The McLaughlin Group
Issues: Obama Takes on Trump Immigration Plan / Panama Papers / NATO Relevance / Health of US Population
John McLaughlin, Host
Pat Buchanan, Author and Columnist
Eleanor Clift, The Daily Beast
Clarence Page, The Chicago Tribune
Tom Rogan, National Review/Opportunity Lives
Taped: Friday, April 8, 2016
Broadcast: Weekend of April 8-10, 2016
Copyright 2016 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein
are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced,
distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the
prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any
trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>
ANNOUNCER: From Washington, THE MCLAUGHLIN GROUP, the American original. For over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk.
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, HOST: Issue One: Obama Trumps Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The notion that we’re going to track every Western Union, you know, bit of money that’s being sent to Mexico, you know, good luck with that.
MCLAUGHLIN (voice-over): Following Donald Trump’s loss to Ted Cruz in Tuesday’s Wisconsin GOP presidential primary, President Obama highlighted Mr. Trump’s plan to make Mexico pay for its U.S. border wall.
The centerpiece of Mr. Trump’s plan is the threat to cut off the $24.8 billion a year in remittances sent to Mexico from the U.S., much of it from undocumented workers.
Also, Mr. Trump proposes to expand the Patriot Act’s purview beyond banks, to include wire transfers by firms like Western Union, and MoneyGram International.
Mr. Trump is not only the wall lover. Facing its current migrant crisis, Europe has built walls covering an equivalent to 40 percent of the 2,000-mile long U.S.-Mexico border. The cost: about $570 million from European taxpayers.
Mr. Trump also believes Mexico will choose to pay $5 billion to $10 billion for the wall, before losing $24.8 billion a year in remittances.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCLAUGHLIN: Question: who is right about how Mexico would react to the cutoff of remittances, Trump or Obama? Pat?
PAT BUCHANAN, AUTHOR & COLUMNIST: Well, Mexico would react badly. But, look, what Trump has done very effectively is, raised a legitimate issue.
What Mexicans are doing usually in the United States is a safety valve for their social welfare problems. They push all these folks, their own folks into the United States. These folks sent back remittances. You know, others get jobs in the United States of America.
At the same time, Mexico does not really control folks coming in from Central America and elsewhere. It moves them right on up to the border of the United States.
And so, what I think Trump has got going for him is a real sense, John, of exasperation with the Mexican government, and I think a tough policy against the Mexican government.
Quite frankly, an easier thing to do would be put a 10 percent tariff on all Mexican goods entering the United States. You could get tens of billions of dollars. You could build the fence and you tell the Mexicans, look, folks, if you will build a secure fence on your side of the border as well, we will get rid of the tariff.
MCLAUGHLIN: Eleanor, why is Obama attacking --
BUCHANAN: That’s a way to get it done.
MCLAUGHLIN: Why is Obama attacking Trump now?
ELEANOR CLIFT, THE DAILY BEAST: I don’t think he’s attacking Trump. I think he’s taken aback by some of the proposals that Trump has out there. And President Obama deals with leaders around the world, and the rest of the world is looking rather aghast at our politics.
MCLAUGHLIN: Are they scared to death the Trump will be the nominee?
CLIFT: I think they are wondering if the Republican Party has lost its mind, and if they really will nominate Trump. And I think the Republican Party is having some soul-searching. There’s strenuous efforts to try to stop him.
But his proposal on the wall -- he looks at everything as sort of an opening bid, and he’s kind of thrown this out there. I mean, he’s a smart guy. He knows this is totally unworkable. You cannot track all these Western Union transfers, as the president said. You would have to distinguish between legal transfers and those that are made from undocumented immigrants. He wants to open the Patriots Act and sort of write a law that can cover this -- that would never stand up in the courts as constitutional.
Plus, the fact it would -- it would make a situation -- actually immigration has slowed to a trickle actually. More people are going back to Mexico than are coming here at the moment. But you would -- you would really worsen the situation because people in Mexico depend on this money and you would really hurt their life circumstances and there would be a lot more pressure for Mexicans to come back to this country.
So, his policy makes no sense. It’s unworkable and it would not achieve the end that he seeks.
MCLAUGHLIN: Your thoughts on this?
