paris, a man attack ad police officer with a hammer. we do not know who the man was. we don't know his motivation but we are calling it terror. it has come to this in the center of paris, in the center of a cathedral, hands in the air, surrendering, extraordinary. neil, it is yours. neil: such a familiar scene as well. we're on top of that. very little market reaction as stuart pointed out. tells you about times we live, one terror attack after another eets with the seam response. th we got used to this or because it was not a lot worse. we're keeping eye on that. another event might have gone unnoticed by other folks. it began in the "wall street journal." a story in the "washington post," bemoan the fact that republicans, conservative writers frustrated with a president will not take the blame but continue to point the fingers.

i know i will hear from a lost never trump percent, for those who say i'm out to get the president and make comment on my weight, which i always find crosses a dangerous line, america but the only point i'm raising here, a rather scathing editorial for "wall street journal," pro-capitalist paper, that the president is botching very promising agenda and only himself to blame. quoting from a couple of lines that stuck with me, i will get night with my guest, if this pattern continues, talking about the president's propensity to tweet and blame others or out of context tweets in middle of something going on london and go after the london mayor, the president may find himself running an administration with no one but his family and the "breitbart" staff, people talented integrity won't work for a boss who undermines them in public without thinking about the consequences and whatever happened to the buck stops here? now by the way this, would not be the first president who would be disparaged in the media.

this would be a first republican president though who gets ripped apart by largely conservative media. certainly "the wall street journal," that likes the president's agenda, likes what he wants to do with tax cuts, likes what he wants to do on reforming health care, getting regulations out of the way, boosting economy from tepid growth we've seen, likes all of that stuff, but says the president might be getting in the way of that very agenda of his. "wall street journal" editorial page deputy editor, dan henninger, "real clear politics" national reporter caitlyn huey burns on that notion if the president is his own worst enhe my. n, to be fair, you have said this before, there is much you like about the agenda the president outlined but when he gets digs tracked or -- distracted or tweets, the kind of stuff okay if he was tweets on subject that is something, the markets and other like rather than getting distracted on issues that have nothing to do with the time being. what is this it doing to him? what are you arguing?

>> we're arguing in short trump is undermining trump, all right? trump is undermining the trump agenda, the things he wants to do and the tweet we focused on in this editorial is the series of tweets about the travel ban. neil: right. >> the travel ban was initiated back in january. it was blocked by the courts. then we've had two district courts, both ninth district and fourth district rule against that ban. so the justice department has rewritten it because the president wanted the ban reduced. they rewritten it in a waypass h the courts. now the courts are pushing that ban up to the supreme court. the basis for which they ruled on those two bans in the ninth and fourth district, not so much the text of the ban or the president's authority but they cited president's comments during the campaign as targeting specifically people from islam. the tweet says that second travel ban is a watered down

version and what he really wants is the original one. the original one is the one that will not pass mustier with the courts. neil: he signed off on this. >> he signed off on his people going out there and rewriting this. so by putting out this tweet he is undermined all the legal effort that his people at justice have been going through to try to get it through the supreme court, and that is the sort of thing you can't do if you are going to try to recruit good people into your administration and have them work for you. the boss has to have your back. neil: caitlyn, one of the things i fear, the president who has very good political instincts, got him through the white house, will lose this grip on the white house if he continues throwing his own team under the bus and for good measure puts it in reverse to make sure they are dead. jeff sessions, most loyal alley whether you like him or not as attorney general, truth be told, you're a big reason why we're in this legal pickle we're in? >> that was the most strikinto your point, he is going after

his own stice department, not only his own justice department, but an attorney general has been with him since the beginning. neil: why does he do that? one thing to go after the media and all of that, that is fair game and they do really hate him. i'm saying why go after your own team, braving the battle? >> people compared this to someone dealing with their own lawyer, right? your own lawyer is saying don't talk, don't talk, and they don't want to take that advice. that is kind of what we're seeing here but you and i also talked a lot about the legislative calendar. we are in june right now. we only have a you few weeks really until lawmakers go on august recess and we know after that, we started into the midterm elections. so you're looking at a calendar shrinking in terms of actual time you have to get anything done legislatively, just yesterday, the president was trying to, the white house was trying to make this week about infrastructure, something he campaigned on. something that could generate bipartisan support. instead he undermined his own agenda by sending off these

tweets that also weakened his legal case on something that he campaigned on. neil: but you know, i don't mind the tweets. i think that's fine but stick to the subject which you want to pounce on those tweets. when you rail against the london mayor in middle of an attack a city in shell shock with third attack in many months, you distract from that. if you want to tweet about now is time we focus on getting our economic house in order or getting our own safety in order, that's fine, but when you go off on a tangent here you more or less provide a get foreyour enemies? >> the trump presidency will be measured bit success whether they get through revision of obamacare, republican health care bill. neil: he must know that, so why get off on these tangents? >> well, i'll tell you, the best i can come up with, neil, social media is very destructive technology.

it kept about 10 kids out of getting into harvard. if they can do it to 19-year-old, do it to 70-year-old sitting in the white house. mr. trump is much better when personally talking. twitter, emails, very destructive, not getting tone want you want to get across. talk about it in person. neil: keep it to the subject. if you want to pounce a theme as ronald reagan was doing early on in his administration drastically cut taxes make almost ever white house utterance for that, if tweeting was the available. i have no doubt ronald reagan probably would have given a chance at that, just to sort of get that word out, but you are setting yourself up for a fall and disappointment. >> this is something we saw over and over on the campaign trail. that he dismissed all advice given to it him, went his own way, it actually worked in the context of the campaign. neil: he would argue, saying again today, you know he,

despite these guys, i'm the one who got elected. that is very, very true. but now you have to keep -- >> broader voting public is very different from lawmakers in congress for example. he is also facing a very, historically low approval rating which gives democrats virtually know political incentive to work with him, other republicans not proof of him wanting to work with them to get their interests done. that is what i'm watching, when does that group kind of fall off in terms saying look, we'll not get much done, why don't we go our own way. neil: i want to bring in karl rove, former bush 43 chief of staff and multiple author. karl, more successful presidents by and large, dan might correct me they are bless ad staff loyal to them because they really liked the president. they feel he had their back. john kennedy, ronald reagan, your own boss, great loyalty among the staff.

