Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Uncovering Security Risks In Wake Of The Signal Leak; Author Questions Impact Of Psychiatric Medications. Carville Predicts "Massive Collapse" In Trump Administration. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired March 29, 2025 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:30]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Whitewater or Watergate? I'm Michael Smerconish. This week in San Francisco, Signal-gate is the story of the week. Amidst the tumult of the last 60 days, it's the scandal of the nascent Trump administration. But whether it takes a lasting toll on the White House, that remains to be seen.

My starting point in assessing such scandals has been whether the story pervades largely a function of its ability to condense to a sound bite and be understood by an American public with limited bandwidth. Whitewater, that was a complicated land deal in Arkansas that nobody could follow. Watergate, a burglary. Something none of us wants to have happen at home. Signal-gate, an unsecure chat among White House war planners definitely more in the Watergate category in terms of its ability to be understood.

Anybody with a smartphone gets it.

So, what does history tell us about how this may play out? In 1972, President Nixon's men broke into the DNC headquarters at the Watergate Hotel. The crime and the subsequent cover up led to his resignation in 1974. Since then, every scandal has people speculating whether this will be the one that topples the administration. As a side note, it all has meant that scandal has been attached to the word gate ever since.

Maybe after 50 years, we need to stop that practice.

Anyway, since Watergate, some presidents have apparently learned how to weather the storm. Iran-Contra, that was considered potentially disastrous, but it was complicated. Again, more Whitewater than Watergate. Ronald Reagan, he wasn't called the Teflon president for nothing. Ronald Reagan spoke to the public on T.V. He admitted mistakes. He held firm.

He served out his term.

The Democrats, of course, have had their own Teflon president, some would say in President Bill Clinton. Whitewater didn't take him down, but that investigation is what led to the intern scandal. Still, he completed a full second term.

So what will be the impact of Signal-gate on Trump? You might think perilous. After all, the platform should never have been used. The inclusion of a journalist, indeed one hostile to Trump, is evidence of the slipshod nature of the thread. And forget the semantics.

Whether the leak amounted to war plans, attack plans, or just an overview, it was flat out wrong to use that platform.

Lanny Davis, lawyer, crisis manager, former adviser to the Clintons, was my Sirius XM Radio guest this week. Lanny wrote an entire book on how best to defend against controversy. Tell it early. Tell it all. Tell it yourself.

None of the principals in Signal-gate has done that. Not Mike Waltz, not Pete Hegseth, not their boss, Donald Trump. According to Lanny, if they had, it would probably be behind them by now. Instead, Trump, setting the tone for the administration, called the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg a sleazeball. As for who's responsible, the buck stops elsewhere.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think it's a witch hunt. I wasn't involved with it. I don't -- I wasn't there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Hegseth, following the same strategy, answered questions by attacking Goldberg's honesty. As far as the leaked text, he emphasized that nobody was texting war plans, so apparently no harm, no foul. Waltz also seemed to believe the best defense is a good offense. On Laura Ingraham's program, he attacked Goldberg and repeated talking points about Trump's foreign policy. He did take full responsibility for the leaks, though it's not the kind of responsibility that seems to have any consequences.

Former White House speechwriter Peggy Noonan agrees that the Lanny Davis approach would have worked better in this instance. She writes, those involved in the scandal should have simply admitted their mistake. Doubling down made them look doubly stupid. Instead, Signal- gate has continued to penetrate the national consciousness. But does that mean it slows the breakneck pace of Trump 2.0?

Not necessarily. Indeed, recent polls show surprising support for Trump and how he's running things.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: According to Marist, 45 percent say that we're on the right track. That's the second highest that Marist has measured since 2009. How about NBC News? Forty-four percent, that's the highest since 2004. The bottom line is the percentage of Americans who say we're on the right track is through the roof.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: There are reasons, perhaps, why we shouldn't be completely surprised. And of course, we're talking about Donald Trump. He goes beyond Teflon. We need a new polymer to describe him.

