>> paul: welcome to "the journal editorial report." i'm paul gigot. a victory for president trump thursday with his secretary of state nominee mike pompeo narrowly winning approval if the senate. he took the rain reins of the se department as president trump prepares to meet kim jong un and faces a may deadline for pulling out of the iran nuclear accord. bob corker, welcome senator, good to have you here. so let me ask you about the pompeo fight. secretaries of state nominees usually are a lot easier than this. why was this one so difficult?

>> you know, paul, i think it's a sign of the times. he obviously was very well qualified, first in his class at west point, patrolled as an army patrolman, the iron curtain. he ended up being editor of the law review at harvard after serving his country, where he learned about diplomacy, i might add, ran two companies and now he's director of the cia where people give him lavish praise. it shouldn't have been this hard but it happened. he got one more vote than secretary tillerson but it's just where we are. >> paul: john kerry passed easily, hill youl youly clinton- hillary clinton did. is this a sign of the difficulties? >> whenever that is discussed, my friends say absolutely not. they have legitimate concerns. i do think that the base of the democratic party does view this

as a proxy of support for president trump and i think it made it hard for their members to vote for him. but look, he's confirmed. he's now off immediately dealing with some major issues around the world. i'm glad we were successful and i'm glad in committee we were able to push him out with a positive recommendation instead of what looked like might have been a negative recommendation. he still would have been confirmed but it would have been somewhat historic and a little bit of a blight. so it all worked out well and hopefully he'll move ahead very successfully. >> paul: let's take one of those issues in particular, which is iran and the nuclear accord and emmanuel macron was in washington this week and he seemed to be open to the idea to renegligencnegotiating the -- rg the nuclear deal, meeting some of president trump's demands, otherwise he's threatened to pull out. how do you view the macron

concessions? >> i talked to his principal advisor, obviously talked to the president also, but after his speech and it's a little fuzzy as to what they actually are talking about. you had a great editorial, i think just in the last day or so, about it. the sunset provision, as you know, has been the big issue with the europeans and merkel's coming in and she's been most resistant to that they view it as retrading the deal, they view it as a violation of the j.c.p.o.a. we do not. i don't think our european counterparts really believe it's a violation. if we can move to where that sunset provision can be addressed and have a new framework, i think the president will stay in the deal. short of that, i think on may 12 he pulse away from it. >> paul: the sunset provision says things start to end in 2025 which isn't that much further away from here. macron told all of you in

congress iran will never get a weapon, never. 2025 is not never. that's pretty soon. >> no. as you know, they can -- they're limited to 5,00 5,060 century falling5,0605,060 centrifuges, they're off and running with research and development. we need to deal with the sunset provision. if we can get across that hurdle, that will be a major achievement by the administration and for our country. so we'll see what happens this week and if not, again, i think we will pull away from it. >> paul: let's talk about what happens in either case. if you get a deal with thee-3, britney, germany and france -- britain, germany and france, would you be prepared to go to your fellow members of congress and say let's add those to your

legislation in 2015 that reviewed the deal? >> absolutely. we've been working for a year with the national security council and look, paul, this whole three point issue really came from our office, early on. about a year ago we knew where the president was because the election. we began working with rex tillerson and general mcmaster to craft legislation. the legislation that we would pass domestically, we sent it to the europeans five months ago. >> paul: so they know it. >> they're very a aware. i think that, again, the resistance is the democrats do not want to enter into any kind of domestic legislation that they feel is violating the j.c.p.o.a. or that the europeans support. if we have the -- or that the europeans don't support. if we have the european stamp of approval we could pass legislation, working closely with the administration.

