people saying, well, it's just one phone call and nothing came of it.
That misses the point that both Watergate and the president, Trump gate, both of them or efforts to subordinate the constitution of the United States and to distort the next presidential election. And in particular to do it by getting rid of what they thought was the most serious opposing candidate. So, the Palmer's operation under Watergate of which the break in at the Watergate Hotel. And then, so in coverup, we're just one part.
The plumber's operation began as an effort to disrupt the campaign of Democrat Ed Muskie, Margaret of Maine, who the polls were showing at the time the plumber's operations started, appeared to be the candidate most likely to beat Richard Nixon. And they actually did disrupt the Muskie campaign. They brought him to tears in Maine with their constant disruptive activities-
Al Hunt: 07:28 New Hampshire.
WalterDellinger: 07:29 ... in New Hampshire. And I'm sorry, in New Hampshire, you're right. And they wound up with a Democratic nominee who lost 49 states and-
Al Hunt: 07:35 That was the same thing they were trying to do with Joe Biden. Isn't it?
WalterDellinger: 07:39 ... the same thing they're trying with Joe Biden this time. And keep in mind the fact that in July when this undertaken started, vice president Biden looked more formidable than he does now, perhaps. But he was certainly polling as the candidate most likely to beat Trump back when they started this operation. So, in both cases, not being willing to trust to the people in a fair election, they used underhanded and potentially criminal activities in order to interfere with that election. And that's why you can't let it go.
Al Hunt: 08:15 Let me turn it over to that distinguished graduate of the LSU Law School, James Carville, to follow up on that.
James Carville: 08:20 Yeah, I've gone back to the Clinton impeachment and our involvement in this. Impeachment is a constitutionally sanctioned or an authorized process. I don't remember us, I certainly remember us attacking Star and his partisanship and everything else. I don't remember any by assembly just going to ignore subpoenas. I really don't. I mean, David Kendall and Nicole went down and brought it to Senate and then president Clinton actually testified. It seems to me what they're doing is just, we don't accept the legitimacy of this investigation, which in itself is a crime. I think.
WalterDellinger: 09:07 I totally agree. It's obstruction of justice and I think that it would be a mistake not to make this part of any set of articles of impeachment. It's just astounding and jaw-dropping that they would not comply with congressional oversight, which has been done to the issuance of perfectly valid subpoenas. Now, there is an argument that some discussions between a president and his most senior aids maybe protected by a presumptive executive privilege.
I think that enlarged would be overcome in the case of an impeachment inquiry where you need to find out everything. But let's assume that there is some residual executive protege, they're claiming the president has ordered everybody, people he never met or heard of and have to comply with subpoenas. One of the people that testified over the president's objection for whom they had claimed this executive privilege was by my count, a fourth level down person at OMB, four levels down. President never saw this guy.
He may never been in the West wing. And what was their basis as James noted, their basis was they have denominated the inquiry and the other congressional inquiries like the one for the tax returns as illegitimate. So, they have self-described it, they have made a unilateral decision that it is illegitimate and I think it has to be itself a grounds of impeachment that they won't turn this stuff over.
James Carville: 10:52 I think my own view is this, just all started with Bush V Gore and what that showed them was we're just going to overturn a state authorized recount and stop it. And you know what? We're going to get away with it. And you know what happened? They did. They just did. They just bram through it, they went to 2015, they ramped through every gerrymander that you could imagine that they wrote maps that an ordinary person would have never thought of to do it. They just got it through it. Then America Gallen he just said, "We're not going to, we don't care." And they keep winning.
What's going to happen at the end of this? Is they'll impeach him and their proteges will say it was all bake up something. I mean, there's makeup this about Ukraine at the Senate Intelligence Committee, but they're not going to stop because in their opinion, they're getting away with it. And that's a dangerous way for a country to go. But that is what they say. We just got it out and every time we'd got it out, Bush was president. We control the Supreme Court, we control the Federal Judiciary. We have gerrymandered every seat that we could find and all of this to me is just destructive to the country.