During his first campaign, he said things almost daily that would make other politicians radioactive. But he seemed to be immune from the normal rules of politics. And since he first took office, there have been investigations. There have been impeachments, criminal convictions, not to mention January 6th. None of it seemingly has mattered.

[09:05:10]

He was reelected with more votes than ever. So maybe it's understandable why he won't take responsibility and why he's supporting his team, not firing them, even though his specialty used to be firing people. Trump is sort of like the wind chill factor. There's the actual temperature, and then there's how the temperature is perceived. With Trump, there's the actual scandal, and there's how it's perceived when it happens on his watch, because many of his supporters feel that he's been treated unfairly by the press, by his opponents, and they tend to discount anything negative they hear about him.

Which leads us to the second reason that he may skate from this scandal. Our polarized climate, including the media. The media has exploded in the 21st century, especially social media, which was barely a gleam in Mark Zuckerberg's eye just a generation ago. Good or bad, there used to be a common media, the mainstream media, if you like, that reported the news for everyone. But with information democratized, it's easier for people to do an end run around what were once regarded as authoritative voices.

Individuals become their own gatekeepers. Just imagine if Richard Nixon had a conservative echo chamber in the 1970s, he might have survived Watergate. Unfortunately, this means many end up living in a media echo chamber, which can be a cozy place where threatening facts don't really get through. And it means both sides of the aisle have predetermined opinions, and the only scandals that register are those happening to the other side. Politicians, they know this and they play to it.

Consider how anytime there's a controversy followed by a congressional hearing, each side just suits up in their usual armor. That was the case in the Senate on Tuesday, the House on Wednesday. Democrats probe for information on Signal-gate. No Republican dared address the controversy. Just like Senate confirmation hearings for SCOTUS nominees, the party of the president highlights the attributes of the nominee cv, while the opposition party looks for blood.

Each revealing that their true allegiance is to their party, not to the Constitution, much less the country. The combination of these factors has upset my Watergate slash Whitewater paradigm. We all know what went on here. We've read the back and forth in a level of detail that should never have been public, much less shared with a journalist in real time.

But it's doubtful that minds will change, even if they didn't tell it early, tell it all, and tell it themselves. Which brings us to today's poll question at smerconish.com, has President Trump already weathered the worst of the Signal controversy?

Here to break it all down with me is Richard Clarke, the nation's first cyber czar, former White House counterterrorism coordinator, special adviser to three previous U.S. presidents and co-author of "The Fifth Domain, Defending Our Country, Our Companies, Ourselves in the Age of Cyber Threats."

Richard, doubtful here that this is the initial instance where Signal was used, right? You don't expect this to have been a one off?

RICHARD CLARKE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNTERTERRORISM COORDINATOR: No, no. I think this is the tip of the iceberg. And the rest of the iceberg is several months during which our national security leaders were using Signal to talk about sensitive information. The rest of the iceberg is the fact that China, according to the FBI, was in all of our telephone companies looking for texts from senior government officials. And according to CIA and DoD, the Russian intelligence service was going after Signal.

So, we can assume that two months at least worth of sensitive security information was picked up by Russia and China. That is the bigger picture here.

SMERCONISH: Pam Bondi suggested otherwise in an interview this week. Roll that tape, please.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Signal not going to be used or is it going to be used going forward? Are you aware of it?

PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, I think Signals a very safe way to communicate. I don't think foreign adversaries are able to hack Signal as far as I know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Richard Clarke, you're here to say otherwise.

CLARKE: Well, she should read the -- her own department, the FBI's warnings about this. Signal is only good when it's in the air, when it's going from phone to phone. When it is on your phone, it is very hackable and has been hacked. And according to the FBI, according to DoD, the Russians and the Chinese are both trying to do that and they're undoubtedly succeeding. It's not that hard.