>> paul: how do you think the iranians will respond if there's a request to add these terms to the j.c.p.o.a.? >> they're going to say it's a violation. we know that. and my private conversations with the europeans, if we can get there, they have planned to say that it's not a violation. but they'll raise a lot of cane. t paulpaul, it's still, as you , and you've reported this and editorialized on this, the agreement is still in their benefit to stay in. will they move away from it, even with these changes, i don't think so. >> paul: thank you very much for being here. >> thank you. >> paul: two european leaders courting president trump this week in washington, what emmanuel macron and angela merkel hope to come away with from their white house visits, next. >> tech: don't wait for a chip like this to crack your whole windshield. with safelite's exclusive resin, you get a strong repair that you can trust. plus, with most insurance

a safelite repair is no cost to you. >> customer: really?! >> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace. ancestrydna has 5x more detail ...and it's now on sale for just $59. it can lead you on an unexpec ted journey... ...to discover your heritage. get ancestrydna for just $59. the lowest price of the year.

i recommend my tempur-pedic to nigheverybody.ver. the most highly recommended bed in america. now ranked highest in customer satisfaction with mattresses by jd power. visit tempurpedic.com to find your exclusive retailer today. your body was made for better things than rheumatiod arthritis. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment,

ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well. it can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. xeljanz xr can reduce the symptoms of ra, even without methotrexate. ask your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr. france will not leave the

j.t.p.o.a. your president and your conference will have to take in the current days and weeks its own responsibilities regarding this issue. that's what i want to do and what we decided together with your president is that we can work on a more comprehensive deal, addressing all his concerns. >> paul: that was emmanuel macron in his speech before congress buenz wednesday, urging president trump not to abandon the iran nuclear deal without have a more comprehensive deal in place. topping the agenda, ahead of key deadlines, the european ex. >>exemption from u.s. steel and aluminum tariffs is set to expire on may first and president trump has until may 12

to decide if he's staying in the iran deal. let's bring in dan henninger and mary o'grady and bill mcgurn. you heard bob corker and that bite from emmanuel macron. what do you think of macron's offer here? can there be a deal between the europeans and the americans? >> i do think there can be a deal, paul. what emmanuel macron has done is changed the status quo, which is the current iranian deal. he altered that while announcing while he was in washington that we were going to add to the deal or attempt to tighter nuclear inspections and the iranian's blaballistic missile system, log range, as well as their cyber attacks, as well as their sponsorship of terror which would be hezbollah and their imperial am missions in the middlambitions in the middleeas. angela merkel will have to react

to that my guess is, paul, that the brits and theresa may probably ultimately will go along. it turns on mrs. merkel. >> paul: this is fascinating in europe. a year ago, angela merkel was the big leader in europe. now she's weakened because of her election result and the coalition government. macron, his surprise big victory, much stronger than theresa may and merkel. he's in many ways the leader in western europe. >> he did a good job while in washington, understanding how to play with president trump. he has at lof -- he has a lot of emotional intelligence. i think he played that well. there's still a sticking point in terms of the sunset agreement in the agreement and that's where they're saying we have the deal and we have to stick with

it. with the sunset in 2025, it sounds like it's a long time away until you realize it's seven years. that's a serious hurdle. >> paul: i guess the question is, if this is something that they can agree to, then you have a united front that you can take to the iranians, take to russia, and say look, we want to add these things in it, we'll keep the deal, otherwise we won't reimpose sanctions. iran will be displeased but that's a more powerful position to be in. >> the objection to the deal is that it's not going to do what it pretends to do, which is stop them from acquiring new clear weapons. if you could come up with something that makes it stronger, i think they'd be interested. i thought what mr. macron did was very smart, it's called representing your country. he came and he proves he had profound disagreements with president trump. >> paul: climate change in particular. >> climate change and iran and

so forth and he voicehood them. he didn't come with a -- voiced them. he didn't come with a near. [speaking in frenc french [. it's better not to come with a near. >> paul: the concern, and what we'll hear a lot of is from the defenders of the agreement and the obama administration and others, is that this is we're going back on our word. obama committed the u.s. to this and for trump to threaten to pull out is something that is unacceptable. what's your response to that. >> one response is that it is only our word, this agreement doesn't have the force of law. it's only and agreement. and one might add as well that that means we do not need the assent of china or russia to commit to a revised agreement. i think it's also understood that barack obama and john kerry

