6/22/26 Panel

Good morning. Welcome to the roundtable and to our panel discussion for this Monday, the 22nd of June. Hope you all had a beautiful weekend. It actually was. A beautiful weekend. It was mostly a gorgeous, gorgeous weekend. A little rain moved in yesterday, but for the most part, absolutely beautiful. I hope you enjoyed it. I hope you had a wonderful time. And for some, a three-day weekend. That was great. And it's nice to be back. We have a lot to talk about this morning. We have a wonderful group to do exactly that. And a bit of an eclectic. group of stories today that I mean they all they all revolve around one thing perhaps but but still an interesting an interesting batch of stories that we will talk about as we bumble our way through here over the next hour and 45 minutes. Let me introduce the group to you and we'll get started. We welcome your participation as always. Panel at wamc.org. Panel at wamc.org. Bob Brigham is here, a professor of history and international relations at Vassar College. He's a specialist on the history of U.S. foreign policy. Good morning, Bob. How are you? Good morning, Joe. I'm fine. Always good to be here. Always wonderful to have you here. Jim Ketterer joins us. Senior Fellow at the Bard Center for Civic Engagement. Good morning, Jim. How are you? Good morning. I'm well. Happy to be here. Excellent. Just. Just the facts, ma'am. Yeah, exactly. And former Vice President for Editorial Development of the New York Press Association, longtime editor of the Daily Gazette, Judy Patrick. Good morning. Good morning. Could I say I could use a little more heat here? I mean, not in this room, but in the season. I'm waiting for those hot days of June. Warm yesterday for a little while, and then the storm came through, and then after that, it was chilly. Right. Very, very chilly. But it was, you know, it's, it's odd. I want it hot. Sorry. I should be wearing shorts every day. And I have pants on today. It does not appear to be. that that will be an issue this week either, looking at the long-range forecast. But who knows? Maybe we'll wait until July. Or August. Right. Or August. We'll see how it goes. All right. Man, a lot of stuff going on. Let's start with Keir Starmer. He is resigning from as UK's prime minister. How do we know this? Because Donald Trump said so.

Last night, President Trump said that Keir Starmer was leaving. And then they went to 10 Downing Street and they said, are you leaving? And they said, oh, well, we haven't made that announcement. We're still thinking about it. I don't really know. And then for this morning. this morning, our time, 5, 4, 5, 6 in the morning, they were just camped out outside of 10 Downing Street waiting, and then all of a sudden... Somebody brought out a podium, and they were like, aha. And a few moments later, Keir Starmer came out and stepped down as the leader of the Labor Party. Andy Burnham, the party's most popular politician, said he would seek the prime minister's job now. Now, this is interesting how this all unfolded, but also just how... I mean, I guess somewhat quickly this happened, too, where... Keir Starmer announces his resignation this morning, bowing to a mutiny inside his Labor Party, and paving the way for Burnham, the former mayor of Greater Manchester, to likely become the country's next leader. Mr. Keir Starmer said that he would remain as Prime Minister until a new party leader is selected by September. Rather than fight to remain in the job, he won almost two years ago, his decision means that Britain will have its... Catch this. Its seventh prime... Prime Minister in a decade. extending a period of political turmoil for the country since it voted to leave the European Union in 2016. So the 10th anniversary of Brexit brings with it this notable statistic as well of seven prime ministers in a decade, which sort of makes 10 Downing Street like an Airbnb. You just go in for a while and leave. And then we'll ask our panel about that. Talk a little bit about Keir Starmer and the problems that he came into. He did say every decision I have taken has been about putting the country I love first. This is why I will resign as leader.

His voice was breaking with emotion as he thanked his wife for being a rock by his side. Mr. Burnham is a popular labor politician whose resounding victory last week in a special election energized his bid to become prime minister. And then we'll talk about that as well of who Mr. Burnham is and what we perhaps can expect from him in at least as that. What could be a fight goes on. Who would like to begin when it comes to Keir Starmer residing? Do you want to take that on? Sure. I mean, this seven out of ten, seven prime ministers in ten years is symptomatic of the problems that Brexit helped create. The scandals inside Keir Starmer's government didn't help. Of course, he picked Peter Mandelson to be the ambassador to the U.S. Mantleson had close ties to Epstein. But it was more than the scandals. It really was the policies that derailed Keir Starmer, I think. He started off trying to revise part of the national health insurance and trying to bring him some more worker rights. And he lost the Tony Blair part of the party in the first week. Blair. you know, famously was cozy with business for a labor leader. And Keir Starmer just got off the wrong foot. Then trying to wean Britain off of oil and gas. He tried to do it too quickly for almost everyone. His big, big problem that few people talk about was he promised in the election to cut university fees to zero. And instead, they're the highest they've ever been. And they've now pegged to inflation. And that caused just a huge uproar throughout Britain. And so every place he turned, it seemed that he was facing the realities of a Britain out of... the European Union. What I find fascinating isn't just that we're going to have another prime minister in Britain, but it's going to be the knock on effects of this. He saw Brian Cox, the actor Brian Cox, over the weekend, picking up the mantle from Sean Connery as the Free Scotland Voice. And I think a Scotland referendum is right around the corner on this. So it's not just Keir Starmer-losing's job. It's just how is this going to resonate in Northern Ireland where there are increased economic and civil unrest problems. And then Scotland, which this could be, I mean, this could be the deciding vote in Scotland. We have to remember that Brexit was really, really close on a vote. And taken today, that probably wouldn't happen. The Britain, Britain's economy has performed very poorly since Brexit. Very, very poorly. So what they, what they, what they, what they, what, The European Union 4 we now know is really the outfall of the 2007-2008 financial crisis. And it really wasn't the EU's fault. So there's a lot to unpack here.