SMERCONISH: So relative to the classification level of that which was revealed via Signal, isn't that dependent upon exactly what Pete Hegseth or Mike Waltz or J.D. Vance or Marco Rubio or any of the others were looking at and relying on when then inputting that information into the chat stream? [09:10:10]

CLARKE: Well, I think it's pretty clear, Michael, that the secretary of Defense was cutting and pasting from a secret document. What do the DoD guidelines say about this? They say, let me read them, movement of ammunition and aircraft, secret. Date and time of mission operation begins, secret. Timelines and schedules for operations, secret.

Well, so we have a choice here. Either the Secretary of Defense did not follow the guidelines, did not make them secret, or more likely, he lied about it. Let's just say that up front. My friends in the military are appalled by this because honor means a lot, honesty means a lot when you're an officer in the United States military, you don't lie, number one. Number two, if you were a uniformed officer in the United States military and you did this, you would before you would before a courts marshal.

So, two months into his tenure as secretary of Defense, he has a real problem with the rank and file who now see him as, A, hypocrite and B, a security problem.

SMERCONISH: Are the determinations of that which is classified or other levels of some top level priority objective? How are those determinations made?

CLARKE: Well, they're very objective. Troop movements, aircraft movements before an attack. There's a guideline, it says that, that is secret. It's releasable after 10 years or after the operation has been completed. The DOD makes everything very explicit.

They have guidelines, documents for everything and everybody gets briefed on these and everybody knows them.

SMERCONISH: A lot of the conversation this week about this controversy has focused on the means of communication, as you and I have just discussed. I have a different question now for Richard Clark. What are we doing in Yemen?

CLARKE: Well, that's again the larger issue. Yesterday the United States bombed Yemen, hit over a dozen targets, civilian and military. You would struggle to find that news story covered, even on CNN. I couldn't find it on CNN.

The United States is engaged in a much expanded operation in Yemen. We've bombed five or six times since this first Signal-gate discussion. And the American media is not focusing on it. The Congress is not focusing on it. We've never gotten an explanation from the administration as to what's the plan here?

What's the end game? How are we going to succeed? How are we going to know we've succeeded? Right now we're killing people in Yemen on almost a daily basis. And that is completely under the radar.

In part because DoD wants it to be under the radar. They're not releasing the details of some of these operations. We're learning about some of these operations by watching Al Jazeera. SMERCONISH: And the communication back and forth among the principals, the 18 plus Jeffrey Goldberg, of course, he was a silent participant in all this. Just observing. To your trained eye, what did you take away from what they were saying substantively about what's going on in Yemen?

CLARKE: Well, what they said was this is the opening shot of an expanded campaign, that they're going to blame Biden for not having done it. Well, of course, Biden didn't do this expanded operation, but he did bomb Yemen every month of last year to keep the Red Sea shipping channels open.

But what I find disturbing is the very use of Signal was set to disappear after a week. That's a violation of U.S. law. U.S. Law says federal records such as these have to be retained. They all know that. They all got briefed on that.

The reason you use Signal is so that you'll have disappearing messages, and that's illegal.

SMERCONISH: Richard Clark, thank you as always for your expertise. We appreciate it.

CLARKE: Thank you. Michael.

SMERCONISH: What are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media. I'll get to some responses throughout the course of the program. This from the world of X, I believe. He will make some other controversy on top of this one. Everyone, including the media will look the other way and nothing will happen.

Johnny makes a good point, which is it's just hard to keep up. We've said this so often with the 24/7 news cycle. I mean, perhaps we should be talking about the Dow tumbling 700 points yesterday, and by Monday, we'll probably be on to something else. None of which excuses that which has just transpired.

I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com. Answer today's poll question, please. Has President Trump already weathered the worst of the Signal controversy? We'll give you results at the end of the program.

Up ahead, from Signal-gate to James Carville, he predicted over a month ago the Trump administration would be in the midst of a massive collapse by now. Are we seeing that?