WalterDellinger: 12:12 James, you make a very good point. I don't know what all they taught you at LSU Law School, but you made a hell of a point that. Lets just start with Bush versus Gore. I haven't seen that from anybody, but I think you're right. I remember thinking as Ted Olson had been someone I had known and had been helpful to me when I took over the office of legal counsel, where he had once said that, "I was really.." When he filed his petition, I asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and set aside the Florida courts filed determination, which was going to be a recount.
They would have shown that Gore won. When he filed his petition, I thought it's so embarrassing that they had no legal arguments for U.S. Supreme Court intervention and that it would be really an embarrassment of the Ted Olson to a foul that brief and he winds up winning
James Carville: 13:04 What they taught me at LSU Law School is the same thing that they teach at Duke Law School or Harvard School. Is that, you can understand the law, you can interpret the law at some point. You can manipulate it to your client's favor, but there's one thing you can't do is ignore the law. Right?.
WalterDellinger: 13:23 Right.
James Carville: 13:23 No one, I never had a law professor. I don't think he ever told the students, "You can ignore the statute. You can read it with another statute or you can doubt the constitutionality of the statute. Yeah, you can say it means one thing or you can talk about legislative extent." But what they do, as you said, doesn't exist.
WalterDellinger: 13:38 James, I think you've taken this to a level that goes beyond even the present impeachment. And that is the question about what is happening to the legitimacy of constitutional government. When you put it that way, think about the fact that we now have four justices who are appointed by presidents who came into office having lost the national popular vote.
If Trump were to be reelected, we could have of solid majority of Supreme court. If he is "Re-elected," he will do so by having lost between five and 10 million votes nationally. You have to wonder how long States like California and Washington and Oregon, there would be an economic juggernaut. And alliance with perhaps, Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, or on their own, an economic powerhouse on their own.
How long they would put up with a list of grievances about this, of the kind that we have from this president, I think are much more serious than the list of grievances against King George. They were issued by States, by colonies who wanted to be independent States in 1776, you've got a court that when they struck down the part of the Voting Rights Act, they were substituted in their judgment for Congress.
The Civil War and the great Civil War Amendment says Congress shall have the power to enforce this. And the voting rights decision they had no bit... that was just nothing wrongly decided they had no business deciding it. So between that and green lighting gerrymandering, it's-
James Carville: 15:28 Well, look at what Barr did to the Mueller report.
WalterDellinger: 15:31 Right.
James Carville: 15:32 He just kept it under wraps and lied and they don't care. You've understand it that you and you teach your students, and your whole career was how to deal with the law. I said, well, I'll see it this way. You see it that way. What they do is they just ignore it. I've literally gives no other explanation that I can come to, is P sue like every law student goes, P sues D, okay?
WalterDellinger: 15:57 Come on.
James Carville: 15:57 D says, yeah, D has to answer the lawsuit. After acknowledged the legitimacy of it, you can say, well, it was a comparative negligence, or I don't know what the hell it was, but you have a bunch of defense but just can't say, well, I said I ignored. I don't care if that's the law.
WalterDellinger: 16:13 No professor ever said, ever gave you the hypothetical. It never occurred to me. Well, I suppose D has exclusive control over nuclear weapons.
James Carville: 16:22 Yeah.
WalterDellinger: 16:25 Then how does that even form?
James Carville: 16:27 If the attorney general is just [crosstalk 00:16:29] Well, let's talk about this attorney general. Walter, when he was appointed, I talked to you and a number of other like-minded scholars who said, look, he's very conservative. We'll disagree on the many issues like criminal justice, immigration, and court appointments, but he's a straight shooter.
While starting with a Mueller report reaction, which was incredibly, I think I would call it dishonest. It was certainly disingenuous. He now appears to be taking issue with the long awaited inspector General's report that the FBI investigation into the Russian interference in the American election to help Trump was legitimate. Do you still think he's a straight shooter? He's Trump's attorney general. Not America's.
WalterDellinger: 17:07 No, I don't think he was. He didn't shoot straight on the Mueller report by any means. He was deliberately misleading when you read the report. It was just shocking to see how distorted it was. I think, by the way, going back to where we started the conversation and bringing it right up to where we are now, the Mueller report, it's a hard question, but I think it would be a mistake for the Democrats to continue to walk away from the Mueller report and not to go back.