were under pressure at the end of the obama presidency, so they pushed this through and they left some issues undone such as the question of iran's long range ballistic missiles and tighter inspections, not to mention the sunset provision. i think there's a sense that this needs be dealt with again and if you can preserve the europeans' commercial relationship with the iranians which has skyrocketed in the past 18 months and the iranians have incentive to continue that economic relationship, it's entirely possible that we're going to get a revised iranian nuclear deal. >> paul: when you say it doesn't have the force of law, barack obama never submitted it to the senate for a treaty vote because he knew it would be defeated. it doesn't have the force of american law. let's talk about trade. what does macron and merkel want from trump? they want to be exemption from the tariff. >> trump is saying maybe we can

work things out but we need something in exchange. with south korea, he got higher tariffs on imported pickup trucks from south korea, he raised protectionism in the u.s. in order to make a trade with the europeans. he also wants bilateral agreements. he finds negotiating with the european union very us from tating. >> paul: if you want to -- frustrating. >> paul: if you want to trade, why not give them the trade stuff in return for doing something on the iran deal. >> that would make more sense. he could also back down from what he's demanded and it's quite obvious that trade with europe is very important to the u.s. economy. >> paul: when we come back, president trump blaming obstructionist democrats after his pick for the veterans affairs chief pulls out. our panel weighs in on the jackson withdrawal and the fate of other trump nominees, next. he's a great man. he got treated very, very unfairly. you know what's awesome? gig-speed internet.

you know what's not awesome? when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig- really? and these kids, and these guys, him, ah. oh hello. that lady, these houses! yes, yes and yes.

and don't forget about them. uh huh, sure. still yes! xfinity delivers gig speed to more homes than anyone. now you can get it, too. welcome to the party. >> paul: president trump's pick to lead the department of veterans affairs withdrew his name from consideration thursday after senate democrats released a list of anonymous allegations made against him. the president slamming democrat as obstructionists following dr, calling him an incredible man who would have done a great job. we're back with dan henninger, bill mcgurn and kate o'dell. what's the lesson that you take away from the ronny jackson fiasco? >> well, i first wonder, paul, who was want to do this job if your character will be called into question in such a nasty,

anonymous way. but i think if you look at the larger picture, this is really becoming a problem for the trump administration. the partnership for public service has been tracking 650 senate confirmable positions. 300 of them have been confirmed. another 140 have been nominated but not confirmed. 200 or so have no nominees whatsoever. some of this is obstruction. some of this is the white house disorganization. >> paul: we've criticized the president for kind of throwing ronny jackson in there, bill, without proper vetting. but boy, some of this stuff that kate referred to, this really nays testify stuff coming out -- nasty stuff coming out, anonymous and unconfirmed. >> this should be very troubling. i saw today the secret service put out a statement saying the accusation that he was banging on a hotel door of a woman so loudly that a secret service agent had to intervene because he was going to wake up the president, they said there's no evidence for that.

this really looks like unfair treatment when you can make these charges. it's also a warning to president trump. the senate and confirmations is consistenconstrued in a certain. no senator can get you across the finish line in anything you want. but almost every single one has the ability to stick it to you if they want. and if he loses the senate, it's not just judges, it's going to be this every day. >> paul: he has been serving under three presidents in the white house as the physician, 12 years, none of this came out. you would think that if there really were character problems, one of these presidents would haved said hey, you can can't be here. >> we're going to get all the clarifications now after, as the secret service saying no record of this. supposedly he crashed a car. is there a record of a car, a government car being crashed? you would think there would be some record there. >> paul: dan, what about the pompeo fight? bob corker, senator corker was

saying okay, well, it's over now. i think there's a more serious message here which is about what is likely to happen if democrats take the senate in november, next year. i don't think any of the appellate court nominees, supreme court judges will get through at all. none, zero. the question is, can even major cabinet no, ma'a nominees get a? >> no. i mean, it's becoming -- the pompeo thing is a benchmark, very historic important event. you think the press would give it more attention. they simply translate it into chaos in the trump cabinet. in fact, what looks like is happening is the democratic party will basically try to prevent the trump presidency from forming a government. they do that by preventing the nominees like the ambassador to germany, he was held up for 18 months and they're only approving him now because angela merkel is in town.

