Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Do Dems Need To Acknowledge They Mishandled Biden's Decline?; Combs Defense Ends Cross Examination OF Cassie Ventura. Crafting Your Authentic Life And Career. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired May 17, 2025 - 09:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:27]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Consistency is in short supply. I'm Michael Smerconish.

Today in Washington, this city's abuzz over new reporting alleging cognitive decline by former President Joe Biden during his term in office as audio was just released of Biden's interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur in the now closed probe over Biden's handling of classified documents. While transcripts of Biden's interview with Hur became public last year, these excerpts are the first audio recording of the interview to surface.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Trump gets elected in November of 2017.

ROBERT HUR, SPECIAL COUNSEL: 2016.

JOE BIDEN: '16, 2016. All right. So why do I have 2017 here?

HUR: That's when you left office in January of 2017.

JOE BIDEN: Yes. OK. But that's when Trump is sworn in.

HUR: Right. Right, correct.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: The audio comes as questions about Biden's physical and mental capabilities have returned to the spotlight. A forthcoming book, "Original Sin, President Biden's Decline, Its Cover up and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again," by CNN's Jake Tapper and Axios' Alex Thompson detail signs of Biden's decline while in office. No doubt concern over this book caused somebody to advise the Bidens poorly, I would argue, that they should make their first joint appearance since leaving the White House on "The View" as a preemptive showing of stability and cogency. But it backfired. When the former president was asked about reports of his decline, he didn't address the question directly, trailed off after about 60 seconds, leaving the former first lady to have to jump in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN: You know, one of the things that --

JILL BIDEN, FORMER FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, and Alyssa, you know, one of the things I think is that the people who wrote those books were not in the White House with us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: If anything, the appearance whetted the appetite for Tuesday's release of "Original Sin."

Meanwhile, the press has not been Biden its time. The book has already been widely reported upon and reviewed. "The New York Times" calls it a damning portrait of an enfeebled Biden protected by his inner circle. The Washington Post, "Equally harsh from their review, the result of more than 200 interviews, the book is a damning account of an elderly, egotistical president shielded from reality by a slavish coterie of loyalists and family members united by a shared, seemingly ironclad sense of denial and a determination to smear anyone who dared to question the president's fitness for office as a threat to the republic overtly working on behalf of Trump. For years, they denied the president had any issues and kept him away from a public that had long since concluded that he was too old for the job. It worked for an astonishingly long time, until very suddenly, it didn't."

"Original Sin" is the sort of book, one of those scandalous stories that causes those with advanced copies to list the most salacious findings. And an excerpt was published in the New Yorker. The focus there was on reporting that Biden didn't recognize George Clooney at that big LA fundraiser in June of 2024, not long after the president stepped off an airplane, apparently exhausted after an overseas trip.

Embarrassing, perhaps, but hardly a capital offense. It's not like it happened at the Oscars. I get it. Frail and forgetful, for sure. How many in their 80s aren't?

Another advanced tidbit. There was discussion about offering the president a wheelchair after the election, of course, but in truth, I have to say nothing reported out of the book so far. I'm still waiting for my copy to arrive. It's surprising to me and perhaps anybody else with a television set who watched the Biden presidency and the 2024 campaign unfold.

What I've not heard reported that the president couldn't carry out his duties, that there was some major faux pas attributable to his frailties. If such an incident had occurred, I'm sure by now it'd be reported amidst all the tell all books.

To that end, a Biden spokesperson, in a statement to Axios, said this, "We are still waiting for someone, anyone, to point out where Joe Biden had to make a presidential decision or make a presidential address where he was unable to do his job because of mental decline. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite. He was a very effective president."

Still, the public is right to question why so much reporting came after Biden's withdrawal from the race, and how so many prominent Democrats could have assured us all the while that everything was just fine with the president. As today's "New York Times" story points out, many are seeking atonement. The failure of the media to cover President Biden's diminished capacity that inflamed Republicans who could see it for themselves. And that in combination with the four prosecutions of Donald Trump, some valid, some not, and the constant condescension with which his supporters were treated, that was the greatest get out the vote effort the GOP could have asked for.