And it's just if you re-read it... you just re-read the executive summary on obstruction of justice. I mean, Mueller concludes in 444 pages, 1200 footnotes, 100 contacts in the first part between the Trump organization, what he says when they were on no collusion, and I wouldn't go back to that, but all he says was, "We can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an actual agreement between Trump campaign officials and the Russians.
Not that there wasn't an actual agreement. Which can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And not that they weren't acting in concert, it's just that we don't have an actual agreement. When you get to obstruction of justice, Mueller lets us down by not stating what obviously is the sentence that would be his conclusion that the president committed multiple. Even though we cannot indict him under department of justice policy, we nonetheless, conclude and must so state that he competed multiple acts of felonious obstruction of justice.
And he said, if we believed he could be cleared, we would've cleared him, we can't, we can't clear him. And so, it's just shocking. I mean, he on multiple occasions, he tried to shut down the investigation into the Russian interference in the election. He ordered the White House counsel to have him fired. It's over and over again.
James Carville: 19:09 It's the dishonesty of the attorney general. What's that got out there? We were dishonest in New Hampshire in 1992 when we came out early and declared victory and Tsongas actually beat us. All right? That's a kind of manipulation of public opinion. But getting ahead of the story. This is not the attorney general looking at authorized report and lying to the American people about it.
WalterDellinger: 19:33 It's true.
James Carville: 19:34 That's what this is and this is now normal.
WalterDellinger: 19:39 Well, I think we need to see the links between the Mueller report and where we are with the more recent matter of Ukraine. Ukraine is just the president's hand getting caught in the cookie jar. But what we have is a consistent effort. I think he knows he cannot win a fair election and once again, I mean, Kathleen Hall Jamieson is going to have a new version out of her book in January. Concluded that it's very likely that the Russians handed the election to Hillary based on in depth studies.
But what he's doing now to blame Ukraine is to exonerate Russia. To exonerate Russia is to tell Putin, here's how much we have your back. We're not only not going to respond to your direct attack on American democracy. We're going to even blame someone else. We're going to help you go look for the real killers.
Al Hunt: 20:38 The OJ defense.
WalterDellinger: 20:42 The ultimate green light to the Russians to go all out to deliver the next election for Trump, is for Trump to even deny that they did it in 2016 and that they are working as we speak to disrupt the election.
Al Hunt: 20:58 I just want to make sure you're right what you're saying that we have it right. You would advise the judiciary committee to put the Mueller obstruction charges in the bills of impeachment.
WalterDellinger: 21:08 Yes, I would.
Al Hunt: 21:10 Okay. Terrific. Boy, you've been wonderful. Thank you for enlightening us.
WalterDellinger: 21:13 Thank you so much. Prof. Get a free, like I've got a free law school lesson. How fascinating.
Al Hunt: 21:20 Great to talk to you guys. You made the best point of the day, James. Take care.
James Carville: 21:24 Take care Walter.
Al Hunt: 21:25 Bye. Bye. Okay James, we've talked impeachment with one of the great experts in the country. Let's talk politics now. The big news this week is Prof Harris, who people like Rachel Matt Al was six months ago was saying it's going to be the democratic nominee dropped out of the race this week. Why did Harris never take off?
James Carville: 21:51 If anybody wants to know, read a piece in the New York times with Jonathan Martin earlier this week, it literally, it will be used as the Harvard Business School uses these case studies or you go to law school or [inaudible 00:22:05] teaches you how you learn everything through this one case. Distance an example of everything that you should not do in a campaign of the Harris campaign doing it. If they could do 10 things wrong, they get all 10.
Al Hunt: 22:21 Maybe 11.
James Carville: 22:21 You're right, she maybe 11 and she came on, she was like a big grungy, AA person that was just crushing fastballs and people were coming from miles around to see him but, and then the first time, but beige league slide caved in a way he was. And I mean, she looks so good on paper and everything about her was compelling and, she was kind of bigger than life. And she was mixed race, United States, Senator-
Al Hunt: 22:50 Female Obama.
