Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

NYT: How Schumer Pushed Biden To Drop Out; Supreme Court Upholds Ban On TikTok That Starts Tomorrow; Phase One Of Ceasefire And Hostage Deal Takes Effect Sunday. Aired 9-10a

Aired January 18, 2025 - 09:00   ET

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

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: On Instagram X, Bluesky and, well, for the rest of the day, TikTok. If you missed a conversation or story, check out CNN.com/Victor-Blackwell-First-Of-All to watch anytime. And you can listen to our show as a podcast wherever you get your podcast.

Remember to tune in to CNN special coverage of "The Inauguration of Donald Trump" starting Monday at 8:00 a.m. Eastern. Thank you for joining me today. I'll see you back here next Saturday at 8:00 a.m. Eastern. "Smerconish" is up next.

[09:00:34]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: History will remember Joe Biden as the man who defeated Donald Trump and then paved the way for his return. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia. That observation comes from a front page story in today's "New York Times." Monday's the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump. The polling data tells us an interesting story about this moment in time.

A new CNN poll shows that President Biden's job approval as he leaves Washington stands at 36 percent. That's the lowest approval rating for any president at the end of his first term. Sixty-one percent of Americans see the Biden presidency overall as a failure, with only 38 percent saying it was a success. Meanwhile, Donald Trump's transition approval rating sits at 55 percent, which according to Gallup far exceeds his first term, where Trump's average approval rating was 41 percent.

Then there's the category of favorability, which is more a measure of a person's feelings rather than job performance. CNN's poll shows that Biden's favorability is at 33 percent. Trump has a 46 percent favorable, a 48 percent unfavorable rating. And even though Trump is underwater by a hair, he's never had a higher favorability than he enjoys right now.

So, the president-elect's popularity exceeds that of President Biden, whether measured by job approval or favorability. I don't view these two trends independently. I see a causal connection between them. I think that Donald Trump is benefiting from a comparison to Joe Biden. The Trump's numbers arguably would not be as high if it weren't for that comparison.

That's a measure that will fade in time as Trump takes office and has a record of his own during his second term. But here's someone from whom President Biden can take solace. The late Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, began his term, according to Gallup, with a 66 percent job approval. Then followed several tumultuous events. The Panama Canal deal, bad.

The Camp David Peace Accords, good. The Iranian hostage situation, bad. The tanking of the economy and rising gas prices, even worse. Things got so bad for President Carter during his term in office that people have forgotten that Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy challenged him for the Democratic nomination. Carter beat back that challenge, but not before Kennedy won the states of New York, Connecticut, California and New Jersey. Carter, of course, then went on to lose in a landslide to Ronald Reagan.

According to Gallup, in December, before Carter left office, he had only a 34 percent approval rating. And Carter's average approval while in office, it was higher at 46 percent.

Here's the silver lining, perhaps for Biden. When in 2023Americans were asked retrospectively whether they approved of Jimmy Carter as president, 57 percent said yes. And I'm sure that number would have been higher today given the outpouring of emotion after his recent passing. Then again, there's that front page story in today's Times detailing how six people close to President Biden, including the first lady, protected him and worked in concert to mask his frailties. According to the Times, they recognized his limitations to a greater extent than they publicly acknowledged.

But the story now emerging is also a reflection of the stubbornness and the unwillingness of President Biden to accept a reality we will all face. And by the time of the disastrous debate, it was arguably too late. So maybe the passage of time will not boost his legacy the way that it did for Jimmy Carter as more of these revelations are coming to light.

I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com, answer today's poll question, will opinion of Joe Biden's presidency improve with the passage of time? As I said, perhaps one reason for the president's unpopularity is the way in which he's exiting after that ill-fated campaign which featured the disastrous debate performance.

New reporting from the :New York Times" and a forthcoming book is shedding new light on what went on behind the scenes as senior Democrats, including then Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and former President Barack Obama, tried to gracefully convince the President that he could not win reelection and needed to step aside.