[09:05:24]

Remember, according to polling data, even Democrats believed that Biden was getting too old to run again. In any case, it's a big story now. And as we're (inaudible) old tapes of Biden as president, in Pennsylvania, Senator John Fetterman, who you'll remember was hospitalized for a stroke amidst his 2022 campaign and then after his election at Walter Reed for some mental health challenges, is said to be having his own struggles again. This claim comes from a bombshell article in New York Magazine. The story, written by Ben Terris, raises questions about Fetterman's fitness to serve. His former chief of staff Adam Jentleson, as well as other staffers are reportedly worried about the state of the senator's mental health.

Many see the story as credible because last year, well before this became a media firestorm, Jentleson expressed his concerns in a private letter to Fetterman's physician. Since the story broke, the Philadelphia Inquirer has reported multiple former staffers saying that the senator has often been absent, disengaged and has avoided basic duties of his job.

Fetterman has missed 30 of 259 votes since January, according to data compiled by GovTrack, the third worst attendance record in the Senate. So just as the Democratic Party and media are now looking back at how they dealt with President Biden, some are thinking they might have to look forward with regard to how to deal with Senator Fetterman.

It should be noted that Senator Fetterman has pushed back hard. He denies that anything was amiss and calls the article that I referenced a hit piece. He says he feels like his, quote, "best version of himself and that he's following doctor's guidance." He also notes that his staff turnover was typical and believes former staffers hold a, quote, unquote, "bizarre grudge against him."

Our program has reached out to both Senator Fetterman and his former chief of staff, Adam Jentelson. They've declined to speak with us.

Now, to be clear here and on Sirius XM Radio, I've applauded Senator Fetterman's candor relative to his mental health. He's earned my respect by his openness as a society. We still don't treat brain health with the same compassion and concern that we do physical illness. So for a public servant to be so candid in such a climate, I find admirable. But here's the thing. If he wants the public and the press to have his back, he's got to make it easy for us to do that now. At this point, with more than one source on these stories and plenty of detail, it's hard to look the other way.

But my focus isn't so much on Biden or Fetterman. I wish good things for both of them. It's on the many who have opined about each through a partisan lens. Like I said, consistency has been in short supply. Too many have let their assessment be determined by whether they align with the ideology of the affected politicians and not with their fitness to serve.

The public notices. Democrats and their media enablers turned a blind eye to Biden until the debate with Trump forced a reckoning. And now those who ignore well reported stories about Fetterman struggles seek to cast questions of his fitness as being politically motivated. Consider a Wall Street Journal op-ed that argues that only when Fetterman turns out to be rather moderate does the left think him unfit.

Last year, Stephen Adler, the director of the Ethics and Journalism initiative at NYU, wrote under the headline, "Was it Unethical not to Cover Biden's Apparent Decline?" And he noted this, "Most newsroom ethics codes focus primarily on story execution, on the principles of accuracy, transparency and fairness. But principles of ethical story selection, while usually neglected, are just as important. The question of what we choose to cover or ignore precedes all others and speaks directly to our personal and professional values. And ultimately, are we trying to aid in the public's understanding or to steer them to our set of beliefs?

Do we aim to tease out the facts or to sidestep them for what we may perceive as a higher cause? When it came to Biden's fitness, most newsrooms, consciously or not, wrongly chose the latter path, though credit the Wall Street Journal with trying, at least late in the game, to pursue the story.

The issue is bigger than Biden or Fetterman. Old soldiers may fade away, as they say, but not old politicians. According to Axios, many of the Democrats oldest office holders, they intend to run again. Of the 30 House Democrats who are 75 or older, more than half told Axios they plan to run in 2026. They're probably thinking, hey, the midterms tend to be a good cycle for the outs, so why not stick around a bit longer and participate in leadership.

[09:10:06]

Might I suggest all septa and octogenarians reacquaint themselves with Kenny Rogers' song "The Gambler." You know the lyrics, you've got to know when to hold them and know when to fold them. Too often politicians, they have a singular focus, reelection. It's part of their DNA, and that's not going to change. But we can't afford to keep viewing questions of competency through a red or blue lens.