James Carville: 22:51 ... prosecutor, female. Yes. But at first slide she doesn't even come close into, she just sat dash and not, I mean, from everything from heaven to headquarters to have an assistant in charge of the campaign to trying five different things at the same time. I mean, it was just was a disastrous campaign. That woman has a lot of future ahead of her. But I don't see, I'll be honest with you, but I don't know if some of these Democrats are trying to win. There's no malarkey. I'd love to know how they came up with that.
Al Hunt: 23:29 That's Joe Biden, yeah.
James Carville: 23:30 Who sat in a meeting and said, "We need to get some more younger voters." So let's talk about malarkey.
Al Hunt: 23:37 Yeah, that was probably Joe. Let me guess [crosstalk 00:23:41] Let me just pick up on that. I agree with them and you said it and I love that John Martin piece. I would just note very parochially, but I wrote an abbreviated version of that in the column a month ago. And the point was that John McCain one time advised John Kerry, this hero stuff is great. We're both heroes. This is 2002 but what a hero does, it gets you in the room and then you got to have something to say. And there was no bigger hero than John Glenn. And once he got in the room, in his presidential request, he didn't have much to say. Kamilah, not that she was a hero, but as you saying on paper, she was a great prospect and she got in that room and she didn't have any to say.
James Carville: 24:15 It would, but people paying attention like they all, I mean, one scene, I mean, at first debate when she didn't know anything about health care, you kind of knew, geez, this is not going well.
Al Hunt: 24:25 You did, you mentioned the Biden thing. I'm going to stay on the B's for a minute and not Biden. Steve Bullock also dropped out this week and Michael Bennett, who probably is the favorite candidate for Carville and Hunt is just going nowhere. I have to admit, I hate to admit that. These are two guys who again, are so impressive on paper. I mean, Bennett probably, there's no more, there's no United States Senator that I would be as confident would be as good a president as Michael Bennett.
And Steve Bullock was just a prototype of what Democrats need. A really mainstream progressive who won big in a red state. Why James? Is it say something about the system or about that?
James Carville: 25:07 I don't know. Probably a little bit of, I'm following Michael Bennett. I'm not even being cute about it, and say, why am I? Because, but I'll say if 25 people with 2020 vision, say James, you got some shaving cream on yellow, hope you'd probably have shaven and Raymond yellow. Well, if 25 people whose opinions I respect start the conversation, but James, Michael Bennett would be the best president. Didn't God dammit, why not before him.
And I'm going to probably won't win. But in New Hampshire anything can happen. And I think that if he goes up there and really engages in and has a campaign that fits his skill set and that would be small events with a lot of dialogue, and did a lot of them in the course of the day. I can't tell you that he'd win. He probably won't. But just what I know about New Hampshire, they will give him a look. If you go up there and ask for a look, they'll give you a look.
Al Hunt: 26:05 This is your idea. But one day meet with veterans one day with nurses, one day with Trump voters, one day with NRA gun people and Michael Bennett will never shine in a eight person debate because he's not a demagogue. He's not going to give a great speech because that's not what he does well. He's not going to have far better TV ads than anybody has. But what he can do is sit at that table and I'm stealing this from you, James. He can sit at that table for an hour and a half and he can have a dialogue and impress people probably more than anyone else in the field.
James Carville: 26:39 I begged them to do that. It said all you got to do is just put it online. It doesn't, just do it online. Let everybody watch it. Michael Bennett talks to Iowa teaches, Michael Bennet talks to Iowa farmers, Michael Bennet talks to New Hampshire conservatives, Michael Bennett talks to African American church goers in Charleston. Michael Bennett talks to incarcerated people in halfway houses. He could do anything. He just put it online and put people in a position where they can succeed.
That's what you got to do in politics. And I don't know, because to me it's obvious he's not going to succeed in a debate. He's not going to succeed, given a fiery speech and among hay bales, anything like that way he's going to succeed is by his resolve, by his knowledge, by his depth, by his politeness, his humanity. Desperate people want, but you got to put him in there where he can succeed.