TOM ROGAN, NATIONAL REVIEW/OPPORTUNITY LIVES: I do. I think the -- what the president, President Obama is trying to do, obviously, here is you know, he’s taking the role as a preacher in chief in terms of this is his final year, pushing that liberal advocacy. He wins favor with Democrats and liberal elites by criticizing Donald Trump.
But the practicalities of what Trump proposes I think in the specific sense, the remittances -- I think it is actually something functionally you could do. The problem is it would not represent good policy.
And I think more broadly, it has this idea that Trump with the wall, it’s always -- almost kind of like a "Game of Thrones" dynamic, right, where he’s Jon Snow. And it’s the mythology that beyond the wall, everything is bad and by simply building it, you can deal with all these issues, whether it be trade, crime, immigration.
And the reality is, the way you’re ultimately going to deal with is by joining with the Mexican government and saying, here, secure the border. But frankly, securing the border, how you do that? It’s a digital frontier, that you have electronic guidance in terms of seeing -- OK, people coming across, send the border patrol there and you get them.
But, look, Trump’s key thing is immigration, and in this election, I think, that’s why his support is so fervent, he can say anything about anything else, but as long as he sticks to that immigration line, his supporters, because they see it as an existential issue for the nation, will consolidate alongside him.
MCLAUGHLIN: Trump lost Wisconsin. What were the unique -- what were the factors there?
CLARENCE PAGE, CHICAGO TRIBUNE: Well, I’m going to go to immigration because that’s the -- because that’s what we’ve been talking about here, and I think the -- well, frankly, the question being, does Trump know what he is talking about with this immigration policy that he’s proposing? The answer is no.
It is an opening bid, so to speak. But it’s kind of a solution in search of a problem, because half of our undocumented workers are coming not across the Mexican border. We have had virtually zero immigration from Mexico, as you mentioned, net zero.
And trying to cut off the remittances is going to cause havoc with our economic policy and the interdependency our two countries have. A lot of American companies and people have a lot of money invested in Mexico. We have a lot of the stability that we have right now is based on the current system. And Trump hasn’t really thought this through, amazingly enough.
BUCHANAN: But -- you know, what I think Tom’s term -- existential crisis -- is exactly right. What is happening is the Third World is invading the First World. Part it coming through Mexico, up through Mexico into the United States. In Europe, they’re coming from the Middle East, Africa will have 2.5 billion people by mid-century. They are coming across the Mediterranean and people are not going to start shooting them.
And right now, fences --
PAGE: Well, that’s Europe’s problem, though. We don’t have that problem.
BUCHANAN: No. We’ll have it and we’re going to have it even greater.
PAGE: It’s a fraction of what Europe’s problem.
CLIFT: We have a country where many of the citizens pride the diversity that we’re seeing and you’re --
BUCHANAN: You’re going to get a lot more of it.
CLIFT: And the way you phrase it -- right, the you phrase it like it’s something terrible being taken over.
BUCHANAN: When you have people walking --
CLIFT: Immigrants in our midst who do a lot of jobs in this country --
BUCHANAN: If you had 12 million who have walked into your country illegally and stay, or overstay their visas, you’ve gotten an invasion, and you see the reaction in Europe.
PAGE: Look at Germany, for example. Germany doesn’t have enough population growth to pay for their own senior citizens. Immigrants are bringing money - -
BUCHANAN: And Merkel could be thrown out of office --
BUCHANAN: -- because she went south on the immigration issue.
PAGE: She is in trouble over one aspect of immigration over there right now, but we have the same situation, Pat. We don’t -- we -- our immigrants coming in are helping to fund Social Security and --
CLIFT: He’s using immigration as a scapegoat and telling people that their lives aren’t good as they expect, and they can’t afford college because all these other people are taking the good jobs.
BUCHANAN: Is he fooling the people or --
CLIFT: No, he’s not. He’s --
BUCHANAN: He says yes.
PAGE: Trump is fooling the people. He’s fooling his supporters.
MCLAUGHLIN: What accounts --
CLIFT: He’s exaggerating the problem.
BUCHANAN: Well, look, the people are listening to this guy --
ROGAN: All right. Let’s let our host in here for a second.
MCLAUGHLIN: OK, mid-segment. What’s the story on Sanders and his momentum, and what impact is it making it on whom?