Judy? Yeah, I think Britain hasn't been the same since Brexit. You see it. You know, in the internal, the discussions I'm seeing from the press from England today, I don't think they recognize it as well as we see it. I mean, we have a distinctly American perspective. And let me be a little glib here. At least he lasted longer than the Liz Truss's head of lettuce, which lasted 45 days. And could I also say that I realize that President Trump is like the international gossip. Queen because he always likes to break the news and squander any kind of he doesn't keep secrets well it's just and and that's a poor reflection of our country but you know as an American I used to really get invested in who the Prime Minister of England was. But, you know, I knew Margaret Thatcher. I knew Boris Johnson. I really, you know, I followed their political pass. But, you know, I give up on them. They can't stick with someone for long enough for me to, like, even get to know who their spouse is or what their middle name is. With Keir Starmer, I think a lot, he had this wonderful win two years ago. From what I'm reading, he just squandered it by not being able to actually have a plan of how to govern and then to implement how he was going to govern. So here's wishing good luck to the next person. Jim. Well, prime ministers come, prime ministers go. But Larry the cat is still there, the official cat of 10 Downing, who I think is 19 years old now. He has a social media. Yeah, he does, and I follow it, and I highly recommend it. It is highly entertaining. So Larry is still there waiting for Andy to show up. And there was the possible. Is it like a Morris the cat thing where he's like 47 years old? Yeah. Like maybe there's been a couple Larry the cats. Joe at this point, I mean, don't ruin it for me. There's multiple cats. I love Larry. I love his social media presence. There were a lot of lassies too. Whatever makes it work. A lot of lasis as well. Yes, I just need Larry in my life right now. I don't really care about Keir. He's on the way out, but Larry is still there. And Andy is apparently on the way in. And there was the possibility of a fight. over who was going to be next, and I think it's West Streeting, who already came out and said that he supports Burnham. Right. And so that's interesting. We were talking about Brexit. Brexit has failed to deliver, and has also failed to repair the growing kind of polarization in Britain. And so the Reform UK party is demanding a general election, and that probably won't happen that quickly as they're demanding. But if it were to happen, they could win.

The polling is showing that this party, that is some kind of British equivalent of the MAGA movement, has grown. And Nigel Farage is, you know, out there doing what he does. So I think that we see the... We see the curse of incumbency again. People come in, as you were saying, Judy, come in with great hopes and this flourish and labor wins and everybody's very happy. But the inability to deliver economically, the inability to make good choices in terms of governance is, you know, quickly... the subject of punishment by the electorate. And Judy, you were also mentioning, like, you know, it's just like it's hard to get that invested in whoever the next PM is. And some people are saying, like, well, I mean, does the special relationship between the U.S. and the UK, does it really matter anymore? Is it special? Why does it matter? And I would argue that there is still some... great importance, I think, of what's going on in Britain from the U.S. perspective. Number one, they are a member of this Five Eyes group, of this intelligence group that shares everything, at least in theory. I think there's been a little less sharing these days. with this current administration. I think with the lack of capacity and the lack of professionalism lately with our diplomacy, there is more importance to be able to rely on British diplomacy, which has continued to be highly professional. And in my experience, and working alongside the Brits in places like Egypt, they are just very good at what they do. And I think that's... that's increasingly important for the U.S. as this current administration hollows out the State Department and undermines our professional diplomats as they're out in the field. And that's also true of the British military. They don't have the size and all of the reach that the U.S. military has, but they have been with us at every adventure and misadventure along the way. they play a very important role, particularly as we're in this period, you know, Keir Starmer is leaving. as NATO is being destabilized by the U.S. administration, which continues to bring up this issue of Greenland, which doesn't make the press a lot, but it's still very much on Trump's mind and it's still a highly divisive issue. The Ukraine War, Britain plays an important role. The Middle East, Britain plays an outsized role in the Middle East for historical and other reasons. And so I think it just continues to...

to be important. One of the reasons I think that Andy Burnham is, I think there are two reasons why Andy Burnham is going to climb in the race in July. One is that as Greater Manchester Mayor, he was very adept at linking the social welfare state with a pro-business stance. And so that's sort of where labor is right now. But the other is that he doesn't have any kind of misplaced nostalgia. like the other Labor Party members did when Brexit happened. They thought the United States would fill that void, and then in came Trump. And that was a really strategic era. And I think Burnham is a little more sophisticated, less experienced in many ways than Keir Starmer on this issue, but more sophisticated in its understanding of the, you know, this isn't Winston Churchill and Roosevelt. This is a whole different kind of relationship. And Bob, you mentioned Tony Blair before. Yeah. My understanding is he's still lurking in the shadows, and he's still very involved behind the scenes. In labor politics. Yeah, in labor politics. And both in Britain's reach to the world, and particularly the Middle East, but in also the machinations of labor politics. Yeah, he warned behind the scenes, he warned that there were. reports that some Labor Party members were taking gifts that were really inappropriate, jewels, cars, these kind of things. It's hard to imagine such a thing that ever happened. It really is. At the same time that they were... A cat named Larry. Or multiple. That's the source is the cat name Larry. But they were taking these gifts and the press was starting to report on an exact same week that they were making massive cuts. to social welfare programs. And that's just, the optics on that are just horrible. And Blair was behind the scene saying, you don't understand how the public is going to react to this. This is going to be the death knoll of labor. And it kind of follows. Well, the culture, I'm sorry. Oh, they cut heating assistance to their pensionaires, which were their old people last winter. And that caused a huge, you know, problem. Star Wars just so stiff and stilted. He just comes across as non-charismatic. But none of those things that happen here seem to have the same impact on the leadership. Right. Okay. I'll let that sit. I think you're right, Joe. I'll let that sit on the mantle for a while. We'll take a break. When we come back, we'll continue our conversation. We welcome you, panel at wamc.org, panel at wamc.org, panel at wamc.org. We'll take a break. Get some news from the BBC and return after this.

Good morning. Welcome back to the roundtable and to our panel discussion for this Monday, the 22nd of June. So nice to have you with us. We appreciate you being here. Panel at wamc.org. Panel at wamc.org. Other story that I wanted to, the other thing that broke overnight where we sort of had our story set and then. Keir Starmer resigned, which was on the list, but only the Trump aspect of it. So we assumed that was going to morph. Then the other story that broke this morning is Alan Greenspan passing. Alan Greenspan passed away at the age of 100 and was the former Fed chair. back when presidents weren't trying to fire them. And this goes back a ways. And he certainly had a legacy and is someone who... A policymaker and as the New York Times is the preeminent economic policymaker of his time. He favored market-friendly stances that would later come to be associated with destructive financial forces. Fed chairman through prosperity and crisis again died at the age of 100. Does anyone want to address the passing of Alan Greenspan? It was interesting that in his retirement years, he spent a considerable amount of energy talking about the notion of income inequality and how that was undermining our social structure. And he was a respected voice in that realm. So I found that interesting. Also interesting in the fact that he was married to Andrea Mitchell, NBC correspondent. That's right. Andrea Mitchell. from NBC News, formerly of K-YW TV in Philadelphia. And the cause was complications from Parkinson's. Meaning he was 100 years old. 100 years old. And was the chair for nearly two decades served four presidents during his time. Yeah. And I mean, he... He did serve four presidents in kind of unique ways. I mean, he allowed the Clinton administration to run kind of free with its idea of globalization. He'd live through the dot-com bust as Fed Chair. He was market friendly. He confused Congress every time he went there because he spoke in a kind of economic language that they just didn't understand purposefully on his part. But also. Also, a lot of critics do put the 2007-2008 financial crisis at his doorstep because he seemed to be a little too market friendly that the rolling of bad securities into a big umbrella security was something that he kind of, his administration looked the other way, apparently. By that.