Al Hunt: 27:39 Well, he could. A, he could win and B he could govern and boy, those are two pretty important records that right now. I was going to switch to one other. Someone else, Pete Buttigieg is having his moment in the sun now, coming up in the polls, doing really well in Iowa and well in New Hampshire too. Right now you are in the Buttigieg campaign strategist, weekly meeting on Sunday. What are you thinking? What are you worried about? What are you anticipating? What are you advising?
James Carville: 28:11 Well, the first thing that they're worried about because everybody keeps doing it and they keep responding, is can you connect with African American voters? All right? That seems to be the obsession of the people covering the campaign. It seems to be the obsession with the Buttigieg campaign. I was last night to DGA, a very prominent, the African American political operative attorney said Buttigieg was in the state. And I think something I'd probably know a little bit more about most consultants is African American voters in the South.
And if you try to connect with them, they're going to figure it out. And the broad natural you are, and the more comfortable you are, the more that they're going to give you a listen. And he just got to take a look, because culturally he's futile, and in [inaudible 00:29:01] he said, well the schools were segregated and bringing everything up and it's not a given that he will be able to connect with black voters. That's not a given, but he needs to get a strategy.
And my strategy would be just be as natural as you can, talk about the struggle. I wouldn't make any references but I know discrimination and you do. But talk about the struggle and talk about all this stuff and he's got to try to break in, he could probably get some of the younger African-Americans, but the older ones vote a lot and he's got to break into that. And they've got to deal with it but don't try too hard.
Al Hunt: 29:38 Yeah. And it is a challenge now. He had a good appearance this week. He went to the Reverend William Barber's church in North Carolina who was the, I think probably it's safe to say the most prominent African-American leader in the Tar Heel State. And he apparently made a good impression, and he did almost exactly what you're talking about. He didn't try to soar because he's not going to soar now, but just was himself and it is a challenge. But that's the sort of thing he has to do.
James Carville: 30:07 Yeah. And the definition of a great politician is someone who is really trying, but doesn't look like they're trying. It's a definition of a great athlete. Willie Mays never look like he tried to believe me. He was trying like crazy. All right? Reagan or Clinton, or even Obama. They never look like they were sweating. If you look like you're trying too hard, you become Bobby Jindal, you become Kamala Harris. You become, you're just trying to do what no one knows, but it looks deaf.
But great politicians always, always, always are cool under fire, they'd look, they place themselves in the most natural position. And that would be my advice to Bennett. That would be my advice for Buttigieg, don't, just be as natural as you can, talk about issues about the entire country. And as you start winning, you'll start looking at your [inaudible 00:31:07].
Al Hunt: 31:16 James, one of our great weekly highlights our own Jimmy, the Greek Christy Numbers Harvey, what do you have for us today, Christy?
Christy Harvey: 31:25 Hey fellas, I do have a couple of numbers for you today. First up is 25% as in there's new research out that shows one out of 14s, that's 25% have an unhealthy addiction to their smartphones that the researchers are saying could be bigger than a bigger health problem than substance abuse or gaming, which are usually the two addictions that plague teens the most. So, I was wondering, Hunt, I think I know this answer since I get texts from you every 20 minutes or so, but do you think you're addicted to your smartphone?
Al Hunt: 32:02 Oh, I think it's a lot more than every 20 minutes Christy, and has been for the last 25 years. I guess I didn't have smart phones 25 years ago. To your great relief, Christy used to work with me. I don't have, fortunately I don't have any teenagers in my house anymore, but I'm afraid when it comes to my iPhone that I act like one. I am on it all the time and they go through these periodic times where you should give up your iPhone for a day or even a weekend. I start and then I cheat. I love it and I'm attached to it and I can't drop it.
Christy Harvey: 32:37 I actually cannot imagine a world where you're a cutoff like that Al.