ROGAN: So, you’re talking about the Sanders dynamic? The Clinton campaign is clearly concerned, because of the populist feel that Sanders has with millennials, with that sense that he’s the genuine candidate who is fundraising from low income donors. There’s a real sort of narrative of the new liberal enlightenment, as they would say, the American socio -- but the Clinton campaign, I think the key problem here is that issue of trust, isn’t it, that people because of the FBI, because of the corporate deals, because of the changing of the tone, because of the way that Clinton presents herself.
CLIFT: That’s right.
MCLAUGHLIN: Excuse me, you left out one factor, Hillary’s mo. Where’s Hillary’s mo?
BUCHANAN: She doesn’t have any momentum right now. She might get it back in New York.
But Sanders is doing well. Look, the country, the Democratic Party is moving very dramatically to the left, and what Sanders is offering, quite frankly, is a lot of free stuff, that somebody else is going to pay for, the big banks, the rich, or the 1 percent.
ROGAN: The man behind the tree.
BUCHANAN: He’s a character in his own right. And he has --
BUCHANAN: -- touched in to this issue, which is may be a fourth of the country agrees with him and believes him and he’s riding it.
CLIFT: And he hasn’t fully thought through how to accomplish any of this, and that’s beginning to catch up with him. But he does get a lot of energy and enthusiasm in the Democratic Party. And Hillary Clinton needs those voters. If the math works in her favor, she’s the likely nominee and she can have her fight with Bernie Sanders, but she’s got to embrace his voters.
And he’s not going to go away. He wants a continuing revolution, and he wants a protest movement that continues beyond this presidential race. And that could help a Democrat in the White House. So, you know, she needs him more than he needs her, right now.
PAGE: What’s interesting here though is the similarities between Sanders and Trump. They’re both playing to a discontent out there in the populace. And so you get these phantom issues like immigration. Immigration is not really the source of people’s problems, but it is an issue to demagogue and to scapegoat. And Sanders does the same with the millionaires and billionaires --
BUCHANAN: Look, that’s Bernie.
PAGE: But neither of them is dealing with the details of their own programs.
BUCHANAN: But, look, what Trump is doing, and you’re missing, is, he’s wired into nationalism. We defend our borders, bring our troops home, stop paying other people’s bills, stop fighting other people’s wars. It is nationalism. All of his issues, you know, trade, immigration, foreign policy, the same --
PAGE: Those are all issues that always pop up when people are feeling discontented.
PAGE: And there’s a group of people in America that do feel discontented -- for good reason, by the way.
BUCHANAN: Nationalism is alive in Europe. It is what is breaking apart the E.U. I mean, these are very large things.
PAGE: This is not Europe, Pat. I mean, you’re right.
BUCHANAN: You can’t see what’s happening worldwide.
PAGE: It’s not happening here.
MCLAUGHLIN: Exit question: is Trump’s Wisconsin loss a one-off or a harbinger of things to come?
ROGAN: I think he has a challenge, in the sense that he has -- his un -- that the predictable brilliance as he would call it of his electoral success, up until now has been punctured in a state that you would think that he would be prepositioned to win well, because of the demographic. So, there’s a danger -- and it is giving that fuel to the people who don’t like Trump.
CLIFT: Yes, but the governor and all the radio talk show hosts, they’re all against him in Wisconsin. I think Trump will do well in New York and the Northeast. You know, Ted Cruz is not going to beat him in the Northeast.
BUCHANAN: I think Trump would do well --
MCLAUGHLIN: It’s a one-off, a perfect --
CLIFT: -- Trump’s death are premature.
BUCHANAN: It’s a one-off, John.
MCLAUGHLIN: It’s a perfect storm of unique factors, unlikely to be replicated in the coming primaries.
MCLAUGHLIN: You get something else to say or we’re moving on?
BUCHANAN: I think that’s exactly right. I think Trump is going to win New York. When he does, I think Cruz is going to fade a bit, and I think Kasich is going to start coming up, because he’s more popular in the states that are coming up.
ROGAN: Cruz needs Kasich to drop out.
CLIFT: The eventual nominee will be one of the three.
MCLAUGHLIN: Issue Two: Panama Cabal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
MCLAUGHLIN (voice-over): Two days later, Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson resigned as prime minister of Iceland. Why? The so-called Panama Papers’ list of more than 200,000 companies and 14,000 clients is why.
The papers outline offshore tax avoidance schemes and include at least 33 people or businesses that have been blacklisted by the U.S. government. But others name also include the presidents of Argentina, Ukraine and the United Arab Emirates, and King Salman of Saudi Arabia.
