The McLaughlin Group

Issues: Taliban and Afghanistan / Syria Situation / Israeli-Palestinian Peace Prospects / Supreme Court and Obama Immigration Action

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 22, 2016
Broadcast: Weekend of April 22-24, 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: Taliban Terror.


MCLAUGHLIN (voice-over): Chaos returned to Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul, this week. Taliban attackers killed at least 64 people, and injured hundreds more, detonating a car bomb and then spraying gunfire into the crowd. The Taliban sought to maximize casualties. And the suffering is likely to continue.

The Taliban claimed the attack is their opening strike of the so-called spring fighting season. In previous years, the Taliban have escalated their attacks during Afghanistan’s warmer months.

But note this: Commander-in-Chief Obama has increased the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. These new ground deployments, President Obama says, are necessary to help train and aid Afghan security forces.


MCLAUGHLIN: Question: Will Afghanistan ever find stability? Pat Buchanan?

PAT BUCHANAN, AUTHOR & COLUMNIST: I don’t think the Afghan government can survive on its own, John. They’ve had tremendous numbers of American troops in there and couldn’t defeat the Taliban. And now, we’ve got about 9,500 I think there. Obama is supposed to bring them down to 5,000 by the end of the year. I don’t think that’s going to happen.

I mean, the Taliban are in Helmand. They’re active in Kunduz. They’re blowing things up in Kabul. I think what we got here is a situation where the United States is going to have to remain there indefinitely, or if we don’t, I think the Taliban may not have the power to take over the whole country. But they’ve got the ability to knock down that government I think and create chaos and take over parts of it for themselves. This is -- we’ve been there 15 years. The effort to build an independent and free Afghanistan I think is a failure.

ELEANOR CLIFT, THE DAILY BEAST: Well, there is a same, same Groundhog Day quality to this reporting. Every year, there’s a spring fighting season. I think the hope was that the new coalition government, which had undertaken talks with the Taliban, that there was going to be some sort of rapprochement. But I think the Taliban saw it just as another opening to begin fighting again.

American troops at least are not on the frontlines. It’s not like we’re getting casualty reports every week, or day or month. But, you know, I agree, it’s a pretty -- it’s a pretty sad situation, and I think the best this president can do is to kind of keep a lid on it and if the next president wants to either withdraw more or intensify, that’s a decision for the future.

MCLAUGHLIN: Was Afghanistan ever stable in the 20th century? Tom Rogan?

TOM ROGAN, NATIONAL REVIEW/OPPORTUNITY LIVES: The history of Afghanistan going back -- I mean, it was part of the great game. There’s always been a place of warfare. There’s always been a deeply tribal culture, especially in the south and east, the Pashtuns.

MCLAUGHLIN: You’re mumbling again.

ROGAN: I’m mumbling?


ROGAN: I’ll speak more eloquently.

So, Pakistan -- Pakistan -- Afghanistan, the south --

MCLAUGHLIN: I think you mumble as a decoy, I think.

ROGAN: A decoy?

MCLAUGHLIN: A decoy, yes. When you’re not quite sure of the answer, we suddenly get the mumble.

ROGAN: OK. Well, so Afghanistan --

PAGE: He’s found you out, Rogan.


MCLAUGHLIN: Watch for the Rogan mumble.

ROGAN: Nineteenth century unstable, because of the British influence in terms of imperial trade routes. Twentieth century, earlier part, more stable. Russian -- Soviet invasion, 1979, whacking the government. I know this stuff a little bit.

But the south and east of the country, with the Pashtun tribal culture means that it’s very hard to impose centralized government. I think what we will find -- the problem with the president -- as much as he made the right decision in keeping an extension of troops, it’s not quite enough troops there. The military wants more, to do the train, assist, aviation, intelligence.

But what you’ll essentially think happen is secure the arterial lines of communication, the roads from Kandahar to Kabul, but -- and secure Kabul as best you can, but areas like Helmand Province unfortunately is going to be tribal politics.

MCLAUGHLIN: For four decades it lasted, ’33 to ’73, the country was ruled by King Mohammed Zahir Shah. So, it’s had some rule issue.

BUCHANAN: They were stable under the Taliban. It wasn’t very pleasant but they were stable under them.



MCLAUGHLIN: Afghanistan were modernizing before the Soviet invasion, I believe. Is that correct?