James Carville: 32:43 No, look, I don't what, of course I use it all the time. When I was young I said porn was a public health crisis. Well, I watched porn all the time, but I have no, I don't think I'm any worse boy. I mean it's not like they're out there. Many of all the watch where they're going, it'd be get run over by a car, but I don't know if this is like a public health crisis on a magnitude. Oh God, we've got to do something. They're looking at Playboy Magazine in the back of the newsstand. [Macaws 00:33:10] They all, everybody is addicted to it. I can't go anywhere without a thing.
WalterDellinger: 33:14 Well James, you can have a two for now because with your iPhone you can now look up your porn sites.
Christy Harvey: 33:20 Oh, right.
James Carville: 33:23 But my point is, I don't know if this is a giant public health crisis. It's something we should do, but that's my only point.
Al Hunt: 33:31 All right, moving on, Christy.
Christy Harvey: 33:33 The second number, I've got a couple of numbers on a more serious note about rural America. As you know, uncle Joe is on his know malarkey tour across Iowa, and as a child of Delaware, I can call him uncle Joe of course. So, I started to think about these rural issues and did you guys know that the poverty rate in rural America is 16.4% compared to urban America where it's 12.9%.
And food insecurity where people don't always have enough money to buy all the food for everybody in their family is 12% in rural America. Whereas urban America it's 10.8%, yet rural America consistently goes red in elections and there just seems to be just such a disconnect with this. James, I was wondering if you had thoughts on that.
James Carville: 34:19 Well, first of all, people in urban America have probably five to seven, eight years more life expectancy than people in rural America. That's just a fact. Also, almost two thirds to growth that has occurred since Trump has been president, have been in counties that the Democrats carried that Hillary carried. So, it's killing him that the red state governance is actually killing people by not expanding healthcare, and but also, it's opposed to people in Democrats in urban America are doing good looking down on them. We ought to figure a way to go out and engage in rural America and try to be a majoritarian party and spend time out there and talk about the kinds of things we don't.
I don't know why we don't have a rural crisis center in this country. It's a problem and it is bought away. There's a lot of African-American people that live in rural America. I mean look around. A lot of native Americans live in rural America. They have been drugged down by this too. So, I think what you're talking about is an enormous issue in American politics. That geographic divide is starting to look like the income inequality divide.
Christy Harvey: 35:28 Yeah.
Al Hunt: 35:28 Well, James has been on this for a long time and he's absolutely right. And the Democrats have really abdicated in a lot of those places. But look I think having spent a little bit of time in places like Western Pennsylvania, I think some of it is cultural. Some of it is things like guns and abortion, which are going to be hard. There's no way to compromise on some of that as much as you'd like to, but some of it also is a feeling that the Democrats represent the elites and they look down on people. I was in this little town in Western Pennsylvania, James, right before the 16 election.
Paul Begala suggested I go there and Monessen, Bob Casey used to go there all the time. And I had, this was right before the election, and I must've had three or four people say to me, literally, volunteer when Hillary Clinton talked about the deplorable, she was talking about me. And somehow Democrats have to get out of that. I mean, Donald Trump is an elitist of the first order, but he is so shrewd and so disingenuous. He convinces him he's one of them. And that's a challenge for Democrats.
James Carville: 36:29 It is. But she got engaged.
Al Hunt: 36:32 Yeah, you're doing.
James Carville: 36:33 And there's a lot of... in all we got to do is just not get slotted out and you get cut it to 75/25 not 85/15. And if they keep going, voting behavior continues to harden. And of course you've got a substantial number of Democrats at the New York times oped page to talk about the choice of Democrats is obviously they got a double down on their urban base. Okay. Well then what do you say when you say 18% of the country elect 52 senators, then you start mumbling and you're not woken up or whatever the hell to tell you. I mean, these people are really, really, really stupid of steroids.
Al Hunt: 37:14 Yeah, they are. And as you said, if you look at why the Democrats were able to win in Deep Red States like the governor's races, at least in Deep Red States like Kentucky and Louisiana last month it was because they cut into those margins in those rural areas. They didn't win a lot of them, but they cut into those margins. Numbers you've done it again and you'll come back next week with a new challenge. Okay?