this is a nightmare, paul, that could come back to haunt the next democratic president because they are setting this as a precedent and the precedent is that the executive branch should not be able to function for only political reasons. that was never the intention of the founding fathers but that is where we have arrived with the pompeo nomination. >> paul: all right, kate, what are senate republicans trying to do to speed up these confirmations in wconfirms?we ke which means that if democrats want to they can i' insist that every nominee be debated for 30 hours on the floor of the senate and they've used that more than any other senate in the past, haven't they? >> they have. they've used it 89 times in the first two years versus 24 for barack obama and only four for george w. bush. it's a huge increase. so senator james langford of

oklahoma is pushing a bill that would change the rules and limit debate on most nominees to eight hours. but the problem is that you need 60 votes and democrats so far aren't really interested in lending those votes. and so the question is, how far republicans are willing to push it. are they willing to threaten weekend work or working on fridays? >> paul: well, mitch mcconnell says he's willing to threaten them on occasion for that, this is the republican majority leader. if he were to try to do that every weekend, the democrats would shut down the senate and nothing would get done. >> sure. i think that the trump administration really needs some of these positions filled and like you said, if they lose the senate in the fall, which is very easy to see happening, there will be no one confirmed. >> paul: thank you. >> either way. >> paul: when we come back, an historic summit between north and south korea and a pledge of peace after decades of hostility. what it means for president trump's own upcoming meeting

with kim jong un, next. i think we deliver real, honest, strong opinions on fox and viewers expect that. they know with me they're going to get a straight shooter, no holds barred, i'm not going to cut people slack but i'll also be fair. it's a place where we have real debates and we really respect the traditions that made this country great. liberty mutual stood with me when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night. hold on dad... liberty did what? yeah, liberty mutual 24-hour roadside assistance helped him to fix his flat so he could get home safely. my dad says our insurance doesn't have that. don't worry - i know what a lug wrench is, dad. is this a lug wrench? maybe? you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

>> paul: north and south crees ya declaring a new era of peace following an historic meeting between the two countries' two leaders this week, the first in more than a decade. kim jong un and moon jae-in pledging to work for complete denuclearization of the korean peninsula. president trump responded saying good things are happening but only time will tell. mary, this summit between the korean leaders, was this a major breakthrough? >> i want to be optimistic. i believe in hope and peace and all those nice things, but i really think that you have to be pretty skeptical about this. you have a guy who basically has all of his power in the threat of nuclear attacks against the south and the south has very few options here. and so if this sort of tea party

between the two of them is something the north wants, well, okay, why not. it doesn't hurt. but i don't think so far we've seen anything to make us believe that the north is going to leave aside its aggression. >> paul: bill, as i read the summit statement, it doesn't include a promise of denuclearization. we're taking moon's word that kim told him that that was his intent. but there's nothing that says i will do it by x, y, z date. >> look, mr. kim is stalling for time. mr. moon is afraid of any conflict because seoul gets destroyed in anything. >> paul: you spent some time in south korea. >> and actually in north korea, if you count going over the line of the dmz. in the 65 years since the arrest armastice was signed, the concern has been war breaking out in the region. that's changed. mr. pompeo said they're

developing missiles and so forth to strike the u.s. with a nuclear warhead and that that was -- i think his phrase was a handful of months. so actually before 2020. mr. trump has made that a red line. mr. kim has now incentive to drop this program. because the biggest insurance policy is having a nuclear weapon. look at what happened to qaddafi when he gave up his. i don't think he's going to give it up diplomatically. i think he's only going to give it up if it's taken away from him. >> paul: the one wild card here, we don't know about, is what is china saying to north korea behind the scenes. china is north korean's patron. trump has leaned on china hard to get north korea to move. we don't know if china is taking a new look at the north korean threat and what it means because of the development of missiles and the reaction by the trump administration to it with implicit threat that everything is on the table, including