This is not about ideology, at least it shouldn't be. It's about ability. And too often we suspend our judgment when the shortcomings belong to someone on our team while inflating them when they belong to somebody on the other side. If we want to restore trust in our institutions, we must be willing to hold all public servants to the same standard, regardless of age, party affiliation or personal affinity. And that means confronting uncomfortable truths when they involve people we support and resisting the urge to score points when they involve someone we oppose because the stakes are simply too high to do otherwise.

Whether it's running for the most powerful nation on earth or sitting in the world's greatest deliberative body, the job requires clarity, strength and stamina. And the American people deserve to know, without partisan distortion whether those tasked with leading us are truly up to the job.

Joining me now is Holly Otterbein, POLITICO's national political reporter who covered President Joe Biden's reelection campaign. She previously reported for the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Magazine, and she just co-wrote this piece, "The Biden Question Hanging over the 2028 field." Holly wrote, quote, "For the most part, leading Democrats, many of whom attested to Biden's fitness when he was still on the ticket, are ducking what is fast becoming the first real litmus test of the 2028 campaign. The problem for Democrats is that Biden's blast radius keeps expanding. It isn't just embarrassing accounts dribbling out of a forthcoming book. It's that so many Democrats with 2028 ambitions were defending him at the time and are now being forced to answer for what they knew and when."

You could say that Holly has inspired today's poll question at smerconish.com where I'm asking, should Democrats who attested to President Biden's fitness while he was still on the 2024 ticket now have to answer for what they knew and when?

Holly, thank you so much for being here. It occurs to me as I read your piece that those 2028 potential candidates that you write about, they're kind of damned if they do and damned if they don't. Tell me the latest state of your reporting on that issue.

HOLLY OTTERBEIN, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORT, POLITICO: Yes, that's right. I think you're right about that. And you know, just coming off of your monologue there, that story, which is a pretty straight story, led to me getting attacked as right wing propaganda, that piece. I mean, just pointing out the Democrats are being forced to answer questions about what they knew and when regarding Biden's decline. That's the kind of attack that you get if you write, you know, straight stories.

I think most Democrats, there are some exceptions, but most Democrats do not want to answer questions about whether Biden had cognitive decline in office and whether it would have been better for the party if he had not run. Some are saying so, you know, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said maybe it would have been better if he hadn't run. Senator Chris Murphy came out and said that yes, Biden did have cognitive decline in office. But many of these governors and senators are saying, you know, they didn't see Biden that much. They can't really comment on that. And look, this leaves the issue sort of alive indefinitely. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. You're right. People like Murphy, you know, got months old comments thrown in his face, you know, the fact that he had defended Biden last year during the campaign, right. People are pointing that out and saying that he's hypocritical.

But if Democrats don't address this, it's just going to keep the issue alive forever.

SMERCONISH: I think it's a fair question to simply say, were you honest with what you said publicly about President Biden? And I have to say we're talking about some of the biggest names in the party. You report for POLITICO about Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro back in August of 2024, asked if he had any concerns, quote, "Not at all. And I've been in regular contact with the president." And yet now he is saying, well, privately I was expressing my concerns to President Biden.

Speak to Governor Shapiro.

OTTERBEIN: Yes, that's exactly right. I actually asked him that question in August of 2024. I asked him, you know, do you have any concerns that Biden was slipping? He said, not at all. He went on to list, you know, many times that he had interacted with Biden personally to attest to that fact.

You know, he is in the book the "Original Sin." You know, it is reported that he did indeed raise these concerns behind the scenes with Biden. You know, I think that those reports are correct and he basically confirmed them.

[09:15:10]

But you know, this is the problem here for Democrats is this is really a question about integrity and authenticity and honesty, right? I mean, were you honest in the moment? Were you willing to stand up to your party? And --

SMERCONISH: And it's not just -- it's not just Shapiro. It's not just Shapiro. Gavin Newsom is another that you write about where he talked about, you know, all the time that he had spent, I'm paraphrasing now, but that he'd spent tremendous time with President Biden and all was well. But yet he was at a particular fundraiser where, you know, quote, "I remember leaving that fundraiser thinking the F bomb. One attendee tells Tapper and Thompson." So it seems pretty clear that Newsom saw him in both lights.