Joining me now is Annie Karni, who along with her Times colleague Luke Broadwater are about to publish "Mad House: How Donald Trump MAGA Mean Girls, a Former Used Car salesman, a Florida Nepo Baby, and a Man with Rats in His Walls Broke Congress." Wow, what a subtitle for the book. I can't wait to read it.

[09:05:02]

So, Annie, among the tidbits that you've already dropped, you've got former President Obama, and I'll put it up on the screen so that people can read it, essentially saying, I'm the wrong guy. I can't go to Biden -- President Biden, and talk him off the ledge because our relationship is too fragile. Please expand on that.

ANNIE KARNI, CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Yes. So during this very horrible period for Democrats last summer, after the debate, President Obama, Chuck Schumer, and Hakeem Jeffries were really talking to each other and really to no one else. Nancy Pelosi was sort of doing her own thing. She was no longer in a leadership position. She was doing things more publicly.

But these three men kept their cards very close to the vest, said nothing publicly, but privately were kind of trying to game out. How do we get to the result that we want, which is that Joe Biden steps aside? And in this moment, Obama recognized that his relationship with Joe Biden was fragile, that if he were to go to the President and say, I don't think you should -- I think you should end your reelection campaign, it wouldn't be received well. It would probably make Joe Biden dig in more. And that was what they were all kind of trying to triangulate around and make sure that wasn't what happened if he felt that -- if he got his back up.

They knew this was a stubborn person, the commander in chief. These conversations are awkward. And so, Obama said to Schumer, like, you may be a better messenger for this message. They all agreed that the message was, we urge you not to run.

SMERCONISH: Here's something else that I think speaks to the depth of the concern among Democratic leaders. And I'll put this on the screen. It pertains to -- it pertains to Jack Reed, the senator from Rhode Island. Quote, "The usually quiet Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a West Point graduate and former paratrooper, said he could no longer support his commander in chief unless Mr. Biden could produce two neurologists to issue a public report saying he was fit to serve and then hold a news conference where anyone could ask questions."

When I read what you wrote with your colleague, that graph, I said to myself, it's not just a perception issue. It's not just that Democrats were saying, there's a perception among the public that he's too old. They had concerns of their own, such that Reed was saying, I need neurologists to weigh in.

KARNI: Right. And I think it's stunning that not one neurologist, he wanted two. I mean, he really had concerns. And probably this was kind of a statement that he knew would not be fulfilled, i.e., he's saying that he doesn't think this can go on. And some, like Jack Reed, this is a West Point graduate, this is a chain of command sort of person, stunning statement for him to express to his colleagues such concern about the Commander in chief.

And this was kind of the basic feeling in the Senate. They were probably two -- no more than five senators who thought that Joe Biden should continue. And during these weeks, when Chuck Schumer was trying to figure out what to do, he had to work really hard to hold people back from going public with their concerns. If you remember that summer, a lot more House members were publicly calling on Joe Biden to step aside. The Senate was giving him a little more time.

But again, these kind of statements from Reed and others, they weren't giving him time because they believed in him. They were giving him time to gracefully exit on something akin to his own terms.

SMERCONISH: Meanwhile, the junior senator from Pennsylvania, John Fetterman, says to his colleagues, hey, grow a spine and stand with Joe Biden. And for that he gets scolded by Schumer. Explain.

KARNI: So this happened in this meeting that Schumer had to demand of the White House palace guard to come meet with the senators. And they didn't want to, but he said, if you guys don't come here and meet with us, I can't hold them back any longer. You'll have 40 something senators signing a letter tomorrow calling on Joe Biden to drop out.

So they come to the Hill, they meet with the Senate Democratic Caucus. There is -- this is where Reed makes that statement. There is so much anger. And Fetterman stands up and says, you have to be with Joe. If you don't, you have no spine.

I think Chris Coons and John Fetterman were kind of the two only pro- Biden voices in that meeting. And Schumer pulled Fetterman aside later and said, you can always express your opinions, but never, never say that your colleagues don't have a spine. It's not good for you and it's not productive for them. Just don't say that. I mean, I think, this is like --

SMERCONISH: OK. I --

KARNI: Yes. Go ahead.