time of his retirement. One group of critics blamed him for not heading off a housing level by pushing interest rates higher. Another accused him of promoting a corrosive free market fundamentalism that left the financial system to operate unchecked as it adopted increasingly risky practices. Well, he'll always be associated with the phrase irrational exuberance. And I do think that as we think back to the time in which he served, it's a reminder of the need to make sure that the Fed is insulated from politicization. Because you can look at other countries where their central bank. is politicized, where the economic data is skewed for political reasons, and I've lived in some of those countries. And the effects are real and longstanding. And if we continue to move in the direction of that sort of dynamic, the effects on the United States economy and on the world economy really will be... profoundly negative. And the Supreme Court is going to make some decisions on that very issue this week. So. Two paragraphs from the obit in the New York Times. At the peak of his fame as the economy boomed in the late 90s, his merest phrase could send the markets sharply up or down, and his face behind his thick glasses was as familiar as any movie stars. In public, he often spoke in an elliptical jargon that even his fellow economists had trouble deciphering. Beyond behind the scenes in Washington, Mr. Greenspan was a master of the political power game, schooled by his experiences as a policy advisor to Richard Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign in his role as President Gerald Ford's chief economist. He developed into a wily operator who skillfully protected the Fed's independence while shaping the agendas of successive presidents and steering legislation on capital. Hill. Will the Fed Chair ever have that kind of power again? The irrational exuberance, that was in reference to the dot-com rising and bust. You have to wonder what he would think of what's going on with the AI and the stock market in this case. Because, I mean, when he said irrational exuberance back then, people really paid attention. And I think a lot of people think what's happening with AI right now is the same thing. Bubbles tend to burst.

Do they? All right. Alan Greenspan passed away. Yesterday was 100 years old. Anybody want to, if anyone would like to write in about that and comment, we'd love to hear from you, panel at wmc.org. I'm going to move on to other topics in the meantime, although we can get back to that. Actually, let's do a fresh start. We'll take a break a little bit early. We'll do a break now, and then we'll come back and continue and move on to a new topic. We welcome you, panel at wamc.org. We'll return right after this. Good morning. Welcome back to the roundtable and to our panel discussion for this Monday morning. A lot in the news and we're working our way through the...

We're working our way through the stories of the day. I'm looking at some of the letters that I'm sorry. Bart takes me to task. Please skip the goofy pseudo-correct speech and use plain old standard English. He's dead. What did you say? I said he passed. You know, at the newspaper, we get obits. And so in the last 10, 20 years, people were allowed to read or submit their own obituaries. And I loved reading all the different euphonisms for dying. It's like he went to that great... you know, autocross race in the sky or he went back to the ranchries. Went to the great bank in the sky. You read the obis and you'll see them today. I would have a collection of them. Made the ultimate deposit. Right. So, you know, euphemisms, that's what they're there for. Bart says he did not pass. He died. Unpack is another. Suitcases get unpacked. Things get explained in reporting and decision.

Al writes, I'm sorry, Amy writes, this is a warning about a Fed chair having excessive power. And we go to. Can I just stop at that letter though for a second? So I'm not sure. I think that that's worth thinking about for a second. So, you know, what is the balance between the independence of the Fed? and a Fed chair with excessive power. I mean, the Fed chair doesn't decide these things on his or her own. There is a pretty complex network of feds around the country, and there is a board, and there are other people who are highly qualified who are involved. So they're not deciding this on their own, but there is also, you know, I mean, there are politicians who say, including the one sitting in the Oval Office, that they should not have this power and that they should, you know, that it. should just be natural that the body politic exert some influence on these economic decisions. But it's an interesting decision to or a decision point to come to about like, well, what is the balance between independence and unregulated power? Right. When it comes to the 2008 collapse, there were things that Congress could have done or Congress did do that facilitated. What happened there? It wasn't, you don't, we can't lay that entirely on the, at the feet of the Fed. There are national legislation that encouraged, you know, excessive borrowing, excessive, you know, aggregation of, of securities. So, yeah, it's not just the Fed. There's only so many things the Fed can do. Zach writes to us and says, isn't it ironic that the British Prime Minister has now resigned in large part due to the appointment of a staff member with ties to Jeffrey Epstein, while our president has escaped any scrutiny and had closer ties to Epstein than anyone else? The absolute corruption of the Justice Department is tragic and shameful, and that is from Zach in Hyde Park. I agree with the sentiments of Zach's letter, but I don't think we should forget also that there were a lot of policy decisions here that let the stormers downfall. That, you know, because of Brexit, the British economy has lost about 10% of its purchasing power, and the Brits are feeling that. intensely. And so it was policy decisions. And the other thing that they're saying about Buchanan is the policies aren't going to change, but they're going to be delivered better. You know, more, he's going to reach out to voters in a better way. But they're in a really tough spot because they've made themselves have this tough spot while Europe is moving along. Britain is not.

Let's see. Also corrected by Heather, who says I just wanted to point out that Alan Greenspan did hold a doctorate so he is not a mister, but he is Dr. Allen Greenspan. Corrected. And let's see. I think that is good for the letters for the moment. Let's move on to other topics, shall we? I have been waiting all week, all weekend to talk about this story, and that is of the reflecting pool. For those of you who don't know, and just because I was born in Washington, D.C., deep ties to the city, grew up primarily in Philadelphia, but we always, family, my brothers and so forth, I lived in D.C., but I was born there and lived early years there, spent so much time in D.C. and traveling through. My father was a federal worker and was just fascinated by memorials and monuments and parks and so forth. So I just, I can't get enough of this of this story. I just don't, I'm sorry if I put a little too much into this. President Donald Trump said Saturday night that he was likely to drain the Lincoln Memorial's reflecting pool again as workers contend with paint peeling off its surface. an algae blooming in the wake of his $14 million effort to resurface it. The president made his announcement after what he said was a meeting with contractors while he was at Camp David in Maryland for the weekend. It comes 16 days after the government began refilling the pool following a renovation that Trump had said would result in clean water that could last for 100 years. Since pieces of peeling paint started to float to the water surface earlier this week, the Interior Department has not responded to questions about the paint and why the pool service is separating from the bottom. So there are the two issues. There is the algae issue, and then there is the American flag blue that was painted to make it look more reflecting. And so the algae, which... has been a constant within the reflecting pool since it was first constructed. But also then there is the removal of the separating, which is probably a better term, but it's peeling from the bottom. The agency said in a statement Wednesday that it's treating the pool with hydrogen peroxide. There are pictures of them just taking like two gallon bottles of hydrogen peroxide that looks like they got it CVS and just pouring them into the, pouring them into the reflecting pool. And then it's treating the pool with also a high-tech nanobble ozone technology.