Christy Harvey: 37:39 All right guys. See you next time. Stuff those phones.
Al Hunt: 37:41 By the way, if you're going to use your numbers, we'll use them please to resign Rendon and Strausberg. All right?
Christy Harvey: 37:47 Oh man, I'm trying, I promise.
Al Hunt: 38:02 James, what have you read the strikes in the last couple of days?
James Carville: 38:04 I read it in Yorker Buick Books. As for me, I find part one bats about 100, but Baldwin, it fits Dave Cayman. He hits it, hits it, hits all it. And there's a piece in a book, academic committee, Joe ruffle Neil, I think about two books at two of them. Both of them are women in academics wrote about how the Democratic party is going about the wrong way. And I think a snatch I like to get professor O'Neil O, is that they need to organize more from the ground op like the Republicans did in 2010.
There's no doubt that they caught us sleeping in 2010 and it just racked up through just ruthlessness and our organizers and the Democrats, took over power and a lot of States, we starting to find it, get some of it back. But if we go into 2020, I think this is the kind of new kind of thinking that people in politics should at least consider engaging in. I got to read it a couple of three more times before I can totally digest it.
Al Hunt: 39:00 Well, okay, it's a great idea. Let's get him on the show.
James Carville: 39:03 Yeah.
Al Hunt: 39:03 Let's move to the back page. And we have gone and talked a lot about politics and impeachment, which is kind of a downer. Let's talk football, especially the National Football League. Now, with no hometown team, this is me, unlike you to cheer for and concerns. I do have more concerns about the violence of the game. So, I've lost some of the intense interest I used to have. But as we head into the final four weeks of this season, I can't remember where there were ever so many good teams, all of whom I think have a shot at winning the super bowl. I mean, it really is an incredibly impressive top heavy league right now.
James Carville: 39:40 I got to agree with you. I mean, I'm a little bit boring to college football and you all, but I like.
Al Hunt: 39:45 Yeah, what do you got next week?
James Carville: 39:47 San Francisco, Baltimore, Seattle, Kansas city to Saints for sure. I mean, anybody could win new England. I think that their divides has been exaggerated somewhat. Something tells me to Bellacheck and Brady skiing going up there. Just like the demise of Alabama Football. Don't buy that. Don't buy that at all. But yes it is. And the playoffs at least going into, man they look like they're going to be great. I mean, and you can't say it, there's not like Golden State where you knew they were going to win. You don't have any idea who's going to win this thing.
Al Hunt: 40:24 I agree. I tried to rank them just before I came over here and if I ranked them right now, I would have number one, the Ravens, they have an MVP quarterback, a great defense and a great coach. Two would be your Saints and the indomitable Drew Brees. Three would be the Patriots. You're right. You never count out Brady, your Bellacheck and a playoff. They usually rise to it and forth. I would have the Seahawks with Russell Wilson, so that's my top four and I would not be at all surprised [crosstalk 00:00:40:49].
James Carville: 40:50 How about the 49ers?
Al Hunt: 40:51 ... well if the Packers, 49ers, or the Buffalo Bills or even conceivably the Texans.
James Carville: 40:56 Why?
Al Hunt: 40:56 I mean, none of those, right, Outlandish choices.
James Carville: 41:00 But I think the 49ers are really good. They like Baltimore, beat them on the road, pop field go. I watched them beat Greenbay. I mean they beat the snot out of the Packers and I mean they're top. That somehow or another when you pick a San Francisco you equate maybe just because of the city of Bay area, some element of softness to it that is not a soft team "Whoo" not at all.
Al Hunt: 41:23 No it's not.
James Carville: 41:24 And we are going to play them Sunday.
Al Hunt: 41:27 That'll be a great game. And then the PRI, I think it's the final game of the season for that conference is the 49ers and the Seahawks man, well that their first game between those two was fabulous. And the second game is going to be just as good.
James Carville: 41:40 Who the league MVP now is at Russell Wilson?
Al Hunt: 41:42 I think it's probably Mark Jackson [crosstalk 00:00:41:45], but again, there's five candidates. I mean, Drew Brees and Aaron Rogers ended up taking it to the super bowl. I guess they vote before the playoffs, but you can't rule them out. As I say -
James Carville: 41:58 I think it's going to good.