OTTERBEIN: I mean, look, one of the only Democrats that actually was willing to speak up at the time was former Congressman Dean Phillips. And you saw what the party did to him. I mean, they basically --

SMERCONISH: Right.

OTTERBEIN: -- ran him out of the party. So, you know, that's the problem. Most Democrats did not -- did not stand up to their party. And I think it is going to continue to haunt them a little bit. The party, you know, is still in the dumps in terms of their favorability rating. They've got major trust issues. And a lot of Democrats, you know, believe privately, some publicly, that this is a part of the reason why. It's not the only reason, but it is part of the reason why they have a trust issue with the public.

SMERCONISH: We're limited on time, but I want to make this observation. Relative to the Hur audio, a year ago here on CNN and repeatedly on radio, I said, let us hear the tape. And we never got to hear the tape. But now I can't help but say, you know, maybe if the tape had been aired back then, there would have been more time on the clock for Democrats. It wouldn't have been just a hundred day campaign for Kamala Harris.

Your thoughts on the significance of Hur audio are what?

OTTERBEIN: Sunshine is best, right? I mean, I think Democrats have to ask themselves, was existing in a media and information bubble helpful to the ultimate end of trying to defeat Trump? Obviously not, right? I mean, what they didn't work out for them. So, you know, maybe it is time to sort of reflect on that.

And just to be clear, you know, this isn't a unique problem on the left. You know, the right is in its own media bubble too.

SMERCONISH: Totally. I hope I made that point very clear during the course of my monologue. Holly Otterbein, I hope everybody reads the piece that you coauthored because it's really insightful and thank you for being here.

OTTERBEIN: Thanks so much.

SMERCONISH: What are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media. You can find me in all the usual places. I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program.

From the world of YouTube. Yes, sir, they should, meaning should they be held accountable? Accountable for what they told us then. You are a lawyer. Isn't it awful omission that they are guilty of?

Ethically worse than really not knowing it's a cover up. Is there a lawsuit?

No, there's no lawsuit. I just think that there's a fair accountability and it's primarily for those who were telling us on the record all is well here. You know, nothing to see here. Turn your gaze elsewhere. For those individuals now, I think they need to be asked again.

Were you being candid with us then? And as I said to Holly, they're kind of damned if they do or damned if they don't. But it's a fair question to be asked.

Remember, I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com, answer today's very timely poll question. Should Democrats who attested President Biden's fitness while he was still on the 2024 ticket now have to answer for what they knew and when?

Up ahead, she was a rising pop star. He was one of the most powerful men in the music industry. Now Cassie Ventura's emotional graphic testimony in Sean "Diddy" Combs sex trafficking trial and is painting a picture of alleged abuse, control and fear. What she said on the stand and what it could mean for Combs.

[09:18:54]

And don't forget to sign up for the daily newsletter when you're at the website smerconish.com check out what Steve Breen just drew for us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: Sean "Diddy" Combs' former girlfriend Cassie Ventura just wrapped up four days of powerful, grueling testimony in his federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial. Ventura spent close to 20 hours on the stand describing years of alleged abuse, including physical violence, sexual assault and emotional control. The jury watched surveillance video from a 2016 hotel incident first reported by CNN, where Combs is seen kicking and dragging Ventura in an elevator lobby. In a text sent days later, Ventura wrote to Combs, quote, "When you get effed up the wrong way, you always want to show me that you have the power. I'm not a rag doll.

I'm someone's child." Ventura testified that she was suffering from PTSD and receiving trauma treatment years after the relationship ended. Under cross examination, the defense questioned her timeline and her motives, pointing to mutual texts and meetings after the alleged abuse. But Ventura stood firm, telling the jury she didn't feel safe enough to say no.

Combs faces charges, including two counts of sex trafficking, two counts of transportation for prostitution and racketeering conspiracy. He's denied all the allegations. Joining me now is CNN Senior Legal Analyst and former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Elie Honig.

