washington journal continues.

host: yuval levin is the american enterprise institute constitutional studies director and also the author of the recent book "american covenant: how the constitution unified our nation and could again." thanks for joining us. guest: thank you very much for having. host: we had you want to talk about it before, but how does that parallel to the days we are seeing now under a new resident when it comes to unity in the united state. >> the argument is that the constitution brings us together helping us fight properly's agreed with our constructive, and that it assumes there will always be divisions but establishes procedures and

institutions that are set up to but americans agree in ways that lead to negotiation, bargaining and compromise. especially in the time when we are intensely, deeply divided. the kind of 50-50 moment that we live in now in the united states the last generation means that we have to let our institutions function. that's going to be hard to see in the first week of a new administration where everything we hear is what they want to do, but what they want to do and what is actually going to have to is going to mediated by these two should the difference between with the president wants and what he gets as a function of what he can get through congress, what he can persuade the courts of, but the public thinks about what he is up to. all of these things are there to help us broaden coalitions, to help us deal with each other and to force us to confront the reality of this agreement which is the basic underlying fact of our democracy. host:'s main avenue right now, executive order. how does that help or hinder him? guest: every new since bill

clinton, so for 30 years now has come in with his party controlling both houses of congress. that has not meant that they just been able to do whatever they want. it's a challenge. the first week of a new administration, this is one week. there are 208 weeks in a presidential term. the first week as defined by the president because what is in the news is what he wants to do and what he is starting to say. very soon the president has to confront the reality of the world. he doesn't simply control that reality and very simply they are tested and assessed by events they don't control. so what we learned in the first week is what he is trying to achieve. i think it doesn't show us that president trump has a distinctly assertive executive approach to this term. there are things he wants to do and he's going to be very aggressive about doing them on his own. the orders be seen, a lot of

them are about telling his executive officials to start a process, to begin to do something, and the question of what really comes of that is very much an open question. every president seemed like he's on top of the world getting everything he wants in the first week, but it doesn't last. host: he said my proudest legacy be that of a peacemaker and a unifier. what is the face on that front? guest: obviously we are a divided nation. a lot of recent presidents have started out saying they want unity. his inaugural address, the way in which he describes unity is actually very similar to how a lot of our recent president have. you look at former president bidens inaugural or the trump previous one or president obama. they talk about unity in terms of not disagreeing. they say if we all agree there is nothing we can do, but that is not what unity means in free society. what unity means is not so much thinking alike as acting together. the challenge for a president,

for our national politics is how do we act together on national problems when we don't think alike? the answer to that involves negotiation, bargaining, the test of any president is what he can get accomplished in that way. not only how does use his power, because ultimately that is much more constrained than we often imagine. and they need other people to agree with and in order to get anything accomplished. the challenge of whether this president or any president in the a unifier is whether he can get other people to come along. host: do you think there is a better sense of him doing this this time around? guest: i think he seems to have a better role -- sense of what the role of the president is that he did in his first term. i think he's much more inclined to be acted in dealing with congress that he was last time. he said he wants to be every

republican member of the house. i think you should meet every democrat. i presidents often assume they can only get support from their own party but he could easily imagine democratic vote for certain versions of a tax bill or some of his immigration bills as we seen in this first week. that he is intent on getting to know members more that he was last time. he's much more involved in setting the strategy for republican congress, thinking about how many reconciliation bills, what we do first, what do we do second. he was much more passive about that last time then this time in part because he sees how important it is for that to work out. whether it will succeed is another question. president to involve themselves in how congress does it work don't always end up getting what they want, i think he does have a different approach, a different strategy at the beginning. host: if you want to ask questions, democrats, (202) 748-8000.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you want to text us questions or comments, (202) 748-8003. a recent piece that folks can find online, you write in it that him coming back now is a refusal to pay a tentative some failures not only from former president biden, but from some in his first term. guest: you look at the politics of the 21st century and a sense, the public over and over has said no thank the person in power. as one to change. we had a very, very close narrow elections now for a long time he stands out about this moment in american all it takes is that we had no majority party, no clear majority already for almost 30 years. all of our election tevin close.