Al Hunt: 42:02 Yeah, I mean.
James Carville: 42:03 I think it's going to go to Burelson or Lamar Jack.
Al Hunt: 42:06 I agree. I think there are certainly the favorites winner. One more note about professional football. This week, Jerry Jones in Dallas said, he's basically upset. He's probably going to replace the coach at the end of the year and Dan Snyder's going to have a review of his whole organization. I mean, Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones have not had teams in the super bowl for over for a quarter century.
They both have not had six. I mean, the Redskins worse. They both this entire decade or two have been also runs with occasional exceptions for the Cowboys. The problem with Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder is to look in the mirror. The reason that the Rooneys and Bob Kraft win is because they have good ownership that picks good people and doesn't interfere. That's the simple lesson.
James Carville: 42:52 I would add to things to that. We've had a pretty elite football team here for a while.
Al Hunt: 42:55 You have.
James Carville: 42:57 Last year we had a terrible call and we had to think in Minnesota the year before that wasn't a lot of games. And Ms. Benson does not interfere with Dennis Laotian, Sean Payton and those guys running the team.
Al Hunt: 43:10 That's the secret.
James Carville: 43:10 I mean, you could just look across and you see success like that. The results let, I mean the Outlanders let Mike Rizzo do what he had to do. Todd Josie, I'll let Joe Brady coach the quarterback. There's a success formula here.
Al Hunt: 43:22 Yeah, yeah it is. And Jerry Jones was once hot and I think he began to believe his own clippings and he is interfered and not as much as Dan Snyder. And he's not nearly the bad owner that Dan Snyder is. But when you hadn't been in a Superbowl in 25 years, I think you've had a losing record, net over the last 20 years. It tells you something. It's not just one coach, not just one quarter.
James Carville: 43:45 [crosstalk 00:43:45] You're kind of like Jerry Jones because he know he is, but-
Al Hunt: 43:50 He's a rascal.
James Carville: 43:50 ... he's very good at what he does. He thought, yeah, he's a hustler. Okay. He's an operator and he doesn't... White Danny side. Right? Yep. He watched Jerry Jones in the game and he's getting all bad, fretting around and you hear him and he's a real one that caught a bigger than life, Texas way. I've met him four or five times and he just a salesman. That's all we get [inaudible 00:44:14] but he's like, he be not full of shit because he's got a most valuable probably franchise professional sport. Dan Snyder is just not... You're not even interested in talking to him. You don't care what he says. He's just not, in addition to being a terrible owner, he's not a very compelling person.
Al Hunt: 44:33 If you look at awful franchises and professional sports, the Redskins are in the top three or four. There's no question about, and I agree about Jerry Julian [inaudible 00:44:41] I think probably Jerry Jones would give up some of that value. Not all of it for sure. If he could get back to Super Bowls and winning championships and he can't do that until he starts to delegate and realize he-
James Carville: 44:53 [crosstalk 00:44:53] Garrett is like a low level infection. You can't get rid of it, but it's not going to kill you. And every time you guard a fire and you went into gang. Yeah?
Al Hunt: 45:01 Yeah. Also coaches.
James Carville: 45:02 That pass cut is good.
Al Hunt: 45:03 Well, that pass cut is very good, but also coaches go back, remember a year ago they were talking about the LA Rams close Sean, Sean McVay. He was the future of the NFL. Where are the Rams now? I mean, this is a tough league. There aren't very many Bellachecks.
James Carville: 45:17 Everybody's going to look in for the next Sean McVay.
Al Hunt: 45:18 Right [crosstalk 00:45:20]-
James Carville: 45:19 For the next bill Bellacheck.
Al Hunt: 45:24 All right. This is-
James Carville: 45:24 It sounds fake.
Al Hunt: 45:24 ... has been terrific. We'll look for for the, not the next, but the James Carville a week from now, subscribe, rate and review the show on Apple podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks for listening. We'll be with you next week.