military force. we don't know what you china's role here is. >> we don't know. what we do know is that kim jong un recently made a visit to china, the first one, and talked to sh the president there. what we've seen is that kim jong un has undertaken to shall we say rebrand himself from a complete nut into a new statesman and that's what he is doing with the olympics and that's what he was doing in this meeting with president moon. now, the question is even mainstream media described this meeting as being at best a note of cautious optimism. but there's a little bit of a danger here, paul, in that president moon did not extract very much from kim. they talked about a new peace. but essentially what moon is doing here is reviving the so-called talks or negotiation model. in other words, donald trump now is supposed to sit down with kim and start negotiating.

and trump has made it pretty clear that he wants to do more than that. but in the interim, world opinion will build tremendously on mr. trump for negotiating long-term with mr. kim and i think the silver lining here is that donald trump doesn't give a tinker's damn about world opinion. he's going to press for something har harder, a consist, a commitment to denuclearization. >> paul: it could be a short conversation if mr. trump said denuclearization, and mr. kim says no. this lead-up suggests you need to bend, sir, otherwise you'll be the war monger. >> donald trump will not yield to any kind of pressure. i'm not worried about that. the one thing he has going for him is the economic sanctions i think are being felt by this guy. they're not just u.n. sanctions, there's e.u. sanctions and the u.s. has added to that.

if china kicked in we could make him cry uncle. but the weakness that he feels from the sanctions can damage him domestically. that's a trump card for trump. >> paul: we're going to see what happens. still ahead, the supreme court hears oral arguments in a case challenging president trump's travel ban. so after several lower court setbacks, could the justices be poised to give the president a win on one of his signature it took guts to start my business. but as it grew bigger and bigger, it took a whole lot more. that's why i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. with it, i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. everything. what's in your wallet? i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424.

and i'm the founder of ugmonk. before shipstation it was crazy. it's great when you see a hundred orders come in, a hundred orders come in, but then you realize i've got a hundred orders i have to ship out. shipstation streamlined that wh the order data, the weights of , everything is seamlessly put into shipstation, so when we print the shipping ll everything's pretty much done. it's so much easier so now, we're ready, bring on t. shipstation. the number one ch of online sellers. go to shipstation.com/tv and get two months free.

>> paul: the supreme court taking up the final and perhaps most controversial case of its term this week, hearing oral argument in trump versus hawaii. at issue, the constitution at of the so-called travel ban and the balance of power when it comes to immigration and vetting.

>> what i see the president doing here is saying i'm going to add more to the limits that congress set and to what congress said was enough. where does the president get the authority to do more than congress has already decided is adequate? >> paul: a senior fellow and constitutional studies and editor in chief of the kato supreme court review, he was at the court wednesday for the oral argument, so nice to have you back, mr. shapiro. this is the first big test of trump policy at the supreme court but it's a lot more at stake than just the policy itself, whether or not you support that, and frankly i don't just as a matter of policy support the ban. this is about the separation of power and the real constitutional balance of power, isn't it? >> it's a curious case.

all the lawyers seem to agree that any other president with the same executive action on immigration would be okay. certainly on the constitutional claims with regard to religious animous and statutory claims about presidential authority, we've seen president carter impose nationality based restrictions in the past. all the justices want to tread gingerly about not setting a precedent that will have judges and courts looking over the shoulder of determinations in the future. >> paul: you basically suggested that if any other president had done this kind of a travel order it would not have been challenged the way it has at the lower courts? if that's true, if that's what you're saying, then the implication is that these judges are themselves making political judgments. >> well, i do think that a number of the lower court judges effectively joined the judicial

resistance, making determinations based on the atmosphere, especially after the travel ban 1.0 with the chaos at the airports and all of that i think the litigation would have gone different ily if they had taken their time and started with what had become the second one, now we're on the third one, of course. so the supreme court in its previous rulings that were crafted or changed parts of the injunctions that were in place effectively directed the lower courts to treat this as more of a normal kind of legal case and to this day they're struggling with the idea of how do we avoid setting a precedent of going into places where courts generally don't tread. there's a long-standing precedent where if the four corners of the document that the president sets out, the proclamation bear out some sort of national security rational, they simila simply won't weigh y further pf on before one of.