SMERCONISH: I feel let down. I feel let down by the aforementioned individuals who were having this conversation privately and telling the citizenry nothing of the sort. It's a twofold question. And secondly, while I'm thrilled that you've published this and I can't wait to read your book and read it all, why now? Like not to you specifically, but to the media writ large.

[09:10:03]

Where was the media in not reporting all of this sooner?

KARNI: Well, there was a lot of reporting at the time. First of all, this Schumer meeting that I'm reporting on here, let's remember what day this happened. A few hours after he leaves the Rehoboth beach house, Trump got shot. So there was a lot going on at that time. And we did know that Schumer met with Biden, and we knew that -- we didn't know the details of the conversation.

But at the time we report -- you know, Chuck Schumer was publicly saying, I'm with Joe. So the benefits of writing a book are, you know, it's for history. It's not coming out till later. And people will have more frank conversations with you when they know that it will come out after the actual event that is happening in real time has passed.

So, I can't -- I -- yes, I would have loved to have published this last summer, but the interviews that I conducted for the book were not available to be published then. Sometimes people will share --

SMERCONISH: OK.

KARNI: -- things for later.

SMERCONISH: Not in the excerpt that we've published. And again, I'm going to read it all and hope you'll come back. What did the vice president know and when did she know it?

KARNI: It's not clear. She was in these conversations. She was not part of the -- it was Obama, Jeffries and Schumer, Nancy Pelosi freelancing. But it was those three who really only talked to each other. They kept it very tight. And in my reporting, I never heard that Harris was part of any of these conversations.

SMERCONISH: Annie, when you come back, you have to explain the whole subtitle of the book.

KARNI: Yes. Happy to.

SMERCONISH: OK?

KARNI: Yes.

SMERCONISH: Very, very intriguing. Thank you very much for being here. I appreciate it and I look forward to reading it all.

KARNI: Thanks for having me.

SMERCONISH: What are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media and read -- I will read some responses throughout the course of the program. What do we have? I just read that article this morning, a slap in the face to the American people what the Biden insiders and media did. And I assume that Nancy is referring -- put that camera on me -- to this.

It's -- I mean, it's page one and it's above the fold. And they identify, the Times reporters, this is independent reporting from Annie Karni and Luke Broadwater. Like, this is day two. OK. That relates to a book, what I was just discussing with my guest.

Now comes new reporting from her colleagues at the Times. And they're saying, hey, there were six people who were close. They saw it all. They covered for his frailties. They were telling the public none of it.

And that's part of the story, but the second part of it. And by the way, let me spare your angry social media reaction. My intent is not to kick him on his way out the door. It really isn't. But I'm disappointed.

I'm disappointed that only now are we learning these things. And I'm disappointed for those who were enablers. And I must say this, I'm disappointed in the President for being so stubborn and not recognizing what comes for us all eventually. Needs to be said.

I want to know what you think. Go to my website at merkanish.com, answer today's poll question, will opinion of Joe Biden's presidency improve with the passage of time? Yay or nay?

Up ahead, the idea of a TikTok ban was born during the first Trump presidency, all in the name of national security. But now, will he be the one to save it? And what's at risk if he does?

Please sign up for my daily newsletter at smerconish.com when you're voting on the poll question. Scott Stantis drew for us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:17:42]

SMERCONISH: Timeout for TikTok, the popular app saying it will go dark tomorrow after the Supreme Court ban upheld was upheld. A move that's upsetting a swath of the app's 170 million American users, but surprisingly and consistently uniting Congress and the justices, who are usually deeply divided on party lines. The united front seemingly rooted in bipartisan concern over national security, with Congress and the court agreeing that TikTok's extensive data collection and ties to China pose a serious threat.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): It can read your text messages, it can track your keystrokes, it has access to your phone records. And the problem with that is all of that information is available to and subject to inspection by the government of Beijing. And that's a massive -- it's not just a national security threat, it's a personal security threat.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): Opens the way for constructive efforts now to preserve TikTok, which everybody wants, but not under Chinese ownership, enabling that enemy of the United States to surveil, collect information and present a threat to our national security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: The original ban on the app was born during the first Trump presidency, heating those same alarm bells. But now the president-elect telling CNN he could be the app's savior, quote, "It ultimately goes up to me, so you're going to see what I'm going to do. Congress has given me the decision, so I'll be making the decision."