And note this, China’s president, Xi Jinping, who has sought to portray himself as an anti-corruption campaigner, has been embarrassed by the appearance of his brother-in-law on the list.
And note something else, the documents show billions in U.S. dollars held by allies of Russian President Vladimir Putin, that may be held on Mr. Putin’s behalf.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCLAUGHLIN: What’s the biggest story here? Using shell companies to dodge taxes or using shell companies to hide political corruption? I ask you, Eleanor.
CLIFT: I think it’s mostly to hide money. And whether that money is legally gained or gotten through nefarious means, it all ends up being green, and it gets passed to Panama. I think we should give President Obama some credit this week, because the Treasury Department has tightened some rules and they did stop one big inversion that was underway between Pfizer, the drug company, and Allergan, a company in Ireland.
And I think, maybe we should take some solace that they’re not any 1 percent Americans on this list, but this is only one law firm and there are lots of other places to hide money. And Americans tend to hide their money in the Cayman Islands, and you can even use Delaware, it turns out, to create these shell companies.
The system is rigged and that plays right into the messages of Trump and Sanders.
BUCHANAN: I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop there, because there were no Americans on there. I’m wondering -- they hit the Chinese. They hit the Russians. You have to hit -- they hit the fellow in Ukraine.
But this is very significant, John. What it looks like, even at it’s most innocent, is that all these world leaders have rainy day funds in dollars, and they moved them outside the country, and they’ve got them all locked away for their future. How did they acquire this kind of money and what does it say about their confidence in the world system?
And secondly, as you mentioned, though, the fact that there are no Americans in there doesn’t tell me we are better than anyone else. It tells me we haven’t got all the information yet.
CLIFT: This is also not new, either. I mean, this has been going on for sometime.
ROGAN: I think the first point that comes out though is that the fact, I think it does show we are better to a degree, because it shows the importance of, again, having a robust government that has independent -- the FBI, for example, corruption. And I’m sorry, in Europe, these don’t exist.
Putin, that’s Putin’s money. He’s given through the cutouts. Everyone knows it’s Putin’s money.
Chinese, they pro -- Xi Jinping prosecutes he or she who he doesn’t like, but everyone else is OK.
I think the key takeaway here, I would disagree with Eleanor, in the sense that, yes, we want to make sure absolutely -- there’s nothing conservative about not paying taxes you owe.
But there is something conservative and something good for the country, I would say, in terms of having a lower corporate tax rate that gets rid of all the deductions, because the unfortunate fact is, from the U.K. going to 17 percent, Ireland, across the world, if we don’t have those low tax rates, we will have this exodus of wealth that, you know, Pat and I always debate about. But --
PAGE: I’m glad you brought that up. I was going to. Certainly, the lower tax rate means you have less incentive to want to hide your money overseas, if you can hide it in Delaware, or Wyoming, for that matter. I mean, there’s a lot of reason. But, yes, we’ve only found the first of many disclosures here with this international banking story. It’s quite possible, more Americans will pop up.
CLIFT: Yes. Congress needs to close this loophole, and why aren’t they doing it? Because we have the best Congress that money can buy, basically.
MCLAUGHLIN: NATO and National Guard.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JENS STOLTENBERG, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: North America and Europe is able to deliver when we stand together in a strong NATO alliance.
MCLAUGHLIN (voice-over): Meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg this week, President Obama reaffirmed U.S. support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO.
But a leading contender to replace President Obama disagrees, Donald Trump. The GOP presidential frontrunner says, quote/unquote, "NATO is obsolete", and Mr. Trump is regarded as sympathetic to Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin.
Mr. Trump also believes other NATO members ask too much of U.S. taxpayers, and here at least, Mr. Trump would seem to have the statistics in his favor. Note that, after all, the vast majority of NATO members failed to meet NATO’s 2 percent GDP target for annual defense spending.
Still, others fear that Russia remains a serious threat, and perhaps signaling new plots on the horizon, President Putin has set up a new militia force under his direct control.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCLAUGHLIN: Is NATO obsolete? I ask you, Tom.
ROGAN: No, I don’t think NATO is obsolete, but I think Donald Trump, as I mentioned before, he absolutely has legitimate points, one that Robert Gates has made, it’s one that multiple presidents have made behind the scenes, that Europe simply does not spend enough on defense.