BUCHANAN: Well, I think that’s -- well, that’s right. But the Soviets went in there and knocked that government over and put their own government in, which lasted about two or three more years. But then the Taliban took over. They’re under control. But you’re right, al Qaeda was operating --


BUCHANAN: -- under the Taliban, and frankly, I think we should have gone in and told the government --


CLIFT: It’s essentially a narco state. I mean, their main product is --


BUCHANAN: They weren’t under the Taliban, the Taliban initially --

CLIFT: Well, the Taliban now has gone into that business as well.


PAGE: -- to even call them a state, because they’ve never really have a strong central government. Essentially, it is still a collection of tribes running various parts of various regions. That’s who we’ve had to work through in order to have something resembling stability.

BUCHANAN: You got Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hazaras, Pashtun. So, you know, when it breaks down, that’s probably what’s going to happen to it.

MCLAUGHLIN: Exit question: are Iraq and Afghanistan better off or worse off than when President Obama took office?

BUCHANAN: Far worse off.

MCLAUGHLIN: I’ll ask you, we’ll go around the hall. Pat?

BUCHANAN: They’re far worse off. But of them are just in horrendous shape and it got scores of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands dead, and millions of homeless.

CLIFT: I don’t think either of them are worse off than when he took office and to suggest that Obama is to blame, let’s go back to the original sin and the invasion of Iraq, which happened under the previous president. That was the biggest strategic -- bumble -- bumbling mistake ever.

ROGAN: So was the 2011 withdrawal and the president is not in my mine telling the truth when he blames that purely on -- that could have been done. But, look, Iraq is worse, Afghanistan is better.

PAGE: You mean withdrawal from Afghanistan could have been better?

ROGAN: Iraq.

PAGE: Oh, Iraq, yes. Well, I think -- well, they’re in bad shape, at least they don’t have as many America troops there as they used to, and that has become our new strategy and now to try to keep things as stable as we can without having our people on the frontlines. But the casualties the Afghan army has been taking have been horrendous. And it’s not going to end before Obama leaves office.

I suspect he is going to try very hard to bring it down to 5,000 because he didn’t want the current surge in the first place. But what is going to happen after that is a question.


ROGAN: -- the capability, that’s the problem, right? If you just make this broad, I think it’s Vice President Biden, he likes to have those capped numbers. But that --

PAGE: Yes. But capable to do what? You know, I just saw a report, an award-winning newspaper report about the schools that were built that are not -- they’re empty. And others are supposed to be built that weren’t and the money has disappeared. I mean, it sounds crazy.

ROGAN: That has to be I think de-prioritized now.

MCLAUGHLIN: Is that in Chicago?

PAGE: Huh?

MCLAUGLIN: Is that in Chicago?

PAGE: That’s Afghanistan, John. We’re supposed to build schools, remember, part of the --

MCLAUGHLIN: The answer sounded like Chicago.

PAGE: I’m sorry?

MCLAUGHLIN: The answer sounded like Chicago.

PAGE: Well, you like Chicago, John. I know you want to bring us back there. But that is OK with me.

MCLAUGHLIN: The answer is Iraq and Afghanistan are worse off now.

Issue Two: Crumbling Ceasefire.


JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: That discussion about transition is the key test of the seriousness of the Assad regime of Russia and Iran to support what we have put in to words.

MCLAUGHLIN (voice-over): It’s only two months old. But as officials met for peace talks in Geneva, Syria’s ceasefire was crumbling.

President Obama had hoped the February ceasefire would encourage Russia to push its ally, Bashar al Assad, to relinquish power. But instead, it seems Russia is preparing to crush rebel forces in the northern city of Aleppo and further degrade the power of U.S.-supported rebels fighting Mr. Assad’s regime.

In response, President Obama is considering escalating his support for those rebel groups. According to "The Wall Street Journal", the U.S. may provide these rebels with anti-air missile systems to shoot down Syrian and possibly also Russian jets. In a sign President Putin feels confident Russian military jets simulated an attack on a U.S. warship in the Baltic Sea.


MCLAUGHLIN: What do you think is happening here, Clarence?