So, there are a lot of moving parts, but the threat to our national security is a constant. Here to talk about it is Richard Clarke, the nation's first cyber czar, former White House counterterrorism coordinator, special adviser to three previous U.S. presidents, and importantly for this purpose, co-author of the fifth domain, "Defending Our Country, Our Companies, Ourselves in the Age of Cyber Threats."

Richard, great to see you again. Doesn't President Biden's lack of enforcement and President-elect Trump's openness to resolution, doesn't that belie all the talk of security concerns?

RICHARD CLARKE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNTERRORISM COORDINATOR: Oh, no, I don't think so. What we have here is Congress choosing one type of Chinese intelligence activity to go after, and it chose the one that's incredibly popular. President Biden and Trump have to take into account the fact that it's very popular. One hundred and seventy million Americans use it. There are billions of use cases every day.

[09:20:09]

People are making money on it. People will be hurt if it goes off. So, presidents need to take both national security into account and popular opinion. But it's hypocritical, frankly, of the Congress to go after only this one type of Chinese intelligence activity while at the same time allowing the Chinese to get into all of our phone companies and run amok inside our phone companies and never pass a regulation requiring that the phone companies do anything about it.

SMERCONISH: Will the outcome with regard to TikTok be that enforcement is delayed? There'll be some type of a negotiation where stricter security protocols are put into place, and then business will continue largely as it has been?

CLARKE: Well, the question is whether or not the president just ignores the law, otherwise Congress has to go back and change the law. I think this president coming in, President Trump, will probably just ignore the law. He may also try to find a way that one of his billionaire friends buys control of the company. Right now, some of his billionaire friends are making money on the company, people who have contributed a lot to his campaign. And that's another reason, aside from the fact that his son likes it and 170 million other Americans like it.

That's a reason that they're going to find a compromise.

SMERCONISH: If 170 million Americans are already using TikTok. By the way, full disclosure, I'm one of them. Hasn't the horse already left the barn? Don't they, quote, unquote, "they" already know all they'd ever want to know about me as a TikTok user.

CLARKE: Yes. So there are two concerns. One is data that they collect about you, including your location, which tells them where you work. Do you work in a sensitive facility? Then they're going to pay more attention to you.

But the other thing that is the concern is the covert manipulation of the news. If you're on TikTok, and a lot of people only get news from TikTok, believe it or not, they don't watch CNN, they're not hearing about Ukraine, they're not hearing about Taiwan. They're not hearing about the persecution by China of the Muslims in China, and they're hearing things about the United States that are not flattering. It's that brainwashing, that subtle drip, drip, drip brainwashing. That's also a national security concern.

And if we go to war with China in two years, which is possible over Taiwan, if they invade Taiwan, lots of Americans will be getting their news about that possible war from China.

Ask yourself this, Michael, would China allow the United States to have an app running on half the phones in China? Collecting data about the Chinese and giving the Chinese the truth about the news? No, they wouldn't. And we know they wouldn't, because they don't. They ban Facebook, they ban Instagram, they ban X.

They know the power of these things. They would never have allowed, but we have allowed here.

SMERCONISH: So, I understand and appreciate the point you've just made. And believe me, my mantra for a long time has been about the need to change the channel. And regardless of TikTok, for people to mix up their media diet because, and you and I have had this conversation, too many reside in silos where they're getting it all from the right or they're getting it all from the left, and somewhere in between lies the truth.