to limit the spread of algae. We met with the contractors today. We'll probably be forced to release and drain much of the water in order to do the necessary repairs, but we'll have them done as quickly as possible. That is the... Post that Trump did on Saturday evening, the president spent the weekend at Camp David with senior advisors, as Iran said it once again closed the Strait of Hormuz, testing the fragile ceasefire in place with the United States. We'll get to that story in a few minutes. But right now, it's the pool. We're on the reflection pool. Trump blamed the damage on disgraceful. vandalism, an accusation he also made earlier this week. Many additional people were arrested, he said. The U.S. Park Police did not immediately respond to a request for comment about a number of arrests. The park police patrolling the Lincoln Memorial area on Friday afternoon observed an individual peeling paint from the pool, as spokesperson for the department said via email, the person was arrested on charges of destruction of government property. I would think that there's a difference between peeling what is there in the pool. Then causing the peeling of it and actually causing the destruction, I know Jonathan Carl, the ABC journalist, was also accused of a similar crime by the president because he put his hand in and touched the peeling paint because it was such a large swath of it that had... come up to the side of the reflecting pool. The Washington Post later identified the person as a three-time Olympian, David Hearn. In an interview with the post, Hearn said he reached in the water after he noticed a piece of paint partially detached from the pool bottom. He said he did not damage government property or vandalize anything. Trump also said that the vandals took some form of knife or blade and put a 250 long foot gash into a beautiful facade. Now, okay, my question is, how do you do that going unnoticed in one of the most public places where there are cameras? It is a federal, it's federal property at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial. On the other side, How do you do that? It was only 250 feet, Joe.

What is a sharp blade, huh? And this, of course, all comes from the 8647 that was put on the mall as well using chemicals. And it really wasn't noted at the time and was only seen from a drone above when that was done. He claimed they poured corrosive and destructive chemicals into the reflecting pool. The post could not immediately verify those. allegations. Pool experts' explanations for the damage to the service diverge from the president's account. Stephen Gooddale, a swimming pool expert who viewed footage of the peeled sheet of paint on Thursday, said he believes the pool service may have been improperly prepared for treatment. Shocking. If there are any deficiencies with the surface prep, the surface can fail, just like you see here, he said via email, sheets and chunks peeling off. Another culprit, he added, could be... the groundwater or pool water seeping underneath the lining. The lining product is extremely tough and durable, said Gooddale. It would take a significant, excuse me, a specific failure or deficiency to fail like we're potentially seeing. Maintenance of the reflecting pool has been a challenge for decades. Trump's resurfacing effort was part of his initiative to beautify Washington as his administration bans a host of events to celebrate the 250th anniversary of this country. One of the flagship events. The Great American State Fair is scheduled to open just blocks from the Reflecting Pool on the National Mall on Thursday. Yeah, I think this is what you get when you get a no-bid contract, right? There's a reason why you have a process, especially on these kind of federal projects. And the algae has been a problem in the reflecting pool for decades and decades and decades. What it needed was professional drainage help, not... this blue paint, which, according to some experts, has actually increased the likelihood of algae growth because it's not, it doesn't deflect the heat. It absorbs the heat, so the water is warmer than it's ever been. I mean, you throw in some global warming and you've got the perfect swamp. There's a picture again. I'm accused, often accused of showing pictures on the radio. But there is a, there's a picture in the Washington Post of this hose that's coming out of the reflecting pool going into a drainage pipe. And it's just this, it's just like. neon green slime sludge that's coming out. Obviously, that's the algae. But this isn't, I wouldn't say it isn't passing. It's a... It's not blue. It's a very firm color. Yeah. It's not clear. No. You know, this is a debacle of the president's own making. I mean, previous administrations have struggled with this pool and have done renovation projects. But he made a big deal of it. He got in his limousine and drove down it when it was drained. He's done dozens and dozens of social media posts about the pool and about the beautiful blue color. You know, the Guardian.

has a great website where you can see the different shades of green and then make it the American flag. And you can see the American flag in red, white. and green in different shades of green. It's really fun. The social media is having a blast with it. You know, did the cat and the hat come, and is it going to come and clean it up like it did in the book? But clearly, you know, a no-bid contract, they filled it up with water from the tidal basin. I mean, you're obviously going to need to do some treatment of this thing. It's a shallow pool in the south. I mean, D.C. is technically the south, I think. It's below the Mason-Dixon. Yeah, the dark blue is going to absorb it. And, yeah, they didn't properly prepare the surface. The fact that they're arrest, they're charging people with crimes for, you know, touching the floating debris. People are even taking pieces of it and selling it on eBay. It doesn't just float to the top because of some sort of mischief. If it was really done well, no knife is going to be able to go 250 feet through it. This is just the price. president. No one with any common sense believes the president that this is vandalism. This is incompetence. I think it just bears thinking about, imagine that if you worked at the White House and you get called to a meeting with the president while you're amidst dealing with a war. the economic situations, the status of our political institutions, and the president wants to discuss the reflecting pool. The president himself is focused on this. I mean, just imagine the supporters of Donald Trump, if it were Joe Biden. or Barack Obama, who were sending out endless posts and driving around the reflecting pool and having this focus, they would just say, well, this is outrageous and why would they be focused on this? I mean, this is, it's, it's bizarre. It's absurd. And that. We are even talking about this. I mean, of course, we have to talk about it. Joe, it's a news item, but it's like it's like the, it's another sign that the world is upside down, that we have the president of the United States focused on the reflecting pool. It's just, I just can't wrap my head around. I think it's the perfect metaphor for this administration. I really do. There's a tidbit from Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan's new book where someone walks into the Oval Office and Donald Trump is there with crazy glue, gluing guilt to something in his Oval Office. I mean, the obsession with appearances and controlling the exterior environment is just crazy.