How do you deal with that? Well, you simply say to Germany, as the best example, you either spend more, within this timeline, or the bases go to Poland and you lose that revenue and you lose that -- because absolutely, there is an -- I understand the --
PAGE: But this is not a great time to be attacking NATO because --
ROGAN: No, but if --
PAGE: -- because of the kind of problem -- and now we can talk about Europe, Pat -- with the kind of problems that they’re dealing with, right now, as well as what’s happening in the Middle East.
ROGAN: But it has to be a two-way street.
PAGE: Yes, well, you know, that can be worked out. It’s always awkward, telling people you’re not spending enough on defense, when they’ve got obvious domestic needs.
BUCHANAN: Why, Clarence -- why, look, it is 70 years after World War II. It is 25 years since the end of the Cold War. Why do 600 million Europeans, rich, fat and prosperous, need the United States of America to defend them from a middle class country of 147 million? Why is it not time for the Europeans to man up, put on their big boy pants and defend themselves?
CLIFT: Why don’t you go over and talk to some of the people who live in these countries --
BUCHANAN: Well, no, I don’t have to. Just --
CLIFT: And live in these countries and ask them how they feel about Russia, and ask them about their memories and --
BUCHANAN: Well, they don’t -- then, arm.
CLIFT: And Russia is newly assertive, plus the fact NATO is --
BUCHANAN: Why do we have to defend them?
CLIFT: Because we had knitted together this community with Europe, with Australia --
BUCHANAN: And a lot of free riders, and a lot of deadbeats.
CLIFT: -- and Japan, and that 60 percent of the world’s economy and we’ve had peace in Europe.
BUCHANAN: Why don’t they defend themselves?
CLIFT: And NATO has a lot to do with that.
BUCHANAN: Why don’t they defend themselves?
CLIFT: They are putting in their share, and the U.S. is still considered the leader in the world, despite all your yelling about nationalism.
CLIFT: They look to us and I think --
BUCHANAN: They look to us, but they have got to have to stop looking to us.
CLIFT: I think it’s the leadership role that most Americans are proud of.
PAGE: We need to look at our relationship, though, as well, because there are good -- Pat, there are good strategic reasons why you may not want to have American troops under European command, if we are in the allied movement.
BUCHANAN: Let me agree with you. Let me agree with you.
PAGE: So, maybe this has to be rearranged.
BUCHANAN: Let me agree with you, a lot of what you say. Trump has raised the issue. He has put it on the table and it’s time it was addressed, and they have been acting like deadbeats since the end of the Cold War.
MCLAUGHLIN: Exit question --
CLIFT: Don’t act like Trump invented the criticism. President Obama was quoted complaining about the free riders. There has been tension, but we need NATO and the threats that they’re facing now with cyber threats --
MCLAUGHLIN: Well --
CLIFT: -- it’s a whole new generation of threats.
MCLAUGHLIN: Exit question: Without NATO, will the world be more stable or more unstable?
BUCHANAN: Undeniably, I think the Europeans will not man up and defend themselves. But they’re going to have to.
CLIFT: Without NATO, the world would be unstable, and we have a big role to play in that, too.
ROGAN: Unstable. We do have a big role to play, but we also need our allies to do more.
PAGE: In today’s world, we do need our allies to do more, but we also need to really renegotiate who is in charge, because that’s one of the complexity. But it makes it easier when the U.S. is the big boy in command of the whole situation. But the others do need to pay their fair share.
MCLAUGHLIN: Without NATO, Europe will revert to collective security pact, and they would be characterized like alliances on the eve of World War I. It would be far more unstable. Is that a reflection of your thinking?
PAGE: I agree 100 percent.
MCLAUGHLIN: Issue Four: Land of the Ill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCLAUGHLIN (voice-over): During a recent visit to Argentina, President Obama and the first lady showed agility and physical fitness. But sadly, good health is all too rare in our society today.
Indeed, frontrunners to replace President Obama next January, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, are not known for intense exercise. Instead, Mrs. Clinton says she is a fan of the healthy hot jalapeno pepper, whereas Mr. Trump loves, well, McDonald’s and Wendy’s.
This Thursday, the World Health Organization held its annual world health day and focussed in on a different international cure, diabetes. Today, nearly 30 million Americans, roughly 9 percent of the population, suffer from diabetes, and over 8 million of that number are undiagnosed.