Let me go back to the first of the two points that you just made, which is to say, can't some of the points being made about TikTok also be made of big data and commercial interests --

CLARKE: Sure.

SMERCONISH: -- generally, which already have so much information about all of us and traffic in that information?

CLARKE: Right. Look, Google collects the same amount of information that TikTok does. Google gives it to advertisers, China gives it to the Chinese, TikTok gives it to the Chinese intelligence service. There's a difference. Subtle one, but there's a difference between Google and the Chinese intelligence service.

SMERCONISH: OK. So where are we headed? I earlier said that I sense that there will be some type of deadline extension, a negotiation, security parameters that are put into place that don't exist today and TikTok will continue in Chinese or whatever the ownership interests may be to do business in the United States. With your trained eye and experience, where do you think we're headed?

CLARKE: I think six months from now, people will still be using TikTok in the United States, and there may or may not be some change in legal ownership, but this is, I think, too popular. Trump is not going to allow one of his first acts to be to kill something that 170 million Americans love. It's too popular for that outcome. So we'll see something happen.

And it may or may not address the security needs, but we have to look at the larger security needs, not just TikTok. We have to do something about the fact that the Chinese are in nine American phone companies, for example, collecting all of the data that they get from TikTok, but collecting it directly from the phone companies. And we are looking to the FCC and the Congress to do something about that.

[09:25:21]

SMERCONISH: Richard, let's look at social media together. This came in from the world of X. Catherine (ph), can you put it up? I may need to lean on Richard Clarke. Shut it down already. Valuing influencers' monthly payments over brainwashing propaganda from China makes absolutely zero sense. Says, I love it, DB Cooper. We've been looking for you, DB Cooper.

But Richard, to the point that you and I have -- you and I haven't made this observation, we've not staked our relative opinions on the fact that many derive, you know, their income and their livelihood from being influencers. But it needs to be said, right?

CLARKE: That's absolutely true. And this is why it's a tough decision and it'll be an unpopular decision and therefore Trump won't make it. But DB Cooper, great name, is correct. It is brainwashing. It's absolutely brainwashing.

And the Chinese would never allow it in China. We shouldn't allow it here.

SMERCONISH: Richard Clarke, thank you as always. Appreciate your expertise.

CLARKE: Thank you, Michael.

SMERCONISH: Still to come, your social media reaction to my commentary. By the way, you can find me on TikTok, at least for the next 24 hours. A seemingly unending war between Israel and Hamas mercifully coming to a pause. "New York Times" columnist Thomas Friedman with what the cease fire means and the message it sends for the new Trump administration. That's ahead.

Please make sure you're voting on today's poll question at smerconish.com, will opinion of Joe Biden's presidency improve with the passage of time? When you vote, sign up for the newsletter. You'll get illustrations from the likes of Steve Breen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:31:23]

SMERCONISH: Hey, here's some of the social media that has come in during the course of the program thus far. I'm on all the usual platforms. You can find me everywhere. Tell me what you think.

Alice -- to be honest, I'd rather have my personal information stored in a foreign country that I have absolutely no connection with than where I live. Since the COVID era, I have had strong concerns about the way governments use personal information against their own citizens.

Alice making the point that China's totalitarian, we don't want to emulate their model, right? We want to have access to a lot of different information. But she feels like our own government has let her down in this regard.

I get it. I'm -- I'm a believer that the more sources, the better a part of the effort to ban TikTok to me on the grounds that they might influence American thinking, well, then why don't we just start banning books? More social media reaction. What else do we have, Catherine, from today's program?

I respect and love what President Biden has done for our country. The one thing that will always stain his legacy will be the fact that he said he wouldn't run for reelection, but he did. If he hadn't, there would have been a real primary and maybe a stronger candidate.

Crimson4ever, I don't know. I don't know of anybody, given the dynamics of immigration and the economy and the level of condescension from so many toward Trump voters, I don't know if any Democrat could have won the race. But clearly Biden was not the strongest, and Vice President Harris, you know, dropped out in the last cycle before a single vote was cast.