The other thing, and we have to go, we have a break, but the other thing was the first announcement on Monday, excuse me, on Saturday morning from the National Park Service was this is all untrue. The water is crystal clear. Yeah, right. And I'm like, whoa. Wow. Yeah. Don't believe your eyes. No, don't believe your eyes on that one. And that was, I think, what caused the picture of the green sludge being removed from the reflecting pool. We'll take a break. We'll come back. We'll let our sludge be removed. And we'll continue right after this. Well, good morning. Welcome back to the roundtable and to our panel discussion. I'm Joe Donny. We have Jim Ketterer here. We have Judy Patrick here. We have Bob Brigham here. And we welcome you. Panel at wamc.org. Panel at wamc.org. Brian writes regarding the reflecting pool, I'm assuming that most of you guys are Republicans, but you've at least got to feel bad for the dead duck because you don't know if it was a Democrat or not. I don't know what that means. Was there a dead duck? I think there have been some, I mean, I think over the years, ducks have died there, but there have been. They didn't pass away. They died. They have been concerns that the hydrogen peroxide that they were dumping in. They were downing. Because they were showing when the initial green. Sheen started to emerge that they were taking those pictures of the ducks going into this green morass. So I've only been to the reflecting pool once in my life. Did it actually reflect the Lincoln Memorial? I think it was its original intention. And on a good day, it would do that. Yeah. Do you think it's going to be empty on the 4th of July? That's a very good question. A very good question. Maybe President Trump should mobilize the National Guard to patrol the reflecting pool, says Ricky. And I think actually that was... Seriously? We're going to have a, you know, a monument to our wonderful country, and it's going to need to be patrolled by soldiers. I think that's all. Who could have stopped the three-time Olympian from touching the paint that was already peeling off? I mean, it's just, yeah. Talk about dystopian. We were talking about that earlier. And I'm just fact-checking this letter. But the company who owned...

The company that was responsible for this was called Greenwater Services, which I think that's amazing. Appropriate. Yeah, that's funny. And then Mike makes another point. Let us not forget that January 6th rioters were true vandals as seen on TV. Let's Change History is the goal of this Republican government. And then there's this one from Nick. The makers of Beavis and Butthead made a movie called Idiocracy in 2006. The premise is basic. The lowest IQ guys are frozen and wake up in the future where they are super genius. Why this happened is another topic. Moral is the people in the future were watering plants with green Gatorade. We are one step from that. Maybe pour blue drink in the pond, and that'll work. That's from Nick. All right. Let's go on to other stories. We welcome you panel at wamc.org. Panel at wamc.org. We go to the...

What I was going to start with this morning, which was what has changed after almost four months of war. And in this New York Times article, it says, news analysis says analysts say not much. All of this happens as the vice president is in high level. U.S. Iran talks, concluding with a roadmap of sorts to move on to peace, according to mediators. The negotiators were shaken by President Trump's threats of fresh attacks, but Pakistan and Qatar hailed encouraging progress after the meetings that went into the wee hours of the morning. High-level peace talks between the United States and Iran have concluded. Mediators said Monday with the immediate, quote-unquote, immediate launch of a new round of... lower-level technical discussions this weekend in Switzerland. The two sides agreed on a roadmap aimed at reaching a final agreement within 60 days, according to a joint statement by mediators, Pakistan, and Qatar. They also agreed to establish a de-escalation working group that includes Lebanon to address the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah there. A communications channel was also established to prevent incidents and misunderstandings and to... Yes. a communication channel established to prevent incidents and misunderstandings and to ensure the safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, according to the mediators, calling the progress, quote unquote, encouraging that from the Washington, that actually from the Washington Post. If I said times earlier, I apologize. So, where are we? Well, I think the premise of the essay in the title that... Not much has changed is absolutely wrong. A lot has changed. Iran has had to make no specific concessions on its nuclear program. It hasn't had to give up any of its support for Hamas or Hezbollah. The straits were open before. Now there's a two-month window where they're promised to be open, but there's absolutely nothing after that two months in writing.

Iran is saying that after that two months, they're going to start to charge for the first time ever tolls. So that's different. We won frozen Iranian assets that have been frozen for decades. And the Gulf Arab states are promising $300 billion in economic development aid. That's... a new development as well. So I think there's an awful lot there that has changed the game. And the other thing that is going to come back, I think, and be a prevalent feature of U.S. foreign policy formation in the region in the future is that we no longer have a credible threat. Because we've used it. We weren't willing to put troops on the ground, thankfully. But you always have to align ends and means and outcomes. And there was no full and frank debate about where this war really fit in U.S. national security interest. And now Trump can go on social media and make all sorts of threats, but they're not going to hold any sway with Iran because they've already survived this. And they know where his breaking point is. It's $4.25 a gallon.

Judy. I'm sorry. I have my mic off. Go ahead. And where's the communication strategy from this administration? We have not seen the president come and have an Oval Office address telling us where we are and what his plan is. It's such a scattershot approach to giving us information about this. I mean, why are we doing this? In the beginning, he said he wanted regime change. He wanted to help the Iranian people. I see no effort. to help the Iranian people at this point. The communication strategy is, again, scattershot. We get social posts, which the media tries to take and gives some credence to, which... because it's so all over the place, we really don't know what's going on and what the long-term strategy is. And I think it's particularly because there is no long-term strategy. Today we have, you know, JD Vance and Switzerland telling us that, oh, we've made a real breakthrough because Iran is going to accept... nuclear inspectors to come into the country. Of course, we're saying, yeah, come on in right now. You know what we have, and we have nothing. And release some of those billions of dollars. I agree with Bob. It seems like we lost everything. And Iran has gained tremendous advantage over us. We've lost our standing in the world. We lost untold millions and billions of treasure and 13 lives for not. I mean, I saw a defender. of this operation, this war, let's call it what it is, say, well, it's worth it to us because we never want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Well, guess what? Iran knows its power, and its power is closing that Strait of Hormuz. I don't even think it needs a nuclear weapon anymore.