>> paul: one of the curious things is they relied on statements by trump as a candidate, not within the order, which is what judges are supposed to deal with. what kind of precedent would it set if judges can go back to the campaign and say you in july at the convention said the following and make a judgment about a supposed bias based on that. that gets to pretty -- it seems to me that would risk expanding judicial power. >> even when government officials in office say various things off the coug cuff or whae you, that's not necessarily legally binding. it can be an example of certain things. if we restrict candidates in certain ways and take them both seriously and literally, if you will, that raises a lot of questions and how long -- what is the staw chut statute of limn a campaign statement. the court struggled with that as well. that came up during the org. argument. and even more oddly, the lawyer

for the challenges for hawaii talked about the president retweeting certain anti-muslim video as evidence of continuing bias. we're going to really start talking about what presidential retweets mean as a matter of constitutional policy or whether he's within his statutory authority? we're in the realm of the bizarre. i think chief justice roberts would like to make this go away on a procedural, technical standing ground rather than get into one way or the other whether the president is exercising lawful power. >> paul: how do you read the tenor of the argument. i thought chief justice roberts was the strongest in terms of wondering whether it was wise to meddle with this executive power and press tend and the immigration and security realm. what about the other justices? >> justice alito was even stronger. he was saying look, if this was a muslim ban, there are 50 muslim countries or so, there are six on this list, and representing something like 8%

of the muslim population. this is really a bad muslim ban if that's what they're trying to do. he wasn't having any of that. neil gorsuch was curious about remedies and how do we write this opinion, not even so much what to decide. i think the really -- kennedy and kagan, kennedy in the middle on a lot of controversial cases, but kennedy and kagan were trying to figure out what to do and were uneasy with a strong ruling one way or the other. kagan is on the left typically, but is probably the only so-called getable judge from that to the left block. >> paul: i think the chief and alito would like a strong brushback to the lower courts to saying you can't join the resistance and be a political entity, you have to stay within the four corners of the law. >> chief justice roberts would like to have a broader opinion that's more narrow.

perhaps he would write separately to rebike the lower courts but i think on the merits he would prefer more of the justices joining a narrow opinion. >> paul: thank you for being here. still ahead, republicans hold onto a house seat in a special election in arizona. is tuesday's victory a warning for november? i'm just really thankful that i won. would it be nice if i had won by more? of course.

>> paul: republicans were relieved this week after a narrow win in a special election in arizona. debbie leskow beat her opponent

by 5 points. those results come amid reports that republicans are trying to energize their base and court moderate voters by warning that democrats will move to impeach president trump if they capture the house, something former senator harry reid warned his party against in an interview this week. >> i've been through an impeachment and they're not pleasant. i think the less we talk about impeachment, the better off we are as a country. >> paul: we're back with dan henninger, kate o'dell and james freeman. so james, what's the lesson first of the arizona special election victory? >> republicans have a challenge this fall, trying to buck history and to hold onto their majority in the house in an off year, in a mid-term election. but it's like a lot of these special elections. democrats almost winning in trump country doesn't get them any closer to taking that

majority. >> paul: she won by 5.2. it was 38 points for the republican in 2016, 52 in 2014, 28 in 2012. these are the western suburbs of phoenix, sun city, middle class retirement community, republican country, james, 5 points only. >> republican country and for that reason in those prior elections, not really contested by democrats. what you saw in this one was a very aggressive effort, lots of volunteers, lots of knocking on doors, phone calls, et cetera, more than your usual effort. now, this does point to a lot of signs that there's a great deal of democratic enthusiasm and that is a challenge for republicans. but they have to win these seats. they can't just come close to take the majority. >> paul: kate, kevin mccarthy, the majority leader was in, maybe the next speaker of the house, maybe the next minority leader of the house if republicans lose in november. he made a case for what he thought the strategy could be to