[09:15:06]

And imagine being told you're mentally ill at age 13, spending the next decade cycling through psychiatrists, diagnoses a cocktail of prescription pills. Now imagine discovering the treatment may have done more harm than good. My next guest, Laura Delano, lived that reality. She joins us to discuss her new book. It's called "Unshrunk" about she how she decided to taper off her meds and now to speak out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) SMERCONISH: My next guest struggle with mental health began in the 8th grade when she was 13. Not long after she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. She embraced psychopharmaceutical solutions and so began a 14-year ordeal in which she describes herself as a professional psychiatric patient. There were many doctors, four hospitalizations, one serious suicide attempt. And then came an epiphany and life change.

[09:20:04]

It's now been 14 years since she last took a psychiatric drug. Laura Delano tells her story in a new book. It's called "Unshrunk, A Story of Psychiatric Treatment Resistance."

Laura, thank you for being here. To all who just heard that intro, they're probably thinking, she must have been misdiagnosed. But that's not the case.

LAURA DELANO, AUTHOR OF "UNSHRUNK: A STORY OF PSYCHIATRIC : No, it's not. And thanks for having me, Michael. I definitely met the criteria, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Psychiatry, so called Bible of Diagnoses. For me it's been about realizing that is just a story that isn't necessarily factually true about who I am and what my suffering meant and means today. So mine's been a journey of letting go of what I've realized as a fictional narrative of self rather than realizing it was a mistake.

SMERCONISH: I'm going to put on the screen a part of your book and I'll read it aloud. "The more I read, the more that I could see that the personal mess I'd gotten myself into with psychiatric drug dependence and withdrawal was actually a complex, politicized society wide mess in which many millions of people have gotten lost. How could this have happened to me on such a massive scale? When I dove into learning about the process by which the psychiatric drugs are researched and brought to market, I began to understand a big part of the answer."

What should the treatment of you have been? Looking back with what you know now, what should the response have been from the mental health community?

DELANO: Well, I think really it's about what other spaces do I wish had been there for me to seek help in besides only the mental health system. I think my parents were terrified. Their struggling 13 year old daughter was acting out, cutting herself. I was physically aggressive, I was screaming, I was yelling. I-- and looking back, I wish that there had been a visible space, whether in my own school where I could see other young girls, older girls who had been through their own struggles, come through the other side. And I wish for my parents that they had seen other options.

Perhaps other parents feel family support systems. I think for us the only visible option my parents saw were mental health professionals and eventually doctors and pills. And I think that's really what my story is about. It's about asking us to wonder why there's so few other options beyond those on offer to us. SMERCONISH: "The New York Times," I think, favorably reviewed your book. There was this comment, I'll put this on the screen and read it as well. "Delano's story is compelling, important, even haunting, but plenty of readers will chafe at her lack of interest in those who have actually been helped by these medications, especially today when they're facing criticisms from some quarters." You were a guest of mine on Sirius XM, and a caller called thereafter and to this point said, this is dangerous. People might listen to this or read the book and go off their meds.

You know that criticism. Address it.

DELANO: I share the same concern. It is incredibly dangerous to stop a psychiatric drug. And I think for me, I didn't know that back when I decided to leave behind my medications. And so I went through an incredibly difficult experience of what I now understand were actually withdrawal symptoms because I had been on these medications for so long that my body had become physically dependent on them. And so I share the same concern.

And really, my book is just my personal story. I'm just talking about my own process of going through the mental health system and deciding to come out of it, my own process of learning and unlearning. It's not a statement against anyone who feels helped by medications. I have many friends who feel helped by medications. Really, what I'm trying to do is expand the conversation so that there is also space for those of us who haven't felt helped or perhaps have even felt harmed to have our stories heard as well.

SMERCONISH: In the same way that you say the diagnosis, I met the diagnosis, the bipolar diagnosis. It's not as if someone gave me a label that that didn't seem to apply. Similarly, in the book, you're very candid about life today. It seems like you're doing well, but everything's not 100 percent. Maybe it isn't for any of us.

Address that issue.