OK, Elie, before it began, you wrote and said it's overwhelmingly likely to end in a conviction, but it is not a cakewalk. Do you want to take any of that back now that we're into the trial?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: No, I'm going to stick with that exactly, Michael. So I think the first part of that is overwhelmingly likely to result in conviction because we saw the evidence this week. I think Cassie Ventura was an extremely effective witness for the prosecution. I think she came across as credible and sympathetic and realistic in the way she described what happened to her. I think that video that we've been showing is incredibly compelling and visceral.

[09:25:02]

But here's why it's not a cakewalk. The prosecutor's job here is not to prove that Sean Combs was a bad guy, a terrible guy. In fact, the defense got up and said he is a bad guy, he did commit domestic violence. But the charges here, the charges are the thing. This is not a state prosecution, this is not a domestic violence prosecution.

This is a federal prosecution for racketeering, forcible sex trafficking and then interstate prostitution. And I think it's bad and damning as the evidence is. It's going to be tough for prosecutors, I think, to get it to meet the definition of racketeering enforceable sex trafficking.

SMERCONISH: Is there anything inherently illegal about a freak off?

HONIG: No, no, there's not. And look, the indictment sort of dwells on that. The freak offs, of course, were these extended drug fueled sex parties that Sean Combs would have along with Cassie Ventura and they would bring in others. And I do think the indictment dwells on that a bit. I mean, the indictment lays out in detail what these freak offs are.

The recovery of the 1,000 bottles of baby oil, the fact that the participants used IV drips to rehydrate. But part of Sean Combs defense was, A, it's not a crime to be a freak in so many words. And B, they argue these were consensual.

Now the record is mixed on that. I mean, you showed some texts that show that indicate that Cassie Ventura was uncomfortable, did not want to participate in these sometimes. But there's other texts where she expresses positivity and enthusiasm for these. And so that's going to give the defense just enough of a thread to pull on to try to establish reasonable doubt.

SMERCONISH: Elie, we all have seen that video first broadcast on CNN. You look at the beating that he's administering to her adjacent to a hotel and you say, well, look at that. He's guilty. But he's not being charged with assault, right? Speak to that.

HONIG: Exactly. Exactly. First of all, that assault happened in 2016. So if this was a state level prosecution for physical assault, for domestic violence that had been brought within the statute of limitations, within five years of 2016, he'd be guilty in two seconds. They admitted that.

The defense said that on a very unusual, but I think smart opening. Now the question though is, well, what's the relevance? The prosecutors are saying this shows you that these freak offs, that this sexual conduct was not voluntary, was not consensual, that it was only accomplished by the use of physical force. Sean Combs' counter narrative is that this was a domestic dispute, that they were in a fight, he did wrong, they argue, the defense. It was a dispute because she had grabbed his phone.

He was trying to get his phone back from her. And so, again, we have to keep in mind, is he bad? Is his conduct horrible? Yes. Does it meet the federal definition of sex trafficking by force and racketeering? That's more debatable.

SMERCONISH: OK. And one final point, correct me if I'm wrong, but consent doesn't provide -- does not provide "Diddy" a defense here. But to the extent that they're seeking to show that she was a willing participant, it seems like they're just trying to make the whole situation and everybody involved part of some ugly enterprise and turn the jury off. Do I have it right?

HONIG: Well, so two things. So, on the sex trafficking charges, there's two variations of them. The more serious variation is by force, threats or coercion. So if she consented, that would negate that. There's a less serious variation, that's just interstate prostitution that carries a much lower penalty.

To the larger point, the first count in this case is a racketeering conspiracy. I used to charge this all the time. Traditionally, that charge is used for mob families, for drug trafficking organizations. You can see it applied in other ways. But they need to show that Sean Combs was at the head of an organization, an organized group that committed multiple interconnected crimes for a common purpose.

And I don't think Cassie Ventura's testimony on its own gets prosecutors there. But this is what I'm looking for in the coming weeks. I think they're going to build this out. I think they're going to show that this was not just a troubled domestic relationship, but prosecutors are going to try to show that this was a larger pattern of organized activity. I think it's going to be tough.

I think they're going to have a hard time making out that racketeering charge. But I do think they've introduced some powerful evidence that can set them on their way towards it.

SMERCONISH: I'm going to put a social media up and we'll explore it together. But I want to say something. Criminal enterprise. He's the only one at the table. Enterprise with whom?