PAGE: I think the Russians are waving their sabers at us. At the same time, they’re trying to expand their control in Syria, without getting too deeply involved in the combat over there. But this is -- Syria, they pulled it into their sphere of influence and the ceasefire was broken is -- but they’re not going to get reestablished very quickly. But it needs to be genuine, before --

BUCHANAN: What the Russians are doing makes more sense than anybody else. They want to keep their ally Assad in power. They want to keep their base at Tartus, their base in Latakia, both of those. They want to preserve the regime, and that’s their so they’re fighting the rebels -- both bad and good rebels, so to speak.

It’s the Americans who don’t make sense. We’re supporting the rebels, and then we’d like Assad overthrown, but the al Qaeda and the ISIS people, we’d like to fight them. Our allies, the Saudis and the Turks, want to overthrow Assad. So, the whole thing is really a mess. But again, just as we talk before, more than 250,000 dead and millions of homeless and something like 9 million people displaced. It is a horror show.

CLIFT: Yes, but the American position is that Assad, if he continues in power, the fighting doesn’t stop. So, if you want to bring the fighting to an end, you’ve got to figure out a way to transition Assad out. And I think the president was over in that region and talking to the European allies, and basically said there are no good options.

And in that interview he did in "Atlantic Magazine", he said he’d be much more willing to take more risks in Syria, if he hadn’t come in with two wars on his hands. And he’s looking at another situation with a lot of the same dynamics, to send more Americans in there, more weapons in there, to have probably the same bad outcome, he’s just not interested.

ROGAN: Yes. Well, I think, look, the problem that we have is that Putin is just playing us for fools repeatedly, and the tangible quality to that is what’s happening, in the sense that we tell these rebel groups, we say to the Sunni Arabs and Turks, who are bad allies, you’re right, but we say to them, don’t fund the al Qaeda-aligned groups because we’re going to support these rebel groups and because the ceasefire is going to work.

And then, Putin breaks the ceasefire and keeps doing it again. So, then, the Sunni monarchies and Turkey throwing money at those al Qaeda groups. So, it metastasized. And I think the problem -- and absolutely, we have -- actually, Syria is a great example that we have, apart from the Jordanians really, we have very poor allies.

CLIFT: More American firepower is the answer to that? I don’t think so.

ROGAN: I think more special forces, and the president is moving in that direction.

BUCHANAN: But one of the dumbest things I think we could do is start handing out surface to air missiles to rebels to shoot down Russian planes. I mean, what is -- I mean, is there anything there that’s worth a confrontation between the United States and Russia? Or even between our NATO ally Turkey and Russia?

That’s the kind of thing you want to avoid, for heaven’s sake.

CLIFT: I suspect the president is holding a line on that. He’s been thought to be thinking about this in the last six years maybe.

PAGE: Yes.

CLIFT: Never gets there.

PAGE: One of the concerns there, missiles to fall into the hands of al Qaeda or ISIS either, and you bring them in there and that possibility is wide open.

MCLAUGHLIN: Let me remind you that Putin is growing desperate. Russia’s economy is nearing a tipping point. If the sanctions remained in place, Russia runs out of foreign reserves next year. The Russian ruble will collapse.

BUCHANAN: His economy is in tough shape. There’s no doubt and it’s not getting better. And the oil prices aren’t helping him because they’re heavily reliant on that. But I wouldn’t say that he’s --

PAGE: That makes him even more dangerous, right?

BUCHANAN: Well, I don’t know why -- look, he’s a tough autocratic ruler of Russia. They’ve always had -- every tsar has been there and we can’t get along with these people? What is the matter with this country?


CLIFT: Well, I don’t know that it’s a question of getting along with him. it’s a question of him being assertive outside his country in order to distract from his economic problems. That doesn’t mean inability to get along with him.

BUCHANAN: The Crimea is closer to him than Puerto Rico is to us.


CLIFT: He’s acting in what he thinks are his best interests.

BUCHANAN: What are we doing giving war guarantees to the three little Baltic countries?

ROGAN: They’re democracies, they’re member states.

CLIFT: They’re part of NATO, right.


BUCHANAN: We’re going to war to fight for Estonia? Are you kidding? A nuclear war?

CLIFT: What are we doing standing up for Putin all the time?

BUCHANAN: I’m not standing up for him. You got to deal with the guy, as one of the people in the world.

CLIFT: They are dealing with him. They’re pushing back.

BUCHANAN: It’s like Xi Jinping. You’ve got to deal with them.