Jim. Yeah, well, just to add on to what my colleagues are saying, the first thing I think is that this is just a reminder that our foreign policy is being... designed and implemented by unsurious, unprofessional people. And that is bad for the United States. Turns out that it's bad for the Middle East. And Judy mentioned the loss of life, that people are put in harm's way. You know, the stakes are as high as they could be. And what does one say to the family members of those 13 service members who died? What does one say to the 1,700 Iranian civilians who have been killed? You know, one of the things to add on to Bob's great list about what is worse now after this has been going on since February 28th is that the Trump administration has done what was otherwise be seemingly impossible. And it has made. Iranians rally around the flag and rally around the regime that they largely have detested for decades. But when you bomb people and you kill their children, which is, let's be blunt about it, which is what has happened, that tends to make people turn against you. Judy was mentioning the nuclear issue. tearing up the joint comprehensive plan of action, the agreement that the Obama administration spent months and months negotiating, tearing that up with no alternative. It was an imperfect agreement as almost every diplomatic agreement is, but tearing it up with no alternative is diplomatic malpractice that has made the Middle East less safe. and the world less safe. And this later, this conflict, this current one, has made it even worse. What's going on in Lebanon? Returning Lebanon to the 1980s in many ways is heartbreaking. It's not just confined to southern Lebanon. It's not just confined to attacks on Hezbollah. And when you look into the details that I think are largely not being reported by the American press. It is a true tragedy. And it is especially a tragedy because Lebanon had gotten to a point with a new government that it seemed like they could start to make some moves to reconstitute or constitute Lebanon as a sovereign state. to control things and be a positive player in the region. And this would have required positive support from the United States, from Israel, from Turkey, from other actors. Instead, we see the opposite direction going. It's truly problematic. The Strait of Hormuz, and it's not just the oil prices, fertilizer, aluminum.

anything else that's transiting through that straight. Those prices are skyrocketing. I was talking to a local business leader just this weekend, and he was saying that his prices are just absolutely off the charts, largely because of this conflict. Also with the Gulf allies, they now realize that the U.S. has neither the political will and in some cases the capacity to protect them. They are striking their own deals with Iran, whether it's transiting the straits or making sure they're not going to get bombed again. And, you know, Iran has demonstrated not just for itself but for other potential adversaries that you can – You can take on the great power of the United States, and you can find ways in these conflicts to ensure that you can inflict damage in other ways. This is true. triangular coercion and, you know, the basically find the weak spot. So the weak spot, you know, you can't take on the U.S. military directly. Strike Saudi Arabia, strike the United Arab Emirates, strike Bahrain and Qatar. And they did that, and they did it with great effect. And you can be absolutely sure that people around the world who do not wish us well are looking at that. and learning lessons on how to do that. And so Trump promised a transformed Middle East at the outset of this conflict. And he got it, but just not in the way that he thought that he was going to get it. The Washington Post that has a banner up. as of this moment that says breaking news, is reporting that Vice President JD Vance says that Iran is agreeing to nuclear inspections as under the Obama deal. Conversations with inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency could occur as soon as today. the vice president said as negotiators continue in Switzerland. This is, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but this seems to be also a cycle where when there is progress, quote unquote, but progress made, then it is reported and construed to be. the same as the Obama deal, and then it's torpedoed by Trump, and then you're back to where you were whenever.

Right? I mean, that just seems to be the way it goes. Even looking at yesterday, as they were negotiating, he was still continuing and saying that the bombs are going to fall. Yeah, he can't help himself. This is why you need the adults in the room when you're doing foreign policy. If we end up back with the 2015 agreement, anything close to that, we're going to be lucky. You don't bring the technical people in at this stage. You bring technical people in at the beginning of negotiations. You know, for people who study the art of peacemaking, which is very different than the art of business deal making, in fact, it's almost the polar opposite. They're doing everything backwards. The ceasefire is where you have the meat. It's where you have the stakeholder participation, where you link the items. This administration in its negotiating tactics knows nothing about linkage. That's where it's only leverages as it's got this fig leaf of agreement, which is really a withdrawal agreement. You know, everything has to be built into the ceasefire. Instead, they announced that pieces at hand, and now they're constructing the ceasefire agreement. And it's just absolutely backwards. They made their first trip. This administration made their first trip to Oak Ridge to talk to nuclear scientists two weeks ago. That's not the way you negotiate a nuclear deal. And, you know, there's two aspects to the JCPOA that are unlikely to be replicated, but were very important decision points. One is that it included several of our allies and some adversaries as well. And so this multilateral approach, which would also ensure that it could be enforced over time. That requires diplomacy. Diplomacy requires diplomats. It requires diplomats to be empowered and sent in the right direction. None of that is happening with our State Department these days, which is being gutted. And it also requires allies who are inclined to work with us, who trust us. And many of our allies simply do not. And you can understand why. I mean, we're threatening a NATO. We're threatening two NATO members. We're threatening Canada and Denmark. on a regular basis. And so they don't trust us. The other part is that, and this is standard in diplomatic practice, and it was controversial at the time when it happened, but the range of negotiation was limited to nuclear issues with the JCPOA. So the Obama administration realized they really couldn't get a substantive nuclear deal if they were also going to try to deal with

ballistic missiles and drones, if they were going to deal with proxies, if they were going to deal with the nature of the regime, if they were going to deal with the flow of oil, all of those things were left off the table, not because people thought, oh, those aren't important, but just because you have to take these things piece by piece by piece. This requires patience. It requires a strategic vision going forward. And all of that. is just absolutely absent here. And so I don't see how we're going to get out of this kind of repeating cycle. I think the Iranians will just slow roll this. I mean, 60 days is nothing. They're going to, they'll slow roll this for years. Right. From a political perspective, this is not going to be resolved. There's not going to be a win before the midterm elections in November. Also, the proponents of the Obama agreement will make the case that. any reparations returned to Iran were going to be heavily controlled. Like they had to spend them on, you know, building infrastructure systems, helping the people. And so that money would not be used to rebuild any military capacity. I think that's missing. That's totally not being discussed in this realm under the Trump administration. So from a political perspective, This is a loser. We'll continue to be a loser. Two quick questions. There's nothing quick about them. But one is the fact that the straight of vice versa in advance as the straight of four moves remains open. Is it? I don't know how it could be. I mean, there were 6,000 contact mines. It takes about 30 days to get rid of 1,000. Did they disappear overnight? I haven't heard any of the commentators and anybody from this administration talking about the contact mines. Now, yes, does Iran have GPS coordinates and they can do their mind sweeping? Yes, are they doing it? There's no reports of any mine sweeping going on right now. There's a very narrow... channel in the straits, but you've got to go the entire length of the Gulf to get the oil. And I just think this is all atmospherics. And to what you said earlier, a point that I thought was brilliant that I would like to come back to, which is that we're just doing this all backwards in the sense of we make the announcement, we say everything's great. And then you go and negotiate it and figure it out and say, okay, now we're going to work on the details. Right. It's headline grabbing. It's Neville Chamberlain with the paper in his hand, but this is not a real deal. The price of gas was down. It's not below $4, but it's come down a little bit. And I think the American public, as fickle as they are, they're going to say, oh, it's down. But we will have forgotten that going above $4 was a big deal. And it's going to take a long time before it gets back to January, 2026 levels. Yeah. And to Jim's point earlier, I mean, it's not just the gas. It's the fertilizer. We're starting to see the food prices. Because in the northern hemisphere, they're down.