us, that republicans could take the house. how persuasive did you find his case? >> well, he focused a lot on the generic ballot which is of course asking voters whether they briefe refer republicans fr democrats. that spread has been narrowing in recent weeks. i think it's about 6.8 in favor of the democrats last time i checked. but i think they need to get it down closer to 5 or 4 if they want to hold onto the house at this point. the tax cut is getting more popular over time which is helping republicans but i think that generic ballot is one to watch and that spread has to narrow, even by mccarthy's own report. >> paul: mccarthy said the real dividing line for him is 6 points. he said if the generic is 6 points advantage for the democrats, he thinks that puts 30 republican seats in play. they have a majority of 23. he thought with that spread they could hold on. that's a pretty narrow edge.

>> it certainly is, paul. it makes it easy for a lot of our viewers to watch what's going on h. he also said if the generic spread gets up to 12, said good night, gracie, that's all she wrote. they have to keep the number around 6. let's talk about harry reid. why is one of the greatest attack dogs in the history of the congress saying don't talk about impeachment. well, mr. mccarthy made clear to us thistle ebbin this electiot turnout. the democrats are animated. what they're trying to do is not rouse the slumbering republican torlekelectorate. they're animateing the voters to -- animating the voters to vote

against donald trump. >> don't talk about impeachment, but it's the subtext for the entire election. >> too late. >> ran emmanuel said the same thing, don't talk about impeachment. we know if the democrats take the house, they're going to be -- they're going to have an impossible time not i' impeachig him because the base will demand it. >> this is something where kevin mccarthy and harry reid seem to agree that this could be a replay of 1998. you have a good economy and you have the one party opposing the president over-reaching, trying to drive him from office in the view of many voters. >> paul: 1998 was when republicans were contemplating impeaching clinton. >> that's right. question thin mccarthy is looking at that and saying this could be a replay in the other direction with republicans doing surprisingly well because the country doesn't want the disruption of an effort to

unseat the president and i think harry reid is saying, yeah, bad strategy to advertise vote for us and we'll turn washington into chaos for another year. i think it's too late for harry reid. i think the democratic lek tor e settlement tor -- electorate decided this is mornever if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring.

don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ♪ otezla. show more of you. >> tech: don't wait for a chip like this to crack your whole windshield. with safelite's exclusive resin, you get a strong repair that you can trust. plus, with most insurance a safelite repair is no cost to you. >> customer: really?! >> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace.

six class time now for hits and misses of the week. bill start to suck your >> a big miss to the nittany lions firm is essentially penn state had an outing club that put students on kayaking and back packing. now the authorities say they are worried the kids are too fragile for these things. especially for example he might be out of cell phone range. [laughter] it is a good thing that lewis and clark never went to penn state. we are talking about young men and women old enough to serve in iraq and afghanistan and they say the university is telling us they want to play you have to stay inside. >> kate? >> my hit is for michael riley. he is unaware the projects of

revisiting some very outdated rules about network programming for children. right now he had to show a 30 minute episode, three hours a week. all sorts of things that we just don't need and now we have. we have youtube, netflix, lots of options. choose to him for revisiting these rules. >> dan. >> i will give a hit to the harry potter author, jk rowling stayed not because of broadly but because of a recent tweet denouncing anti-semitism in the united kingdom. charlie, british social media has involved a great internal debate of the subject. this is what she said on the subject of anti-semitism. most uk jews in my timeline are currently having to feel this kind of crap. perhaps, some of us non-jews to start shouldering the burden.

well put jk rowling. >> janes? >> this is a hit to kanye west for putting out a message that i never thought i would hear. [laughter] keyline that you can share with children. he has been a staple is good workout mixes but because of the languages of bowel you cannot really share it with the family. he says he likes the president. >> and and pennsylvania you have to watch out. that is it for this week's show. thank you to my panel and thank you all for walking. i am paul gigot.