every newly elected president has started out saying i won, i get to do what i want now. but the truth is they win very narrowly. he got 49.8% of the vote. that is a 50-50 election. each time when the new president's first hard at the outset the public has reacted poorly because what they said is we don't like the last guy or than we love what you are offering. the danger of over reading the mandate is a danger that every 21st century president has run and that donald trump is clearly running. he's behaving as though he won a massive landslide election when it was a narrow election. and rather than start out by broadening his coalition, he seems to be starting out by spending political capital gain from the election. and we will see, but that has not worked out for his predecessors. it didn't work out for him in the first term. the danger is losing public

support quickly and the public saying no, we don't like this either, this is not what we were saying. neither of our parties is quite connected with with voters are looking for. they face this challenge for a generation now, and each time they've been elected because the other party was unpopular. and that is a hard mandate to read. to say well, i am here because the other guy didn't meet the public expectations. you want to say i'm here because i made promises, the public wanted it and now we are going to do it. it is very hard for a president to get their head around the fact that they won because the incumbent was unpopular they then take actions that make themselves unpopular and as we've seen, the public's ability turn against him and throw him out even when they elected i think he needs to be very cognizant of that and think about how to build our support before he takes aggressive action. but like our other 21st century presidents, it's going to be a challenge for him. host: could immigration are one of those other topics, some

democrats expressing support for some of these is that an avenue he could start building support? guest: kids possible, but he has to think about where there is broad public support. i think there is broad public support for controlling the inflow at the border. there is much less public support for mass deportation of people who are here. and that the station is an important line to draw. there are ways i think that he could use immigration to broaden his support, but there are also ways in which he can become a huge political problem for him if he asked to aggressively. the lessons of the first term are there for him. the way in which they move early on the travel bans and other things salad the public pretty quickly on president's immigration views. he does run that risk, but he does have some opportunity here as well. host: the book is "american covenant: how the constitution unified our nation and could again." this is dorothy in baltimore.

morning. caller: want to ask because he seeks to be very knowledgeable as far as what he's talking about. i wanted to enter this question why does the president not talk more about the things that help or hurt us in president, congress or the senate does what they do. the thing i think we are missing is this. we talked about what the president wanted to do, but the thing that people were talking about, one, immigration. he halted the doj civil rights division, which people keep saying that is a minority. that is not a minority, that is people with disabilities, people who have been discriminated against, women, white, black or whatever. is not just for people of color.

can people keep saying it, but that is a major thing to do, even the police department. that is where you would go, he would contact your federal government if your police department wasn't handling it right. he halted all of that. they are not thinking very well. the press keeps talking about what the president wants, what congress wants. you all should make each one of these things that he does that hurt us and be truthful about it. host: dorothy, thank you for the question. guest: you raise a number of important points. first of all, one of the ways in which thinking about politics in this first week of a new registration is a challenge is that there hasn't yet been much of a response to the president's actions within the system, and especially from the courts. in ferae past tense. they review actions after they happen and the question is which of these early actions is going

to pass muster in the courts and which are not. i think they are going to run into challenges very quickly. the notion amendment doesn't require birthright citizenship is going to get tested all the way up to the supreme court. what you describe here also falls into some of these categories to fire the inspectors general, for example is a violation of federal law. the president can fire them but has to give congress 30 days notice. there's going to be a lawsuit almost inevitably. there may ultimately be some pushback from congress and from the states. and that is how our system works. our system exists in a kind of tension so that different interests, different pressures, different groups can exercise the power they have in the system and where we end up is where they land when all of

those pressures are added together. we will see. this is not a last word, it is the word. the other thing i say is part of what you say is politicians need to focus on what the public is asking for, not only what they want. in one of the base of operating is that it is difficult to know what the public wants. there's not a stronger, broad majority behind any party agenda or platform at this point. again and again we had 50-50 elections and that genuinely does make it difficult for policymakers to know exactly where the public is pushing him. gradually they are coming to some understandings about public concerns about disorder, public concerns about a lack of agency and control, whether that is at the border war and foreign policy, in criminal law in the united states. both parties are coming to recognize that that is a public priority for example. but when elections are so close

and when the other factor we seen in the century is control goes back and forth, we had more swings back and forth of control of congress in the last 25 years than any other century. we've just had the third presidential election in a row with a party in the white house has shifted. so this is a time when politicians find it genuinely difficult to know would voters are asking for. host: pensacola, republican line. pat, good morning. caller: good morning. i want to respond to the previous caller from maryland to this talking about the constitution, trump holding some civil rights cases or whatever. my question for her, and this is the right see, where with the civil-rights division of doj when these students at columbia and georgetown were blocking