I said here, and many of you didn't want to hear it, that there should have been a blitz primary. There should have been some level of competition so that we could have -- we could have seen her compete against, you know, Josh Shapiro and Amy Klobuchar and whoever else wanted to get into it.

But all these revelations that are coming out now are troublesome. They're troublesome about the people who protected him in his inner orbit. And also, they're problematic about him. I mean, come on, we heard it from Kenny Rogers. You've got to know when to hold them and know when to fold them.

And given the changes in his life attributable to, you know, growing old, it comes for all of us, he should have known to fold the tent. And the people around him instead of -- listen, can I do this one thing?

A new spotlight being thrust on his family and the inner circle, says "The New York Times," whom dismissed concerns from voters and Mr. Biden's own party that he was too old for the job. And yet they recognized his physical frailty to a greater degree than they have publicly acknowledged.

All right. That's -- that's not from Breitbart. That's not from Fox News. That's from "The Times." It's from "The Times." They had an obligation.

Senator Jack Reed says to his colleagues behind closed doors, I can't be for him unless two neurologists stand up and speak for his condition. And then I want to see him in a press conference.

We weren't told any of this. We weren't told any of this. We've got a right to demand answers. So, I'm glad it's being reported now, but it should have been reported sooner.

I want to remind you, go to my Web site at Smerconish.com, answer today's poll question. Very relevant to all of this. I mean, I wrote my opening commentary before these revelations, OK? And the whole premise -- Catherine, can you put that back on me for just one second? I just want to tell you straight out, here's the deal.

I'm looking at Carter's passing, and I'm looking at the reverence for Jimmy Carter, and I'm looking at all the Biden numbers, and I'm looking at all the Trump numbers. And I'm saying to myself, I wonder if over time, Biden's numbers will get better in a way that Carter's did, and then come all these revelations about what people around him knew and didn't say.

[09:35:01]

And I say to myself, you know what? They may actually get worse because the American people are going to say, we should have been told these things sooner. That's the poll question. Go vote, Smerconish.com.

Still to come, the ceasefire and hostage release deal now a step closer to becoming a reality tomorrow. Actually, late tonight. "New York Times" columnist Thomas Friedman on what this means today, tomorrow and ahead for diplomacy in the region. Our important conversation with the three-time Pulitzer Prize winner lies just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: A ceasefire and hostage deal between Israel and Hamas now a reality. Israel's government cemented the agreement late Friday after 24 hours of political wrangling and two separate votes. A spokesperson for Qatar's foreign ministry says the ceasefire will start tomorrow morning at 1:30 eastern time. According to U.S. officials, that's when the first three of 33 Israeli hostages will be set free.

[09:40:01]

A source says, 735 Palestinian prisoners will also be released in this phase. The deal will also include a surge of aid to Gaza and is set to last six weeks. But according to CNN, quote, "There are deep schisms in Israeli politics that could threaten the longevity of the deal."

Here to put this in perspective for us is "New York Times" foreign affairs columnist Thomas L. Friedman. He's a three-time Pulitzer Prize winner and author, among other books, of the best seller, "From Beirut to Jerusalem." Tom, nice to see you.

Let's have a big picture conversation. Initially on November 26th, you wrote that Donald Trump was entering a world, and you quoted an aphorism, there are decades when nothing happens, and there are weeks when decades happen. Explain. Why did you refer to that?

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, FOREIGN AFFAIRS COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, Michael, there are moments in Middle East history that are these plastic moments when everything is possible and everything is up for grabs. And this is one of those moments, after World War I, after World War II, after the Cold War, and this one.

Israeli-Palestinian relations, Lebanon, Syria they are all in play right now. And there is a -- there's an opportunity for a Nobel prize here. If the president wants to pursue it. There's an opportunity for a booby prize if we ignore it or fail at it. But this region that's been boiling for so long, there really is a chance now to reconstruct it and repair it in a way that will make it look a lot more like a European Union, and a lot less like a Syrian civil war.