40% on fertilizer plantings use in March and in April. So that's not going to get corrected. And we've been a bit insulated by how much petroleum prices could go up because we've been drawing down reserves. But that's coming to an end. And the Iranians know that. All right, let's take a break. When we come back, we'll continue and have our last two segments of this program. We welcome you to take part. Panel at wamc.org, panel at wamc.org. We always enjoy your input. Panel at wamc.org. And we will continue our conversation after the short break. I don't know.

Am I being too bitter this morning? I apologize. I don't realize that during the break. It's the pool that's the pool. It really is. It's done some damage. Good morning, all. Welcome to the roundtable. Welcome to our panel discussion. Bob Brigham, Jim Ketterer, Judy Patrick, all with us. We welcome you panel at wamc.org. panel at wamc.org. We do have some letters regarding... the discussion that we just had on Iran. Does anyone know if Israel is included in these peace negotiations? Well, this is a question that we have been talking about since the four months, since the war has been going on. Yes, we are, quote, unquote, partners in this, but how much is Israel in the actual negotiating process? They are not, and this is the problem. I mean, This administration, to be fair, almost all U.S. administrations have this fixation on peace negotiations being two white guys in a room in Paris. And that's not what good peace negotiations are. They need big teams, but they also need every single stakeholder in the room. And this is where we saw this Sunday evening. This is where the rubber hits the road. The Trump administration has to exert enough pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu not to continue bombing Lebanon for this agreement to even have another meeting, let alone produce anything of substance. So not having all the stakeholders in the room is a major problem that will plague these negotiations every day. But also. We were talking before about the things that have become worse since this conflict. And one thing that has changed. people can decide whether they think it's better or worse based upon their own political standing, is that there is definitely a difference in the relationship between the United States and Israel. And when you see not only the vice president laying on Israel in the way that he did in a TV interview, but also a Democratic senator from Maryland, Chris Van Hollen, writing about that it's... time to wind down the unconditional support of Israel. This is really astounding. And a public opinion poll's mirror just what Jim said. Yeah. Completely flipped in the last four months. So that really is also another transformation of things in the Middle East.

But to not have Israel involved in these negotiations also just doesn't make any common sense, particularly because Lebanon is so centrally important to this stage of the negotiations, not just from the Iranian perspective, but just in general. This is one of the places where the conflict is taking place. And I'm not quite sure, but I think it was Aba Ibn, who said, you don't make... peace with your friends, you make it with your enemies. Exactly. And you have to have them at the table. In Lebanon's not involved as well. Right. And, you know, this will clearly be Benjamin Netanyahu's undoing, I think, that the Israeli electorate will see what has happened to their standing in the world. And come election time was October, September, he will lose. You know, this is not the first time that Israel would have gone into Lebanon with a specific plan, as they did in 1982, and then end up being drawn into a quagmire. And what happened in the 80s and into the 90s in a really kind of... tore apart the Israeli body politic. And there was a really serious protests against that. And then the ongoing occupation of southern Lebanon, which just was a kind of a steady stream of Israeli servicemen being killed. And the Israeli public was saying to what end? And so it that. went over the course of many, many years, but it was, you know, deeply corrosive for internal domestic Israeli politics. And as you were saying, Judy, it's, that's likely to be happening again. Yeah, and the U.S. Marine barracks being blown up in Beirut, you know, created a huge rift between the United States and Israel during that as well. I think that your letter writer, Joe, the letter writer, you know, obviously. hit a nerve here and that that that's a very astute um observation that Israel's not involved here and in negotiations I mean good successful negotiations there's always very specific linkage and so the link is Israel's actions in Lebanon with the straight with the nuclear program none of that can happen if Israel's not in the room this doesn't get done by third parties and emails and texts in the middle of night this gets done by having the same people, stakeholders in the room. And also the mentioning of Israel and Lebanon is a reminder of the fact that another thing that Donald Trump said would be an objective of this conflict was the, you know, the Iranian relationship with the proxies around the region, particularly Hezbollah, which is in Lebanon, but also Hamas, the Houthis. Those relationships continue.

That's another thing that has not been solved. And in some cases, I think, you know, on a tactical level, those relationships have been affected. But this is another conflict where official Washington mistakes operational and tactical successes with strategic victory. More letters in response to our discussion on Iran. Dan said I heard Jim bring up the term adult in the room while discussing negotiations and Trump's abilities to undermine. Was that you, Bob? I think that was here. Yeah. To undermine them, how sad it is that this administration has brought this term adult in the room back to light. I remember talking to Trump supporters during the election and they use the term to justify their support for Trump. The problem now is the lineup of these adults in the room are inapt at best. The closest person to meet the criteria is Marco Rubio, and he seems to be MIA. Does anyone on the panel have insight into his whereabouts and what his current assignments might be? Well, he has many assignments. That's true. Many, many assignments. And he comes and goes, right? Yeah, but I think the premise of the... The listener, I think, is right on target here. Why is JD Vance? I mean, vice presidents attend funerals. Why is JD Vance leading? who has zero experience in international negotiations. I mean, Marco Rubio was qualified for this position. I will give him that. He has earned his stripes to be the Secretary of State. Why isn't the Secretary of State leading the country team in these negotiations? Now, this will seem smart, Aliki, but I mean it. Not that way, which is, but don't we learn, I mean, the president said it, which is, and if this is screwed up, I'll blame James. Absolutely. I'm sure. And I'm sure that's part of it. But, you know, at some point, you have to get beyond Trump's impoverished personality. and get down to serious business. This is war. As Judy said, these are people's lives. People have died in this conflict. You're asking people to go into harm's way. You hope that the national security bureaucracy has done its job. And it's not diplomacy and warfare by tweet and by, you know, the chest thumping by pistol pete at the Department of Defense.