jewish students from being able to go to their classes? we heard nothing from the doj about that. if that situation was reversed, if there were a bunch of white students keeping black students from getting to their classes, biden would have had the national guard on campus. but this is another plain hypocrisy that we see from the civil-rights doj because they were left-leaning. they still haven't mentioned the issue, and the civil-rights division, i think it was kristin clark, she never uttered a word about it. so you talk about the constitution, it is all about perception. people like this on the right, republicans, we expect to be treated fairly. six people were not treated fairly and it goes on and on and

that is why we voted for change. host: pat in florida. guest: i don't agree that the january 6 folks who committed violent crimes and were treated accordingly but otherwise, you make a very important point. the selective enforcement of civil rights laws and the biden administration is a big part of why there's been this reaction against ddi and against the way in which the civil-rights division has been operating. and some of the president's early administered actions on this front, including a response to campus anti-semitism which was not taken seriously enough by the biden administration and needed to be responded to. in the way in which you have to respond to the violations of any american rights. my hope is that the direction the our head it is that kind of direction. a colorblind enforcement of our laws that doesn't take account of someone's identity first, what religion are they, what colors their skin, but of the

simple fact that they are americans and their rights need to be protected regardless of anything else about them. i think that is the way our laws need to be enforced. we will see if that's where we are headed, but i do think that is part of why there's been the kind of reaction that the college describe nine posts: this is the recent headline that the administration lay off employees offices. what do you think specifically about the action and the existence of these programs overall with the law offices? guest: these programs are new, they are not some kind of long-standing feature of american policy or the federal government they are frankly intended to dance part of the progressive agenda of the biden administration, which tried to treat federal workers, and others, differently based on their race, based on their ethnicity, based on other factors that i do not think should factor into how our government treats ways or its citizens. and so i agree that peace officers should go away.

i think the federal government has less power to do that over the private sector and the idea that the president is trying to compel private actors and private companies to change their procedures seems less right to me, but the underlying principle does the right to me. we should treat one another as equals regardless of any identifying feature about ourselves. what matters is that we are all american citizens and that means we are all equal. host: it was a former center credit leader of the house of representatives, stacey abrams about this action saying deithis wo to ensure that all people are treated fairly and are abl to purchase faithfully internation principles of di have under guard print legislation such as the civil disabilitiesct.icans with despite false arguments from cynical activists and politicians that pervert dr. king vision of a society of equals, the values are rooted in

removing various opportunities of the narrative be for themselves. guest: i think those are good goals but i don't think that is a good description of what the eia has been in practice. it has stood in the way of the kind the principle that underlie our civil-rights rights laws and our commitment to civil rights and the constitution. i don't disagree with what she says that what our goals and aims should be, but i do disagree about what it has been in practice. host: this is susan in massachusetts, independent line. caller: thank you for being on today. you know, i believe the constitution is a great roadmap for democracy, but we had a failed one due to our two-party system which isn't invented in the constitution, as i understand it. it is really rooted in politics. it got politicized in the 1840's needed by congress and it

protects two parties. the american electorate by and large is centerleft, center-right, centre. they are not friends. and the way things are set up, they end up being one party states. they know they are safe because they come from one party states, and then they have no incentive to compromise with people of the opposite party. when jeffrey rosen is always on on constitution day, so i also think as a sidebar to that, because congress has failed really since roe v. wade, even if you are pro-choice, which i am, with limitations. severe ones, actually.

the supreme court now has become a legislative wing of our federal government, i think they're important and they are picking of the slack from a failed congress. and lastly, i think we should start getting back to overseas and not just do it. host: thank you, we appreciate the callable moolenaar -- respond. guest: let me start with right don't quite agree. it's true that the two-party system is not formally embedded in the constitution, of the two-party system is a function of our constitutional structure in a very important way. particularly of the way in which we choose the president. because in order to win the presidency you have to win the absolute authority of elected to the electoral college, it's been the case is the beginning that if there are more than two serious candidates for president there is a very real danger of the election the house of representatives and the people

not really getting to choose the president. that happened twice in the 19th century and then you have the doubling down on the two-party system to describe. and we haven't had an election go to the house since then. since 8024 when the game to see the real entrenchment of the two-party system. i think our system actually is a pretty good fit for the american constitution. it means that each of the two parties is a broad coalition, and that a lot of the kind of coalition building that happens between parties and the european parliamentary system happens within parties in the american system. and the parties themselves are brought to where a lot of negotiating and coalition has to happen. i think generally it has been good for us but in recent decades we see already system become deformed somewhat, especially my primaries. somewhat also by changes in the media environment so that we are left in a place where as you say, the fringes of the parties make the most important decision at the beginning of the election cycle, which is who gets to run.