HONIG: Yes. Yes. Look, it's a good point.

Technically, you can have a racketeering enterprise of one. It is not ideal. I mean, when I charge federal racketeering cases, the fewest defendants I ever had was maybe five or six. I had 25 defendant cases. And I think count on the defense trying to exploit that.

They're going to say, folks --

SMERCONISH: Right.

HONIG: -- are trying to build this up --

SMERCONISH: Yes.

HONIG: -- into more than it is. It was a troubled --

SMERCONISH: Right.

HONIG: -- domestic --

SMERCONISH: They've over charge.

HONIG: -- relationship, and they're trying to make him a RICO of one. Yes. SMERCONISH: OK, real quick. Here's that social media. Let me -- I'll read it out loud. Listening to all the reporting so far in this trial, and I'm no lawyer, but I don't hear the RICO charges coming out, at least so far. That's pretty much what you were just saying.

I certainly see the Combs is a bad guy who treats women like objects and is probably misogynistic. Lots of adjectives we could use, but where's the RICO? Give me just 20 seconds on that, Elie.

HONIG: I agree. If the verdict had to be rendered today on Rico, he's not guilty. However, stay tuned because this is the task now for prosecutors. They have to call other witnesses. They have to establish there was some element of organization here. That's the challenge.

SMERCONISH: Elie, excellent as always. Thank you so much.

I want to remind everybody else go to the Web site at Smerconish.com, answer today's poll question Holly Otterbein inspired with her "Politico" piece. Should Democrats who attested to President Biden's fitness while he was still on the ticket in 2024 now have to answer for what they knew and when?

Still to come, your social media reaction to my commentary. Plus, as graduates everywhere ask, what should I now do with my life? My guest says, we're all asking the wrong question. Author of "Becoming You" and NYU Stern professor Suzy Welch will join me.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:35:25]

SMERCONISH: Here's some of the social media that has come in during the course of the program.

What's to answer for? We all saw the decline. It was in the public. Nothing secret about it.

This relates to today's poll question where I'm asking the question of those who were on the record in the 2024 cycle when President Biden was still on the ticket and told us all was well, do they have some answering to do? And I think it's a very fair question.

Here's the way I think I'll approach this. There are three stories today that you need to read in total to appreciate the big picture. Holly Otterbein was on the program. She co-authored the piece for "Politico" that's under the headline the Biden Question Hanging Over the 2028 Field. So, read that story from "Politico."

The second story that I recommend you read today is from The "New York Times" under the headline, Democrats Who Championed Biden's Re- election Bid Now Seek Atonement. That's the second.

And then the third bit of information is the "Axios'" report about the audio that now we're finally getting to hear from Robert Hur. The audio that a year ago, I told you we were all entitled to hear. And as I said previously, you know, imagine if after Robert Hur told us that President Biden was quote, unquote, "a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory."

And let me remind everybody of something else. Hur said that in a pleading of some kind, and the president was POed. This I have a distinct recollection about. On short notice, he came out and he spoke to the media, I think it was in the Diplomatic Reception Room, and he was irate at that characterization.

Something else I remember is that that happened very close in time to when President Biden had turned down, in an election year, an appearance pre-Super Bowl. And I thought to myself, that's political malpractice. How does someone reject tens of millions of dollars worth of free advertising?

So, he wouldn't do -- President Biden, he wouldn't do the Super Bowl interview but he was pissed when Hur made that characterization. And I said at the time, let's hear the tape. We didn't hear the tape then. We're hearing the tape now. If we had heard the tape then this would have had perhaps an entirely different conclusion.

But I go back to what I said in my opening commentary. My aim today is not to condemn, to be critical of President Biden. It's not to be critical of Senator Fetterman. No, I want to be very clear. I am -- I am critical of the inconsistency of the pundit class of the media and the politicians.

You are hypocrites. You are hypocrites when you address one or the other, depending on whether it suits your partisan objective. And I am calling for fairness and I'm calling for the same approach and lens to be applied to all so that we can ensure that we have individuals who are serving us, who are fit for the job. That's where I'm coming from.