This is not how you do foreign policy. But it is, I think it is highly likely that JD Vance was selected to do this to set him up for failure. And I think this is a further evidence that in this kind of, and I'm going to use the word purposely, regime, in this kind of regime that you see anywhere around the world, palace intrigue. is more important than institutional frameworks. So yes, in an irrational, institutional way, it makes sense for the Secretary of State and his or her team to be involved as the lead in these kind of negotiations with the National Security Council from the White House involved and other relevant experts. But Palace Intrigue is what revolves around highly personalistic. authoritarian regimes. That's what matters. That's the currency of the realm. And the intrigue is all about the game playing and the positioning of power. And it's much more about that than it is about actually solving the problem at hand. Do you think JD Vance... Can I ask a question? Of course. Do you think JD Vance... I mean, this has puzzled me since this has started. Do you think JD Vance understands this? Or do you think JD Vance has... has swallowed the Kool-Aid so much that he thinks that this success will propel him to the nomination. Or does he have a choice? I mean, if he's tasked with doing this and he said, No, I don't think so. I'd rather stay home. But remember, there have been leaks, and you have to wonder where they're coming from in which JD Vance is being quoted as saying he was against this. He is not supportive of it. So there's the undercurrent of that message trying to get out into the press. And in the primary mode, he is taking one for the team. Marco Rubio is so ambitious. He has kind of melted into the woodwork. But it also takes them off the... book tour circuit and we don't get to hear him talk about Catholicism. Yeah, that's true. You know, during a Vietnam War, various... Various politicians wanted to make sure that their supporters and their opponents were tainted with the war. Yeah. So Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sent Cabot Lodge to be ambassadors that was going to ruin any political aspirations he had of making hay on Vietnam against Democrats. I wonder if this is what. is going on in Trump's mind is that I'm going to I'm going to paint the vice president with this problem yeah I think that's how if you if you don't think about the United States you just think about you know country X that has this kind of government in place

with her level of popularity. He also accused her of not supporting U.S. efforts to prevent Iran, quote, from obtaining or developing a nuclear weapon, unquote. In a statement on Instagram, Maloney said Trump's, quote, constant unprovoked attacks were senseless. As for my popularity, being your friend has certainly not helped it, nor does it depend on my relationship with you, said Maloney. My popularity is none of your concern. I suggest you focus on your popularity, she added. Earlier on the weekend, Trump also said Maloney had caused a great logistical inconvenience by... barring the U.S. from using Italian air facilities for American military operations in Iran. But the Italian leaders said the use of Italian bases is governed by agreements that we have always respected, and that cannot be violated as long as I am prime minister. On Friday, Maloney said she had been astonished by Trump's initial claim that she, quote, unquote, begged him for a photo during the G7 meeting this week in France. The continuing exchange between the Paris highlighted a developing rift between two countries since Trump's military action against Iran this year. Okay. I think we all can agree in this room. This is petty. This is really silly. And yet has the ability of becoming something more serious, right? Yeah, probably. I mean, just as far as the relations with an ally. Right. Relations with an ally. What's interesting to me is the whole social media aspect of this. Everything that's going on this week in international affairs and in politics is, you know, it's so important. And yet we're taking to social media to find out news in ways that we had never done before. But there are per capita more reposts and more people looking at the Tartan Army in Boston than in either one of these. I think we're kind of getting a cultural shift. I think people's ability to listen to the tweet wars is kind of met its highlight. So the Knicks Parade and the Tartan Army in Boston are taking over where Trump used to reside. You know, I worry a little bit about the geopolitical ramifications, but not that much because I love the fact that she stood up to him. She's not going to tiptoe around that insulting man. And I love that it was the Prime Minister of Italy. And I love that it was a woman who said, you know what, I didn't, I'm not begging you for a photo. He is such an egomaniac. This was refreshing. And I wish other world leaders, I know it's probably foolish. They count out to him.

to such a degree that it just amplifies his power. I think some people need to hold him to task once in a while, and she did. God bless her. It was one of those early, I think this was in the first administration, but it was one of those early summits. where one of his first, and there was a photo being taken, and he literally pushed somebody out of the way to get in the photo? That was the first thing I thought of when I heard about this kerfuffle. I was like, is he really turning down photo opportunities? It doesn't seem that way. You know, I just think back to times when we've had Democratic presidents, and there would be just this repeating chorus all the time from the Republicans to say, you know, well, Presidential words matter. Presidential behavior matters. The Taurus matters. The TAN suit. Yeah, the TAN suit, for God's sake. I love who is behind the at the Obama at the Obama library opening of coordinating that the audience was going to wear tansuit. That is brilliant. By the way, Ronald Reagan wore a lot of tan suits as well. He did. But the, just, you know, presidential words do matter, actually. I've always agreed with that. Behavior does matter. Character matters. But where is that same chorus? As you said, Judy, holding this president to that standard of just basic common courtesy. You know, what's wrong with him? What's going on here? Yeah, children are listening. You know, he's setting an example for a generation of people who go on social media and use him as their shining example and do the same kind of bullying. I mean, let's call it what it is, bullying. Yeah, and it does model very bad behavior. I mean, in addition to, you know, it's a NATO ally and all of those kind of geostrategic issues. Those are important, for sure. But on a human level, you know, what is, what, have we just gotten to a point where everything goes? I guess so. You know, there are too many supporters of Trump who will just shrug their shoulders and say, oh, that's just Trump being Trump. Well, you know what? It's wrong. And let's call it out for what it is. It's not presidential. It's not what our country needs. It's divisive. There's nothing good that comes of it. I can't think of anything positive about this. And I think people need to remember when he's, you know, sending off.

fairly crazy truth social posts or he's behaving this way in public, etc. This is the person who has sole responsibility over the nuclear codes. They are in his pocket and this is someone that we have invested with the most serious potential decisions. And he is the least serious person. How does that work? Have we been given an explanation as to the daughter post? Yeah, no. No, I saw that too. I don't even know what that. He sent a photo about something about his daughter, but then it wasn't his daughter? It wasn't his daughter. Somebody else? And now there's this great question as to who it was. It was a young blonde woman. Yes. It's odd. I don't know. It's to your point. That's why I brought it up. It helps underscore your point. But, yes, we're out of time. Not a moment too soon. We thank all of you for being here, Bob, Judy, Jim. Wonderful to have you here. Thank you for this Monday edition. We will continue with the Roundtable after this.