And note this, diabetes kills 69,000 Americans every year and contributes to over 230,000 additional annual deaths, according to the American Diabetes Association.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCLAUGHLIN: Diabetes is the seventh leading cause of death. What’s more deadly than diabetes?
CLIFT: Well, I imagine --
PAGE: Well, cancer, heart disease, but diabetes can contribute to heart disease.
MCLAUGHLIN: Give me more, give me more. You gave me two.
CLIFT: Car accidents.
CLIFT: They’re on the list.
MCLAUGHLIN: Give me another.
PAGE: Drug overdoses.
MCLAUGHLIN: Drug overdoses?
CLIFT: Illnesses as results of smoking, would be on the list.
MCLAUGHLIN: Respiratory disease.
MCLAUGHLIN: And stroke – did you mention stroke?
CLIFT: There’s actually some good news on the diet front. I mean, Americans are starting to eat healthier, and I want to give Michelle Obama a lot of credit. Childhood obesity is down 45 percent. She has really worked at getting school lunches healthier. She’s got a garden 0n the lawn of the White House.
And this is a serious topic. It’s not a fluff topic for a first lady, and she takes it seriously.
ROGAN: I have no problem with someone eating like a pig and having poor choices. You should be able to do that. My problem, though, and why I’m more sympathetic to --
MCLAUGHLIN: How do the pigs feel about it?
ROGAN: I don’t care how the pigs feel about it, I have to say.
But the problem is, I haven’t -- if they want to do it, fine. But I don’t want to have to subsidize their medical costs. And that’s why I think, as conservatives, we do have to have that debate about things like sugar taxes, because the people who are putting themselves more predisposed to having obesity, and also why I think one of the few conservatives who -- I’m very sympathetic to Michelle Obama, because I tell you what, that health care costs, we will have to subsidize that.
BUCHANAN: You got taxes on cigarettes and you got taxes on soft drinks and a lot of things like that.
PAGE: You also got Michael Bloomberg --
BUCHANAN: Yes, I think these taxes are good. They’re better than the other kind, with your income.
ROGAN: I agree, I agree.
PAGE: Well, we would try to ban, you know, unhealthy drinks like Michael Bloomberg, you know, with --
PAGE: -- super size sodas, you get a big backlash. So, it’s not an easy thing to try to legislate with people.
ROGAN: Just tax it.
MCLAUGHLIN: Is it correct to say that Donald Trump is not known for intense exercise?
MCLAUGHLIN: I ask the lady here.
CLIFT: I haven’t heard about his exercise regimen.
MCLAUGHLIN: This is a trap. Watch out.
CLIFT: But I do -- I have picked up information about his dietary habits. You mentioned fast food. He also loves his meat very well done, and he likes meatloaf, and there’s a family recipe. So, he likes comfort food and I like comfort food too.
BUCHANAN: Here’s where I disagree with Trump. He said Wendy’s and McDonald’s, when I was on the campaign, John, Burger King was number one.
MCLAUGHLIN: Here’s my learned --
BUCHANAN: They have the best burger.
MCLAUGHLIN: Here’s my learned annotation on it. It is incorrect to say that Trump is not known for intense exercise. "Men’s Health Magazine" in 2013 characterized Trump as athletic, former captain of his high school baseball team.
BUCHANAN: That’s a long time ago.
MCLAUGHLIN: And you trade off your old stuff?
ROGAN: Baseball is not as -- until recently, that was known for athleticism either.
MCLAUGHLIN: And an avid golfer and an avid walker.
ROGAN: Yes, easy.
MCLAUGHLIN: What do you think about that?
ROGAN: Tell me when he runs a marathon.
CLIFT: He doesn’t look all that in shape. But listen, if he continues on the trajectory towards the nomination and potentially the presidency, we’re going to know more than we want to know about everything having to do with his health.
MCLAUGHLIN: Forced prediction: Bernie Sanders will upset Hillary Clinton in New York’s primary Tuesday, April the 19th. Yes or no? Pat?
BUCHANAN: He’ll come close, but he won’t quite make it.
CLIFT: Hillary Clinton wins New York.
ROGAN: Hillary Clinton wins New York.
PAGE: Hillary Clinton wins et cetera, et cetera.
MCLAUGHLIN: It’s too close to call.