ROGAN: Well, look, and this is the great balance about how do you, what do you do? I think the problem is though that ISIS is a direct symptom of, you know, Assad killing loads of Sunni young man essentially. Unless you resolve that with Assad going, that ISIS will continue and it renders in Brussels and San Bernardino.

BUCHANAN: Putin is an ally of ours against ISIS. He doesn’t give -- have any problem with us bombing ISIS.

CLIFT: Yes, yes but --

BUCHANAN: Donald Trump said he’d like to see the Russians bombing ISIS.

CLIFT: Yes, he gives lip service to that, but his actions don’t follow up his words.


BUCHANAN: His actions are to keep Assad in power because its ally. Does that make sense?

MCLAUGHLIN: Does Syria --

CLIFT: You keep Assad in power, you don’t get rid of ISIS.

MCLAUGHLIN: Exit question: Is Syria headed for partition? Yes or no?

BUCHANAN: Ultimately, I think it’s either going to be partition, or I think the Alawites, the Shia, who are the minority, and the Christians, John, are going to come in for real hell if the Sunnis win that war.

CLIFT: I don’t know what it would be partitioned into and for. So, I’m going to say, no.

ROGAN: Kind of already is, west, north, but not formally now.

MCLAUGHLIN: I’m changing my question for you. Did you get that message?

BUCHANAN: They got the Kurds up north.

MCLAUGLIN: Did you get my message on --


MCLAUGHLIN: Is Putin fearful of being overthrown in a coup?


PAGE: Not likely to happen.

CLIFT: He’s very popular, believe it or not, because he --

BUCHANAN: He’s only 85 --

CLIFT: Because he doesn’t allow outside media in.

BUCHANAN: He’s only 85 percent.


PAGE: Well, he knows how to handle his publicity and information propaganda with his own people there. That’s his primary concern.

MCLAUGHLIN: He fears a coup and is enlarging his palace guard.

PAGE: But that doesn’t mean a coup is inevitable, though, or he’s even under a threat --

MCLAUGHLIN: Well, what in life is inevitable?

PAGE: He’s just paranoid.

MCLAUGHLIN: What in life is inevitable?

PAGE: No, he’s paranoid, though, all the time, you know, whether or not there’s an actual coup threat or not. So, I would not depend on there being a coup threat right now.

MCLAUGHLIN: You’re accusing him of paranoia?

PAGE: Yes. I’m diagnosing him.

MCLAUGHLIN: You better watch your step.

PAGE: No, it’s typical. Every autocrat is paranoid, because they can be overthrown like anybody else.

MCLAUGHLIN: You’re not becoming a problem for him, are you, Putin?

PAGE: Who becoming a problem?


PAGE: Me a problem for Putin? I hope so.

MCLAUGHLIN: Issue Three: State of the Two-State Solution.


JOSEPH BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I firmly that the actions that Israel’s government has taken over the past several years, the steady and systematic expansion of settlements, the legalization of outposts, land seizures, they’re moving us and more importantly, they’re moving Israel in the wrong direction. They’re moving us toward a one-state reality, and that reality is dangerous.

MCLAUGHLIN (voice-over): Speaking to the liberal pro-Israel J Street Group this week, Vice President Biden criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The prime minister, Mr. Biden said, is damaging peace efforts with the Palestinian people. And while the vice president condemned Palestinian terrorism, his sharp words on Israeli settlement, construction in the West Bank raised some eyebrows in Washington and Tel Aviv.

That’s because, as THE MCLAUGHLIN GROUP noted on January 22nd, Israel relies heavily on U.S. diplomatic support. Still, note this, in his own speech to J Street, Secretary of State John Kerry promised the U.S. would not give up on a two-state solution.


MCLAUGHLIN: Are Joe Biden and John Kerry right or wrong?

Let’s try that on you, Clarence?

PAGE: Well, I think the two-state solution is kind of -- it’s not comatose, but it’s in suspended animation right now. We haven’t seen Netanyahu -- so much displeasure with the status quo, for all this talk about moving and making progress. President Obama has laid off in criticizing it. But now, you see Joe Biden being very public and up front about it, in the last year of the Obama administration.

And we hope that there might be more of a dialogue on this, at least to set the things up for the next administration.

MCLAUGHLIN: So, he’s damaged prospects for the two-state solution?

PAGE: Yes, the prospects are damaged anyway, though, as far as I can see.