SMERCONISH: One part of the changes to which you've referred since Donald Trump was last in the White House, Iran. I'll put on the screen something that you wrote relative to Iran.

In just the last two months, you said this in December, the Israeli military has inflicted a defeat on Iran that approaches its 1967 six- day war defeat of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Full stop. Expand on that.

FRIEDMAN: Well, basically, Iran lost its entire regional threat network that it had constructed at the cost of billions of dollars through Hezbollah in Lebanon, through Hezbollah and the Syrians, through Iraqi militias in Iraq and through the Houthis in Yemen. It had created this sort of octopus stranglehold around Israel. And that's -- that's been broken. And that is not only to Israel's advantage but to the advantage of the whole region.

Because Iran's business model, Michael, was to create failed states in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, and then feed off those failures by implanting these pro-Iranian militias there for the sole purpose of fighting and dying against Israel so Iranians wouldn't -- that's been broken. Iran also is in play right now.

SMERCONISH: So, the approach of President Obama, in simplistic terms, was to try and put the nuclear capability or development on ice of Iran and bring them more into the western fold. I guess the question that I would ask Tom Friedman, as Donald Trump comes into office, is there opportunity that didn't exist before for a similar nuclear negotiation with Iran?

FRIEDMAN: Yes. I think it's a very important question you're asking. Iran right now is militarily naked. Israel basically destroyed its air defense system. So, more than any president, Donald Trump has the choice and the opportunity to militarily destroy Iran's nuclear facilities or to diplomatically end its nuclear program. But also, it's really curtailed its regional missile program and it's -- this use of proxy militias.

I don't know which way Trump is going to go. My instinct is to avoid -- to avoid a big war that could cause a spike in oil prices and drive inflation, that Trump will try the military approach. But I think it is important to the future of the Middle East and to the future of the Iranian people, that the Iranian nuclear missile program be ended. It has twisted the whole region. It has given Iran excessive and malign powers. And it's very important that militarily or diplomatically, that Iran be out of that business.

SMERCONISH: Let's talk about which way Donald Trump, President-elect Trump will go relative to Israel. Here's more of what Tom Friedman has recently written since Donald Trump's election.

Quote, "Will it be the Trump who just appointed Mike Huckabee, a supporter of Israeli annexation of the West Bank, as his new ambassador in Jerusalem? Or will it be the Trump who, with his son-in- law, Jared Kushner, crafted and released the most detailed plan for a two-state solution since Bill Clinton's administration?"

And I should say, Tom, you made very clear in that writing that you don't think it's a final plan, but you think that it's a great conversation starter, for which Trump is often not given credit.

[09:45:02]

FRIEDMAN: Well, Michael, you know, the way I see it right now is that Donald Trump has an opportunity for and the aspiration for winning a Nobel Peace Prize. God bless him. It would be -- it would be great if he could achieve that.

His ambitions for a Nobel Prize are the fuse that blows up Benjamin Netanyahu's government. OK? Because the last thing Netanyahu wanted was this ceasefire deal. We know that this could have happened a long time ago. He wasn't the only obstacle. Hamas was, too, but he was a big obstacle.

He wanted a forever war, because a forever war is what keeps him in power and forestalls what is going to be a commission of inquiry on the failures of how this war even started many, but not all of which lie with him. So, Trump had to force him to accept the end of this war.

Now, going forward, what is the American interest is that you basically get Israeli troops out of Gaza and you extend the Palestinian authority from the West Bank to Gaza. That's going to require the P.A. to get its act together, to install the kind of prime minister it needs, like a Salam Fayyad, and to invite in international and Arab forces to help it govern Gaza. That is inimical to the interests of Netanyahu, who stays in power in large part due to the support of two overgrown juvenile delinquents, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich.

And they both have threatened to leave the government if Netanyahu permanently ends the war. So, Trump's aspiration for Nobel Prize is very soon going to clash with Bibi Netanyahu's aspirations for political survival.

SMERCONISH: OK, so weighing all that you've just said, who then governs Gaza?