who is the nominee of the party. doing that in the way we do through primaries means that a very, very small fringe of each party, you have about 8% of the public showing up to vote on primary day. those people i very intensely engaged, they are ideological, they don't want to see a lot of bargaining, they want to see people who are more hard-line along their views. and those are the kind of people we now get in our system. i think there is room from reform of how the parties choose their candidates, but i do think that broadly speaking the two-party system works well for us. i very much agree with what you say about the way in which the weaknesses congress has come to deform the american constitutional system. a lot of the overreaching of the courts, even a lot of the overreaching of the president which we see now is a result of under reaching by congress, under reaching that is intentional, where members don't want the responsibility of making the big decisions in her system and deleted two other people. the system is not meant to work that way and we do see a lot of problems as a result.

i think it's necessary for congress to reassert itself and put itself at the center here. host: you brighten in your piece about disgrace. using president biden these dispraise not because he was reelected, but at the same time there's no getting around the dispraise involved in bringing donald trump back to the white house after his own post- election the trails of his constitutional load in 2021. guest: what happened in 2020 and 2021, donald trump laufer election, that happens. instead of accepting that as every has president has, he decided that it didn't really happen in try to persuade his voters that it didn't really happen. he persuaded a large chunk of the public that the letter was not budgeted. he created a real constitutional crisis, part of which was an assault on the capital which was done by people who thought they were acting on his behest, whether they work or not. i think there's no getting around the fact that that is a failure to uphold the

president's responsibility under our constitution. whatever you think of donald trump or one before that moment and what he has done since, that was a failure to uphold the responsibility of the president that i think can only be seen as a disgrace in our constitutional system, and to bring them back after that is a kind of civic failure that the republican party went back to the same and that it that it had, given what he did, i think was a failure responsibly on their part. president biden ended his term by taking all kinds of actions that i think our realm beyond the scope of appropriate uses of presidential power. his use of the pardon power at the end, the notion that he could declare a new constitutional amendment to be valid, cat is not how our system works. that is not what presidents do. in both cases, the public is faced with a very unfortunate choice in this election. you can see it in the way people voted. they were not happy with either choice. that is what a 50-50 election looks like.

they had to make a choice between any sense, two evils and they made one. they decided that the incumbent needed to be out but i don't think we should forget what happened after the 2020 election in a think it is very to all our presidents to account when they failed to uphold their oaths of office and that has happened here, there is no way around it. host: new jersey, democrats line. caller: good morning. we find the revolution and we all felt that had a part to play. but right now we have a president who does not really wish to follow the u.s. constitution. he sees himself as above the law and he has been thanks to the

poor actions of our supreme court giving him what he sees as unlimited power. it's going to be iraqi for years . i pray that we don't have anything serious happened to this nation as a result of his total incompetence and criminal activity, but i can't be guaranteed it. nobody can be guaranteed it. and i do not blame president biden. this four years from the rule of donald trump. it tells me that america has faced, and not demographically or ethnically, but we have people who applauded criminality. they applauded what he did. they applauded what the oath

keepers and the proud boys did on january 6. because they are criminals to the core. and we have to call it out. it is not who we are. host: thank you. thank you for the call. guest: i agree with what she said at the end. i do think there is dangerous criminality in the january 6 assault on the capitol. i don't think they should have an pardon, at least the people who committed violent crimes should not have been. i also think we are in for iraqi ride. there is no way around that. at the end of the day every administration has something like a personality of the president for good and bad. we saw that the first time around with donald trump but we see it with every president. the strengths and weaknesses of the individual are reflected in the work of the administration. there is a way in which character is destiny, and if character is destiny that is not breaking news for donald trump. host: she talked about the supreme court the community decision, how it can affect the