Still to come, values are not political buzzwords. That's according to my next guest, NYU Stern professor Suzy Welch, who explains how and why. There she is. How and why they are so critical in driving our actions. Suzy will be here in a moment.

Make sure you subscribe to the daily newsletter at Smerconish.com. Make sure you're answering today's poll question. Should Democrats who attested to President Biden's fitness while he was on the ticket, now have to answer for what they knew and when? I think it's a fair question.

Check out this editorial cartoon that Rob Rogers drew for my newsletter this week. That's a classic. And from Jack Ohman with a similar airline theme.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:43:24]

SMERCONISH: It's commencement season when millions of graduates, and frankly, many of the rest of us are also asking the age-old question, what should I do with my life? What's my purpose?

My next guest says, that's not just the wrong question but it's a misleading one. Suzy Welch is a professor at NYU Stern School of Business, a three-time "New York Times" bestselling author. She's also a top career podcast host and a former journalist whose life and work has been shaped by personal reinvention, including the loss of her husband, the legendary GE CEO Jack Welch.

Her new book is called "Becoming You: The Proven Method for Crafting Your Authentic Life and Career." It's based on the wildly popular class that she teaches at NYU and it offers a 13-part research backed framework to help people of all ages, students, mid-career professionals, even retirees on getting clear on who they are and what they are meant to do.

Joining me now is the author of "Becoming You," Suzy Welch. Suzy. Many of us are looking for purpose, and you have actually come up with a formula that can lead you there. Explain.

SUZY WELCH, PROFESSOR, NYU STERN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS: Hi, Michael. I think I want to push back on the word formula a little bit, because it's -- formula would suggest that this is easy or that it's a hack. What I've come up with is a methodology that helps us figure out who we are when we're standing still, so we can figure out which direction to start running when we start running again, because that's what we all do running. And I don't want to suggest that there's anything easy about it, because figuring out what we should do with our lives is probably the hardest thing that we figure out.

It takes work. Everybody wants a silver bullet just does not exist. But we have to dig in and figure out what our values are and our aptitudes and our economically viable interests and then we can go there.

[09:45:01]

SMERCONISH: You've actually -- there's a chart in the book, and I'll put it on the screen so that you can explain. This intersection of values, aptitudes and economically viable interests, as you describe the area of transcendence, what is that?

WELCH: Well, it's a -- let me start by saying what it's not. It's not happiness. That's not my area of expertise. A lot of people want to tell you how to get happy. I just want to tell you how to find your purpose.

And so, what we do is a lot of career experts focus on one of the three areas that I say. They focus on figure out what your values are. Follow your passion. I totally do not buy that.

Other people say just figure out what you're good at and do more of that. And maybe that's the right direction, but I don't think it's enough. And then other people say, find out where the economy is going and plug yourself in.

And what I say is, look, those are three fantastic data sets. Figure them all out and then figure out what lies at the intersection. That's the sustainable route to your purpose.

SMERCONISH: Give me an example, because I know that the class that you teach primarily to grad students at NYU is immensely popular. But talk to me about somebody who came in thinking they had one focus, went through the course, participated, as I have in the exercises that are in your book, and left with a different view of what's ahead.

WELCH: Yes, this is one of the great joys of teaching this class. And I teach it also in an open enrollment setting. So, I've taught it to people from ages 16 to 78. OK? Everybody is interested in figuring out what their purpose is.

And sometimes people come in and they do the process and they tweak their lives. But other times people come in and they're not expecting for any kind of change and they just sort of boom, blow it up.

I had a student come in once. He was sure he wanted to switch from one kind of banking to another kind of banking. He thought he was just going to change that. And he walked out the door saying, that's it. I've always wanted to dress Kim Kardashian and I am going to blow it all up, and I'm going to reinvent myself as somebody in the fashion industry.

I once had a nurse come in and he was a very devoted nurse, or so he thought. And he walked out of the whole process and he said, I have been lying to myself and my family. I want to be a dad. I want to be a stay-at-home dad. I'd love to be able to build that life. And this is all just been a cover for me, living everybody else's expectations but my own.

SMERCONISH: Can I say it's also --

WELCH: So, I see reinvention on a daily basis.