DELANO: Well, I think you hit the nail on the head. I mean, being human is hard. It's hard to be alive. It hurts to be alive. And I think what I realized in coming out the other side of the mental health industry, as I like to call it, is that I had spent the most formative years of my life believing that I needed to reach a point at which I felt happy and balanced and put together, and that if I struggled, felt angst, felt fear, felt despair, it meant something was wrong with me that I needed to fix with some kind of treatment.

[09:25:00]

And so, today my life is full and rich and meaningful. I have -- I feel connected to myself, to my body, to my family, to friends, to nature, to my work, to a sense of purpose. But I also feel intense anxiety on a pretty regular basis. I have a lot going on, there's a lot to be anxious about. I feel grief about the state of the world and all the struggles that we're in.

I feel intense emotions that I would once have thought of as symptoms, so to speak. The only difference is that today I'm not afraid of them. And I know that they are conveying messages about my relationship to the world around me.

SMERCONISH: The epiphany moment for you was reading another book, Robert Whitaker's book. Talk to me briefly about how that changed your perspective.

DELANO: So this was in 2010. I was 27 years old. I had spent the previous decade basically falling ever further into dysfunction, despair, disability. My 20s looked like a series of hospitalizations, programs couldn't hold down work, had basically no friendships, depended on my family. And I happened to have been born in a family that could take care of me, which many people aren't, so lucky to be.

So there I was in a bookstore on a weekend visit away from this day hospital that I was a patient in, and I found this book on a bookshelf. It had a bunch of different psychiatric drug names on it. I thought, huh, what is this book? I've been on almost all these medications. I picked it up, I sat down to read it.

And thesis of this book is basically that if you look at what the long term evidence is telling us about psychiatric drug use in America, there's a strong case to make that it's collectively making us sicker. And there I was reflecting back on all those years of worsening dysfunction, eventually reaching the point, like you said, that I tried to kill myself because my life was so miserable that I saw no point in going on. And I wondered in an instant, holy cow, what if it hasn't been so called treatment resistant mental illness that I've been believing all these years where I'm just so defective nothing can help me, what if it's been the treatment? And that is what really set me on the path that I'm on today.

SMERCONISH: So, thank you for being here. I'm going to underscore that Laura Delano is doing well and is not here to advocate that people go off their meds, right? You've described in the book --

DELANO: Certainly not.

SMERCONISH: -- the tapering that worked well for you, but we don't want people to get the wrong message. Continued good health and thank you.

DELANO: Thank you for having me. Michael, thanks.

SMERCONISH: Let's see what you're saying via social media. From the world of X, I believe. Psychiatric medications have worsened patient outcomes. They leave so many patients disabled and dead without any help because the medical field is in denial. I think this was all a big money grab.

JC, I'm just going to say to you that psychiatric medications work for many. I don't want someone to get the wrong message from this conversation. The book is being very much discussed. I think it's a very worthy read and one size does not fit all.

I want to remind you, go to my website at smerconish.com, answer today's poll question, has President Trump already weathered the worst of the Signal controversy?

Still to come, your social media reaction to my commentary. And a little over a month ago, do you remember when James Carville gave his fellow Democrats some advice to play possum and stay out of the way? Just let Republicans implode. Well, Governor Newsom argued differently with Bill Maher that the problem is coming from within the party, going as far as to call the Democratic brand toxic. So who's right and what do Dems really need to do to succeed?

James Carville will be here in a moment. Make sure you're signing up for my free and worthy daily newsletter when you go to smerconish.com to cast your ballot on the poll question. Check out what Scott Stantis drew for us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:33:19]

SMERCONISH: You can find me on all the usual social media platforms. Here's some of the reaction that has come in during the course of today's program so far.

The quality of human life should be advancing. It seems to be declining. Something significant has to change. I hope the answer isn't drugs, says Delco in response to my conversation with Laura Delano.