FRIEDMAN: Well, you know, basically that's -- it's an essential question. It's a difficult question. But the only way Gaza can be stabilized is if you -- if you force this weakened Hamas, to allow an international force, invited in by the Palestinian authority from the West Bank, which has accepted the Oslo Peace Accords. It would be difficult, but I think very possible.

I think the people of Gaza are desperate for an end to the war and return to proper governance. Hamas would probably have to go along with it. I think it's the least bad option. They're all long shots. This region is completely broken. But that's the right start. Now also remember, in Lebanon, Lebanon has just appointed a new president after over two years of vacancy, and a new prime minister, Nawaf Salam. These are two terrific, decent, incorruptible guys. And they hold the promise of returning Lebanon over time with great difficulty, but with the possibility to its pluralistic origins.

Fix Lebanon, you help fix Syria. You bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into some more stable situation. You have a different Middle East. This is the most plastic best opportunity, you know, the region has had in many, many years to end what has been a series of civil wars.

SMERCONISH: Let's end with another big picture question. I'm limited on time. Donald Trump has spoken of being against forever wars and has sounded isolationist in many regards. So, relative to his approach and how willing he is to engage on all of these subjects, Tom Friedman says what?

FRIEDMAN: Well, I think what I'd say, Michael, is that this is almost a full-time job, a secretary of state for the Middle East. And it will require a lot of political intervention by Trump, a lot of energy. And he's unpredictable enough to take some of this on, but it'll require a lot of focus. And, I don't know whether he's up to it. His teams up to it. I hope they are, though, because this is really one of those amazing plastic moments where you could -- you could do amazing things for American interests and for the people of that region.

SMERCONISH: There's no one I would rather speak to than you about these matters. Thank you so much for being here.

FRIEDMAN: I appreciate it, Michael. Thank you.

SMERCONISH: You still have time to vote. Go to Smerconish.com and weigh in on today's poll question. Will opinion of Joe Biden's presidency improve with the passage of time? Sign up for the newsletter while you're there. Rob Rogers drew this for us. This is a twofer now. Check that out. And Jack Ohman weighed in with this. All at Smerconish.com. Original content to us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:53:57]

SMERCONISH: So, there's the vote thus far at Smerconish.com. A healthy number, 32,000 and change. Will opinion of Joe Biden's presidency improve with the passage of time? Seventy-six percent are saying yes, 24 percent are saying no. So, 76 percent are saying his legacy will go the way of Jimmy Carter, that as Carter did better over time, so too will Biden.

I have to say, and I wish President Biden the longest and healthiest life, Carter had a lot of time on the clock. You know, he had a half century post White House to do good deeds. I think that obviously played to his advantage.

Here's some social media reaction that came in during the course of the program. What do we have?

It can only get worse. History will show the White House staff, not Joe, was running the country. The discombobulated nature of policy showed no single person was in charge. He would have been removed from office had the legacy media not covered for him.

Kyle, I mean, I got to say that the recent reporting -- yesterday, the tease of the Annie Karni, Luke Broadwater book that is to come, and then today by colleagues on the front page, and "The Wall Street Journal," I've got to single out "The Journal."

[09:55:04]

They've been doing coverage on this more recently, and to a limited extent, "The Washington Post" as well. But I hear you when you say, where was all the reporting before? That is a legitimate criticism.

A second legitimate criticism is to say, and the people around him, as per page one story today in "The Times," they were covering for him. But then the third leg of the stool is to say, but wherein lies the responsibility of the president himself to say, hey, man, I've lost my fastball. It comes for us all. And it's tough, but you got to be willing to do it.

OK. Sorry. Long-winded. One more, real quick. Got to make this a fast one.

Does anyone believe the government has made an effective argument that will convince those who use TikTok of its threats?

Christian, I don't. I'm one of them. I'm one of them. I feel like -- like the horse has left the barn. Big data has everything on me. And to me it sounds akin to banning books. Like, oh, they might influence American opinion. I'll see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)