CLIFT: Yes, I mean, there’s some speculation that the administration might put forward some plan by the end of the year, that would be sort of a token effort. But I think what you’re seeing is a generational split in the Jewish community. And younger people are more willing to criticize Netanyahu and you saw Bernie Sanders, the Democratic candidate, kind of playing into that in the New York primary, of all places.

And politically, you know, a couple of years ago, that would have been unthinkable. So, there is kind of a willingness to kind of put some pressure on Netanyahu from American Jews.

BUCHANAN: But I think that’s irrelevant, because, look, Bibi Netanyahu didn’t want to get out of Gaza. He’s been building settlements -- every year, new settlements in the West Bank. There’s 650,000 Israelis in East Jerusalem and on the West Bank. He has said this past week that he -- we’re never going to give up the Golan Heights. They belong to us now.

And I think Kerry tried this for 18 months, made a heroic effort, got nowhere. I think it’s a waste of our time, really, to try to push Bibi Netanyahu in this direction. But there’s no doubt what Eleanor says is true, you talk about Americans and especially younger Americans and kids in college, and things, that Israel is no longer the bow ideal of nations it once was.

MCLAUGHLIN: Both Kerry and Biden right.

BUCHANAN: Yes, they’re both going to be going six months --

MCLAUGHLIN: Israel -- huh?

BUCHANAN: They’re both going to be going in six months.

CLIFT: Yes, but --

MCLAUGHLIN: Israel is paying lip service to the two-state solution.


MCLAUGHLIN: Israel has concluded that the Middle East is too roiled to risk Palestinian statehood.

ROGAN: Yes, can I --


MCLAUGHLIN: There it is with the bark off.


ROGAN: So, I think the issue here, yes, the settlement construction is profoundly negative. I mean, every administration since Truman and the creation of Israel has said that, Republican and Democrat. But the problem as well is that the Israelis in terms of their diplomacy -- and this is why I think you see some concern in the foreign ministry -- know that people who really do hate the Israelis around the world, and there are quite a lot of them, actually, in Europe, use that because they see Hamas through the visage of the Hamas keffiyeh, right? The revolutionary, that there’s some of kind Che Guevara-type appeal to it, when the reality is, they are blood-drenched murderers.

So, the Israelis actually hurt themselves by not drawing attention to the positive moral contrast that I think most of the case, you know --

BUCHANAN: And it’s hard to disagree with -- Bibi is saying, look, we’ve got enemies all around us. Hamas, Hezbollah, good heavens, we don’t know who’s going to wind up in Damascus, we’re not giving up a thing. We’re going to keep what we got.

And I think us talking about it is talk.

CLIFT: Yes. But in their own self interest, if they want to be Jewish democratic state, they’ve got to come to terms with population in that area.

BUCHANAN: How are they going to divide that up now? I think those who say they’ve reached the one, the point of one state solution are about right.

MCLAUGHLIN: We’ll give you better than that. Multiple choice exit question. Is the two-state solution: A, in suspended animation, B, comatose, C, moribund, or D, dead?

BUCHANAN: I think, de facto, it’s dead.

CLIFT: I go with A, suspended, animation. Things changed. Netanyahu is not forever.

ROGAN: A, suspended animation.

PAGE: You’ve come back to where I begun, yes indeed. Suspended animation.

MCLAUGHLIN: Two for suspended animation.

CLIFT: Three.

PAGE: Three.


PAGE: One for DOA, how about you?

MCLAUGHLIN: I’m reflecting.


PAGE: I think it’s too close to call.

MCLAUGHLIN: Too close to call.

PAGE: Too close to call.

MCLAUGHLIN: Issue Four: A Question of Lawful Presence.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It’s not normal life. It’s really hard to understand maybe -- sometimes, Immigration take me and separate me from my daughter.

MCLAUGHLIN (voice-over): Protesters gathered at the U.S. Supreme Court this week, in support of President Obama’s executive action on immigration amnesty. Twenty-six states are challenging the amnesty that would affect 4 million illegal immigrants.

Two issues are before the court, first, whether the 26 states have sufficient grievance or, quote, "standing to sue", unquote, the federal government for harms the state’s claim Mr. Obama’s amnesty will impose. Specifically, the states claim they will have to spend millions of dollars providing driving licenses to illegal immigrants.