Look, I was moved by the book. There has been an exponential increase in the number of Americans, particularly our youth, who are being prescribed psychiatric medication. Here she comes along with a very personal story and tells us what she has been through. And for her, tapering off those meds, according to a particular plan, seems to have had great success.

Is it for everybody? No. And that's a conversation you'll need to have with your own mental health practitioners if you fall in that category. But I thought the whole conversation of iatrogenic injury that sometimes results, meaning that which is intended and prescribed actually causes harm was worthy of our discussion today.

Another social media reaction. What do we have?

Of course he has. Same old playbook. Deny, deny, deny. Then it's a witch hunt until it all goes away.

OK, this comment, in response to the question of whether Signal-gate is going to be perilous for Trump 2.0, I explained at the outset of the program that my normal paradigm, my normal lens in looking at presidential scandal is to determine whether it's in the Watergate mold of can it be easily condensed to a soundbite and easily understood by the American people, or is it in the whitewater mold?

But this one runs contrary because Signal-gate, I think, is easily understood by anybody who has a smartphone and recognizes how information that should never have been shared on that kind of a platform was and on a matter of national security. [09:35:03]

Nevertheless, it doesn't appear perilous to Donald Trump because of the change in times, because of the media ecosystem, and the limited bandwidth that people seem to have. So, I think he's probably already weathered the worst of it. That's my answer to the poll question. I'll probably be in the minority, as I usually am, but it depends on whether there are new revelations.

Witness the fact that apparently, we were relying on Israeli intelligence, and the Israelis are now upset that their sources have been compromised. There might be more shoes still to drop on that subject.

Make sure that you're voting on today's poll question Smerconish.com where I'm asking, has President Trump already weathered the worst of the Signal controversy?

Still to come, he advised his fellow Democrats to play possum and give the Trump administration 30 days to collapse. Well, it's been over a month. What does the Ragin' Cajun think now, as the percentage of Americans -- there he is. As the percentage of Americans who think the country is on the right track, as Harry Enten said, relative to Trump is through the roof.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:40:19]

SMERCONISH: So, will the recent Signal-gate scandal trigger a massive downfall for the Trump administration? Legendary Democratic strategist James Carville made this bold prediction just a month ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I believe that this administration, in less than 30 days, is in the midst of a massive collapse, and particularly a collapse in public opinion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: He recently advised Democrats in a "New York Times" op-ed, to embark on the most daring political maneuver in the history of our country, roll over and play dead, allow the Republicans to crumble beneath their own weight, and make the American people miss us.

Joining me now is the Ragin' Cajun. He's a veteran political consultant, cohost of the "Politics War Room" podcast, and the man behind Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign victory. So, a month ago -- here's the full quote of what you wrote, James, in "The Times."

At this rate, the honeymoon, the Trump honeymoon will be over. Best case by Memorial Day, but more likely than the next 30 days. And in November of 2025, we start turning the tide with what will be remembered as one of the most important elections in recent years, the Virginia governor's race. You know that we extend this invitation to you a month ago when you first wrote those words because we thought, what will Carville say when that deadline comes? What are you thinking?

CARVILLE: Well, what tense are we in? Is it collapsing or has it collapsed? That's the only argument to have.

And I was wrong. I said, Memorial Day. It's before April Fool's day which the Trump administration should make a national holiday because it's so accurately represents who they are. So, I'm not really -- no one -- do not argue with me.

Look at what's happening in the markets. We look at what happened on Signal-gate. We look at what's happening all the way, all around us. You know, treating measles with apricot pits or something like that. I think the thing is collapsed.

But I'll -- I'll go to you. Let's take the middle ground here and say, it's collapsing. And I'll meet you halfway. But that's about all I can do.

SMERCONISH: So, Harry -- Harry Enten, I really respect his opinion. He crunches numbers for us here at CNN. And he spoke to Trump and right track, wrong track numbers. Let's roll the clip and then have James respond. Go ahead.