next few years. what is it and what is it not? guest: i don't agree that that immunity decision broke new ground in a way that changes the place of the president and air system. the idea that there is some immunity for presidential actions and for especially the processes by which presidents make decisions is a very long-standing principle in law. the court has never before believed and asked to codify or expound on the meaning or extent of that principle. what they did was fairly generic and it's going to have to be tested as a practical matter. i think the question of exactly what it means is going to have to be decided because donald trump those intent, i think, to test the bounds of his constitutional power. my hope is that the court are strong enough to stand up to those downs. our system only works to our cause additional offices are assertive and aggressive, but also restrict and restrain one

another. and it is incumbent on the courts to make sure that presidential actions happen within the framework of our laws and of the constitution itself. i think the supreme court does need to do that. that is my sense, it does want to restrain both of the other branches from reaching beyond their appropriate powers. they've done that a fair amount, they restricted the power of the president of the administrative state, and i certainly hope that they have the backbone to continue to do that. i think they will, we will see. host: republican line from florida, nelson, hello. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i tend to disagree with a number of your statements and before i ask my question, i would like to point out that in the 2020 election, there were several states that violated their own election laws and their own

constitutions, which puts a question mark as to what the real results were for that particular election. i would also like to point out that donald trump since he has taken over in one week has been making the united states a safer place to be by his getting rid of the numerous criminals that were allowed to come in by the last administration. now, having said that i am a trump supporter, i think he is a good president and i did vote for him. having said that, i do have a concern where you and i may agree, and that is the proliferation of executive orders that has been used by the last several presidents, because congress can't seem to even agree as to what a man and a woman are, and i think that that

is a danger in regards to the possibility of slowly losing our freedoms and our rights. i hear a lot of things about dictators and things of that nature, oligarchs, but i think that this friend of a continuation of the executive order in order to get anything done leads to the possibility of those potential results. host: nelson in florida. guest: first of all i would say the 2020 election was litigated and adjudicated in the outcome of it was decided in the ways in which are available to was in her system to decide things like that. any close election what is really need tested is our commitment to the law. and i do think that it is important to recognize that would happened after that election was a loser of the election just simply being

unwilling to accept the result and that should not happen in our system. i very much agree with the latter point the part of the problem we face is that congress not willing to step up and do its job. and so on whatever issue may be important to you, where you see presidential action in an aggressive, assertive way that tries to make policy through executive orders and ministry of actions, very often what is happening there is a vacuum has been created by congress, and the president is rushing into phyllis. it is a problem that presidents are doing this, they exceed their authority. of the underlying problem in the vacuum. by congress, the unwillingness of our national legislature to step up and do its job that job is hard. it means taking responsibility for decisions that may not always be popular and it doesn't i a willingness to do it. but nobody's forcing these people to run for congress. if that is the job they want they have to recognize that is the responsibility they taken on and has to reassert itself.

i think we seen under both parties that congress stepping back, earning power over the president and treating itself as a kind of observer or at best as just doing oversight over presidential action, that is not their fundamental role. legislation is, and i think we need to see much more legislative action. host: to that end, to what degree do you see congress as a rubberstamp for the president? guest: there are narrow republican majorities and they are going to try to support his agenda wherever they can. the challenge if they make and secondary to the president. they treat themselves as existing to advance an agenda and that is just not quite right even when the president is of your own party. i think you're reasonably likely to see a divided congress after the midterm election, and at that point obviously oversight changes a lot, that just shouldn't be the case. there should be a commitment both to oversight into legislation at any point and under any kind of party leadership congress congress has to see itself as the prime mover

in the system, and we got to a place for congress sees itself as secondary. post: our conversation, he's also the author of the book "american covenant: how the constitution unified our nation and could again." jack is out next from pennsylvania, republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. you seem to have taken a stance that the 2020 election was a free and fair election to the american people, and i don't believe that for a minute. i believe that in every form and fashion the 2020 election was corrupted. i believe it was corrupted and targeted in one direction from summertime on. i believe people like mark elias , people like the 51 intelligence officers and our mainstream media were in full cahoots to create an election

that was neither free nor fair. something we are guaranteed. thank you. guest: well we do disagree on that. i think that there certainly were all kind of action at the margin on both sides that were attempt to destroy the election results, but that ultimately the election, that where there were questions, they were dedicated and adjudicated. but it is worth saying that the reason that we can even have this kind of argument about an election at the national level is that our elections have been most 21st century. and whatever you think of how it was run, you can certainly save the 2020 election was extremely close. and what happens in a close elti commitment to the law. to the rule of law, by which ultimately these questions are decided. the outcomes are determined both by judges and by congress certification. that was done in 2020.