Second, whether the amnesty is unlawful. The states claim amnesty usurps congressional authority on immigration law. But note this, the Supreme Court has a vacant seat. So, if the justices vote 4-4, Mr. Obama’s amnesty will be denied.


MCLAUGHLIN: Question: what happens if the court splits?

Pat Buchanan?

BUCHANAN: Then the federal appellate court decision stands and the Obama amnesty is cancelled. There are two questions, John. The question of standing -- do the states outstanding, I think that’s an easy question -- easy call they do because it’s going to take considerable amount of resources. And then, does the president of the United States have the authority to do what he did? And I think for at least justices of the supreme court are going to say no, he did not have the authority, that this is a question in which clearly the Congress of the United States has got to be engaged, it cannot be an executive decision.

And President Obama, in previous -- before he took his executive decision on this was saying, I don’t have the authority, I don’t have the authority. So, they’re probably going to be reading the president’s statements --

CLIFT: This is very narrow.

BUCHANAN: -- up to the president’s attorneys.

CLIFT: This is very narrow and previous presidents, Eisenhower, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, have all taken similar actions to apply to classes that have been caught up in our immigration system. The standing that Texas is claiming that it would cost money to give driver’s license, that is the phoniest excuse I’ve ever heard. One, they can just charge more for the driver’s license so they could deny them, as they currently do, to these people.

This is not amnesty. This is a three-year moratorium so that the parents who are U.S. citizens can work lawfully, instead of having to hide in the shadows and work off the books and be taken advantage off by businesses.

BUCHANAN: The question is whether the president has the authority? Not whether it’s a good idea.

CLIFT: He has the authority, based on several previous presidents, yes.

ROGAN: You know, I have to say, unsurprisingly perhaps, I’m with Pat on this. I think to take that action in a country of laws, and look, the president, as the law professor, his precedents there was that this -- would be unlawful. But as a politician, he’s changed. And --

PAGE: I would agree with you.

ROGAN: Executive power -- very quickly, the expansion of that in terms of this act, it really -- it’s against the grain of law, and it’s against the tradition of American law.

PAGE: I would agree with you, if he was trying to make a decision of what last longer than his administration. But by confining it to his administration, this is part of the managerial executive functions of the executive branch.

BUCHANAN: It’s three years, Clarence, is it confined to his administration?

PAGE: Well, a new president can come in and change the policy, basically, is what --

BUCHANAN: In other words, presidents can decide these things either -- whichever way they want.

PAGE: It’s very narrow decision.


CLIFT: Right. It’s in enforcement. Yes, he’s choosing not to focus enforcement powers on deporting parents with children who are U.S. citizens. How can you be in favor of that?

BUCHANAN: He’s suspending enforcement of the law. It’s not whether I agree or disagree. It’s whether he has the power to suspend enforcement of the law.

PAGE: I wish immigration law was that simple, but it’s not. That’s where people are confused, because there are a lot of people who are in the country, who are not documented. But they’re not breaking the law. They’re in some kind of a gray area status right now.

ROGAN: Why don’t we get rid of Congress then? If we’re saying --

PAGE: No, come on now!


PAGE: I explained it to you. Let’s try it again.

If he was trying to go beyond his office or the term of office, I would agree with you. But he’s not.

ROGAN: But Congress has taken ownership of that in the co-equal branches of government that we have.

PAGE: They’re trying.

CLIFT: Lawyers and lawyers scrubbed this to make sure that this was something that he could do within his realm of authority, and if they do come down with a decision, it will be split, 4-4.

BUCHANAN: Why did the lower courts --

CLIFT: There will be a fifth justice --

BUCHANAN: Why did the lower courts say you haven’t got the power?

CLIFT: This is a political decision wrapped up in --


BUCHANAN: The appellate court has said he doesn’t have the power.

PAGE: It’s just gray enough that there’s a dispute right now.

CLIFT: One lower court said he doesn’t have the power.

MCLAUGHLIN: Predictions, Pat?

BUCHANAN: Trump will win all five primaries on Tuesday.

CLIFT: Hillary Clinton will win all five primaries on Tuesday.

ROGAN: They will both win -- all five.

PAGE: They’ll each win four out of the five.


MCLAUGHLIN: I’ll change the venue.

Brazil’s senate will vote to impeach to President Dilma Rousseff.