i'm wondering about that risks that for donald trump. that if, again and again, you're getting knocked around in the press and president is one knocking you around whether you would want to continue, let alone serving him and serving him loyally? >> look, presidents who are successful tend to draw to them people, right word you used instill. everybody who walks into the white house is not necessarily well-known to the president but does the president have the leadership skills to create a team of people who are willing to walk in and say to him, mr. president, here is my candid view, i disagree with you. this president is by his actions making it very difficult to attract good people and to keep got people. not only that, but as my "wall street journal" colleagues pointed out, he has created problems for himself in these wild tweets. but they left out one of the biggest problems he created for himself. he started this at 3:25 a.m. dan is absolutely right. he used those words travel ban which his lawyers have been attempting not to use at all in

the court. he comes back and says, i want the justice adopt to be defending the original travel ban, not this watered down one. he is attacking himself. he is the president. he is one who had to withdraw the first travel ban and institute the second executive order on immigration. he did this, not the justice department. it is his signature on both the document withdrawing the january 27th executive order and his signatures on the marchth executive order. he says we need expedited and we need to go back and have them ask the supreme court to hear the original order. well, look, he is not a lawyer, and he would have to resign the january 27th one for it to have force of executive order. here's the big one. his final tweet at 3:44 a.m. says, we're already extreme vetting. we're already extreme vetting. wasn't the whole purpose of this thing to create a period in the second executive order 30 days

for the secretary of homeland security to develop new extreme vetting procedures. 50 days to consult with countries that would be affected and tell them what information we would need. that order was signed march 7th. 30 days standards would be done in early april and we would be approaching the day where the he affect the countries would be reporting back. no one has said the president doesn't have the authority to impose extreme vetting. why haven't the administration been out there working on some of those standards? neil: to that journal article, it ended with rather profound point to say mark it all down further evidence most effective open pent of -- opponent of the trump presidency is donald j. trump? where are the people, the role you played with president bush, although you're a good friend, you would never reveal it here, i will try when you're tired, mr. president, this is bad move, this is not a good idea? where are those people? they all look like they have deer in the headlights to me.

they are afraid to take on the boss. i understand that. it can be very intimidating even in the white house, let alone being with the president in the white house, where are those person or individuals who will play that role, whether it was bobby kennedy in his brother's adminstration or even later on howard bakewer ronald reagan or you with presint bush? where are those people? if they're there, and they have a funny way of counseling it. >> i think there are a lot of good people in the white house but the president sets the tone and the tone right from the beginning is, with this president, it is not my fault, it is your fault. i have never seen so many stories over a such a sustained period of time in which the president is telling people, being quoted by sources who have talked to him, that he is upset with this member of this white house staff or that member of the white house staff, particularly in moments of crisis. in a moment of crisis, when the shells are coming fast and furious when you want battlefield commander to say we're all in this together and we're going to prevail.

it is not moment, you know what? , second lieutenant jones or sergeant cavuto or private henninger, they're doing a lousy job. that is not the moment you need that to happen. this president despite running a business, doesn't seem to intense moment of intense pressure he needs to rally his troops, not undermined them. neil: i like the fact that i would have higher rank than dan. >> i will pay for this on thursday in henninger's column which appears right above mine. neil: heavily edited come. dan, do you gets sense that negative very trumpers rally against the agenda, the agenda is solid and fine and popular, well-received. a lot of people do want lower taxes. a lot of people do want relief from regulation. a lot of people want forceful, authoritative america. a lot of people support notion that we sometimes get suckered into agreements that are controversial but he gets in his own way here, and i'm wondering

given the limited time you alluded to does it look like he is sinking himself? >> it looks like he is sinking himself. ultimately is is not about the media or "wall street journal" editorial page. neil: i know this is seminal development. you and your paper raised doubts before but laid out in a way this whole agenda is in peril because of your behavior. >> agenda, there is another phrase for the agenda, called make america great again. that is why so many people voted for donald trump. they wanted the agenda beneath make america great again. that is what he is putting at risk. that is what he himself believes and what he wants to do. >> he has got to know that caitlyn, doesn't he? he is risking his moseying ture potential achievement, got him he elected, shake things up and pot things done, got him elected could be tearing him apart? >> if he knows he is not showing it. he is placing blame as you mentioned on everybody else. whats coming down the pike is comey testimony. neil: right. >> make whatever you want of

allegations of collusion. the fact there is a big, big spotlight on comey, because of what the president said about comey. the nature of the firing but what the president said later on about his reasonings for firing him so that is just north example of this week again supposed to be focused on infrastructure, supposed to be focused on health care, going to be overshadowed by that testimony and of course talk about these tweets. >> it's a test. are we having tweet storms over the comey testimony, which will eliminate for three days anything they're trying to do on the agenda? instead we'll all pull over to the side of the road, here and everywhere else talk about the comey tweets. neil: absolutely. real quickly, karl, one thing came up in the separate story in "washington post," all republicans many quoted, not just anonymous sources anytime the president is not talking about tax cuts and health care fix and all we're falling, we're behind the eight ball, paraphrasing to say they're