i think we have to accept the results of elections. prior to elections before 2024, of 20 and 2020 were treated as illegitimate by the party that lost them the result and the resulting president were treated as illegitimate. i think we have to move away from that way of treating our national politics. and one thing i do feel good about about the 2020 for a much and is that even though it was still close, it was at least decisive enough that the losing party did not treated as a legitimate election and that is trying to think matt had to deal with the fact that it went it did. what are voters teaching us and showing us about what they believe in that what we should be arguing or? i think a party that loses the election should always try to learn in that way. to pretend that he did not happen is not a serious way to respond to the outcome of an election. the 2020 election did happen. it was four years ago. any of us to her adults saw it happen and i think the notion that it was fundamentally distorted by some conspiracy is

not right. it's worth looking at the results. it's worth looking at the work that has been done since then to assess the outcomes, to assess the way it was administered. it was certainly not without problems but i do think we have to treat the outcome as legitimate. host: joe is in ohio, democrats line, good morning. caller: when i look back at the election, i look back at it as the election of hate. on their public inside i never would have guessed 10 years ago that they would be against the constitution, against law and order. pro-russian, and anti-election all because of the fact that the white population is decrea. and then on the democratic side, and people didn't come out to vote because of anti-semitism. i never would have guessed that the progressive party would be for the death of israel and

extermination of jews either wittingly or unwittingly. so a lot of people sat home and that is why trump one. -- won. and very upset over the fact that when people vote with hatred, it makes everybody poor. we should have been concentrating on the middle class. looking at housing. why there is a shortage of housing. looking at economic issues. but now, people are driven by hate and now look what we've got. we've got trump and his corruption. guest: one way to think about the point this color is making is that a library election and leanne fundamentally negative. voters have been voting on the basis of welfare against and have not been offered enough way of a positive agenda to vote for what they are for. it is actually connected to the fact that we have 50-50 elections over and over. what happens when you have two minority parties rather than a

majority that is holding the coalition together in a minority that is trying to broaden its own coalition, both of those are engaged in coalition voting, trying to reach out to more voters and build support. in a 50-50 moment when you have essentially two minority parties, they are each most invested in getting the most devoted voters out with me that therefore message to the country is that the other party must not be allowed to win. and if you step back from american elections in the last 20 years, the essential message that both parties have offered is if the other party wins, the country is over that is an argument that make it 50% plus one, but it is not an argument that builds the theater of the country. it's not true and it's not an argument that helps to think about what we are going 20 years that we don't have now. but our politics is going to be doing doubt this country the more prosperous and more peacefully generation from now the next durable majority collection, the next real winner of an american national election is going to have to offer the country as an addition to the to

think about not just 50%, 60% voting for you. you have to think about how to appeal to that broad segment in the middle of the country that is underrepresented in every election and over, and you have to offer more than the argument that if the other guy wins, it is the end of everything. you have to offer of yourself as more than just not the other guy. i think both of our party set on a terrible job on this front for most of the 21st century. host: we have confirmation hearings this week for rfk jr., tulsi gabbard. you can comment specifically on those, but what message do you think these and other nominations is the president trying to send? guest: these are very controversial nominations. not all of his findings have been that way. marco rubio got confirmed 99-0. we seen a number of other cabinet level appointments get confirmed with very broad bipartisan support and we see that the sub cabinet level,

there are a number of individuals is chosen who absolutely pick at the divisions in our society and who frankly in some respects are just not the right choices for the job they can appointed to, are not appropriate, not experienced, are not right for it. i feel that way especially about rfk jr., he strikes me as a very poor choice for running the department of health and human services, but i think in all these cases they are going to be marginally hard to get through. and the fact that even in this moment when republicans are very intent on helping trump succeed and advancing his agenda, a number of them are willing to say no to these particular nominees. action raise red flags. the senate's job is to raise red flags when those are necessary. and happens to every president. this president already has his first choice for attorney general who dropped out before there was even a confirmation hearing.

i think people have some more choppy waters in the coming weeks. host: the website for our guest organization, aei.org.