SMERCONISH: It's also -- it's also part memoir. I mean, Jack was a giant. I had the privilege of being in his company. He was a character. I say that as a term of endearment. Characters are good things. But you had to go through a tough period of your own life, and then this is pretty much how you were able to emerge. True?

WELCH: Well, yes. Well, look, I was the first beta tester of this methodology. I had a great life with Jack. We were really -- you know, we did a lot of things together. Our careers after he retired were just melded together. And then after he passed away in 2020, I had to face into the question that every -- that many people face, which is, what do I do now? What do I do next?

I had been working on this methodology in a lot of different ways for about 15 years, and then I started to test it on myself to figure out my next step. I ended up in the classroom and that is where I felt exquisitely alive, which is that's how we feel when we're living our purpose. We feel exquisitely alive. It's like nothing else.

Sometimes people say to me, how will I know if I'm living my purpose? And I'm like, don't worry, you'll know. I mean, it feels amazing.

SMERCONISH: The book for me, "Becoming You" was confirmation that I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing. By the way, that's not a reflection of happiness. I could be happier. But in terms -- right, maybe we all could be. But in terms of --

WELCH: No. I mean, it's not about happiness.

SMERCONISH: But in terms of like, should I be here today and doing what I'm doing? And should I be back on radio on Monday? I think that I probably should.

WELCH: Yes. I think you're a perfect example of somebody living in their area of transcendence. Without a doubt you are because you can hear it, you can see it. You want to go to work tomorrow. Or you want to -- your life feels exciting and optimistic and hopeful for you.

And you're right. It's not a necessary -- look, happiness is a funny thing because it can be unrelated. Somebody can get sick. A kid can go off the rails.

You know, things happen with happiness, but we can build meaningful lives of purpose. And happiness is usually the byproduct. But I don't promise that that's not my bag.

SMERCONISH: Nor mine. Suzy Welch, thank you. Nice to see you again.

WELCH: Thank you for having me.

SMERCONISH: You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Sometimes -- I mean, I'm often in the minority. We know that. But I'm a pretty good predictor. And I don't peek. I don't peek.

I have no idea what you're about to say on today's poll question, but go to Smerconish.com and cast a ballot now. Should Democrats who attested to President Biden's fitness, while he was still on the 2024 ticket, have to answer for what they knew and when? Sign up for the newsletter. When you're there, check out what Scott Stantis drew for us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:53:55]

SMERCONISH: Last Saturday, we made a mistake when we broadcast our poll results, and I want to correct that now. We transposed the numbers. Nothing deliberate, I can assure you.

This is the correct answer. Was the election of Pope Leo XIV, an American, a deliberate choice meant to contrast with President Trump? More than 56,000 voted and 62 percent said, no, that was not the case.

Now, here are todays poll results, at least as they stand now from Smerconish.com, 57-43. Interesting. Should Democrats who attested to President Biden's fitness while he was still on the 2024 ticket have to answer for what they knew and when? Thirty-seven thousand and change, healthy vote. And 57 percent, I'll say of us, because I'm in the majority for a change.

Yes, it's a fair question. You know, Governor X, here's what you were saying during the course of the campaign, as you were out on the campaign trail with President Biden. Was that accurate? Were you telling us the truth?

Here's some social media response to today's program. The media sure loved the term the big lie. This one seems fairly big as well, says Herman Blume.

[09:55:04]

Look, I want to make something else clear. I think that -- I think that President Biden is a decent guy, a decent and honorable guy. He stayed too long. He stayed too long.

I said it at the time, so I don't -- I don't -- I don't have to worry about what I said on the record. Everybody else needs to be held accountable, I think. But he stayed too long and it was obvious. And I think that people close to him and those who served, maybe because they all wanted a taste of power for longer than they should have had it, were afraid to tell the emperor he just didn't have clothes at the end.

But my objective today is really not to focus on him as it is on all of us. And just to make a public plea for consistency and less hypocrisy. This this is a microcosm of our partisan divide. And what it exhibits to me is a lack of critical thinking.

Too many people look for the signs from their leadership, and then they put on their usual jersey. Think for yourself for a change. That would be my advice.

OK, if you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you for watching. I'll see you in a week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)