CARVILLE: Sure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF ANALYST: All we talk about is how unpopular Donald Trump is. But in reality, he's basically more popular than he was at any point in term number one and more popular than he won election back in November of 2024.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: I mean, James, to have these numbers and be any other new president, newly inaugurated president, you'd be regarded as a disaster. But for him, doesn't Harry have a point? His base is holding. And as compared to his other numbers, he's doing quite well.

CARVILLE: Well, he's a mathematical genius. He knows algorithms. He knows regression analysis. He can look at things.

Myself, I'm a humble political consultant. What I look at is election returns. Yes, voters voting.

If you notice, Trump couldn't put Stefanik as U.N. ambassador because they were scared they were going to lose a district that Trump carried by 20. I'm going to read the election returns in Wisconsin on Tuesday night.

I'm not going to do a regression analysis or anything -- or a complicated mathematical formula. So, I guess when it comes down to I'm just too dumb because I'm a guy that believes that winning elections is the most important thing to have in the United States.

SMERCONISH: When you wrote in "The Times" and you spoke of rolling over and playing dead, you said, allow the Republicans to crumble beneath their own weight and make the American people miss us.

But if the approval rating of the Democratic Party is at 29 percent, according to CNN's data, who's missing Democrats right now? They might be upset with Trump, but who is really missing the Democrats?

CARVILLE: Well, first of all this is a glorious opportunity for the Democratic Party to redefine itself, to take this as what it is. And apparently some people in the news media are not -- it's the gravest crisis we've had in the United States in the last 80 years.

Do you understand what we're looking at? We're looking at the kind of end of the rule of law. We're looking at nincompoops and blockheads and buffoons running the country. And if Democrats -- and again, I had no idea -- I didn't -- I thought I'd have to wait longer for the imminent collapse. It happened even faster than I could imagine.

So, I don't know exactly what we -- what we're arguing about. They won't run in a plus 20 district. I don't think they're going to do that well in Wisconsin. Let's see what happens in Florida.

But you got people that represent states and congressional districts that have 15, 20 or more partisan lean to the Democrats and that are kind of motormouth caucus.

[09:45:05]

You know, get elected governor of Georgia, then I'll be impressed. I'll do as my friend Andy Beshear did, get elected governor of Kentucky, then come back and see me. But --

SMERCONISH: OK. Still -- still staying --

CARVILLE: -- the party can redefine itself.

SMERCONISH: Still staying focused now on your side of the aisle. Here's what Governor Newsom said last night to Bill Maher. Roll it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): We just have to continue to talk to ourselves, or we're in the same damn echo chamber, these guys are crushing us. The Democratic brand is toxic right now. We had a high water mark two weeks ago, and that was a CNN poll at 29 percent favorability. It's dropped in the NBC poll down to 27 percent. It's one thing to make noise, but you also have to make sense.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: He says, the Democratic brand is toxic right now. What are Democrats doing to fill the vacuum or the void that Trump is leaving open? CARVILLE: Well, see how toxic it is in Wisconsin, right? I mean, the toxicity is relatively upon. The second thing is I'm not going to get bent out of shape about the party rating in March of an odd number year. Let's see what happens in Virginia. Let's see what happens when we have these really, really talented people run for president.

This whole thing is -- and the Democrats they had about 27. What are they going to do? They have a chance to redefine themselves, to talk about issues that matter to people and get away from this idiocy, this plus 25 Democratic identity politics, which hurt us more than anything. But I think we're away from that. And I think you see some real talent.

But it doesn't matter what the party rating is, what matters are elections. I cannot drive that point home enough. They did a biography -- a movie about me and I love the title Winning Is Everything, Stupid." And the reason people don't like the Democrats is we didn't win. And until we win, I'm not going to like the Democrats.

SMERCONISH: Final comment. This comes from a critique to your "Times" op-ed of a month ago, the Muhammad Ali, the rope-a-dope strategy. Put this on the screen.

Mr. Carville makes some very good points today. However, looking down the road, how can we undo all the damage to our country, our citizens, our allies inflicted by their actions? It most likely will take decades to reverse this damage -- reserve this damage. But I'm correcting it for them.

In the past, we could count on the judicial branch to protect us. Now we are in Never-Never Land. It's just so bizarre. This person says these are no times for rope-a-dope strategy. You get the final word.

CARVILLE: Well, I think he's very intelligent person. And, you know, I don't know how long it will take us to unring this bell, because we're going to have to do. But again, if we're smart and, you know, we're Muhammad Ali and we knock them out in the seventh round, you know, I'll be plenty happy enough with that.

I'm just calling on Democrats to be strategic, not to be emotional, to understand what the dynamics are. That if you look at this whole Signal-gate thing, you think it's going to be over? You think people that are stupid are going to stop being stupid? You think people that are buffoons are going to stop being buffoons? No, they're going to keep doing that.

And you're looking at Stephen Miller running the foreign policy and defense policy of the United States. Take a look at that guy. Go look him up. Look at a picture of him and tell me, does this guy really -- you really want him running the show? Is that where you all are?

(CROSSTALK)

SMERCONISH: I'd love to -- I'd love to get him on this program -- yes. I want him on this program on a split screen with you. And let's have that conversation together. I have to -- CARVILLE: I'd love to. I'd love to.

SMERCONISH: I have to run.

CARVILLE: All right, Michael. Thank you, man.

SMERCONISH: We'll do this -- we'll do this again in 30 more days.

CARVILLE: Thank you, sir.

SMERCONISH: Thank you, sir. Checking in now on your social media comments. What else has come in during the course of the program?

Republicans and Trump are dismantling our government. But leave it to Michael to focus on the Democrats.

J. Clarke, the whole premise was that James Carville said 30 days ago that Trump would be collapsing in 30 days. So, the intent of the discussion was to say, how are you doing with that prediction?

He's standing by it. He thinks that he was prescient. And what I'm not going to ask the Ragin' Cajun about how the Democrats are doing? Take it up with Bill Maher for asking the same question of Gavin Newsom last night.

You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. It is this, has President Trump already weathered the worst of the Signal controversy?

Please make sure when you're voting, you subscribe to the free and worthy daily newsletter when you're there. You're going to get exclusive editorial cartoons from the likes of Jack Ohman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:53:58]

SMERCONISH: So, there's the result of the daily poll question thus far. Has President Trump already weathered the worst of the Signal controversy? Thirty-seven thousand four hundred and twenty-one votes cast, 63 percent saying, no, he has not. Maybe some wishful thinking in that, but roughly a 60/40 spread.

Here are some of the social media reactions to the program so far. What do we have? From the world of X?

Have to wonder whether the current state of the Democratic Party will finally give rise to a relevant independent centrist third party?

Darrel C., I'm not ready to have that conversation. I'm all worn out from the last cycle in which you know because many of you were very angry that I spoke of it so often.

I thought the moon and the stars had lined up when you took a look at the poll numbers for President Trump and President Biden. You had No Labels. They were well funded. They were well organized. And yet there was a hue and cry and people said, oh, all you're going to do is force the election of Donald Trump.

Well, there was no No Labels candidate. And what ended up happening anyway? That was the cycle in which there should have been a third- party candidacy.

[09:55:02]

I wish that it had happened. More social media reaction. What else do we have?

I'm not very good at math. If only 44-45 percent say that we're on the right track, how is it through the roof? Forty-five percent means 56 percent don't. The math isn't mathing.

Right. Dr. Hockey, I totally get your point. Harry Enten would probably say, if he were responding to it, everything is relative. That's in comparison to Trump. For Trump, those are some of the best numbers that he has ever had. For any other president, as I said to James Carville, they would be a disaster.

Don't forget to sign up for my Smerconish daily newsletter. You're going to get access to exclusive cartoons for which -- Steve Breen drew this. This is what you get in the newsletter. And how about Rob Rogers?

Remember this, if you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you for watching. See you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)