You just want to introduce him. Cant get to him. Hey, meacham, we always ask you historical precedence and actually a few here and obviously yesterday was a historical day. Lined up with the woodwood book. The very public unraveling of thiS Administration as told by members of thiS Administration. What are the parallels . What are the historical preceden precedence . Theyre revealing in terms of when they came out. If you look at the pentagon papers and the johnson administration, that came out after the johnson administration. If you look at the remarkable details about Richard Nixons last days in the white house where hes talking to the portraits and hoping the portraits dont talk back and hes asking Henry Kissinger to pray with him on the floor of the lincoln sitting room and having one drink or so and becoming incoherent and telling senators in 25 minutes i could kill 75 Million People with a Nuclear Strike, which led the secretary of defense to say that any military order had to be countersigned by him. Heres and then you move ahead to president reagan during the days of iran contra and bakers people were researching the 25th amendment the weekend before they wernt in to take ovr because they were hearing stories that Ronald Reagan was essentially gaga. They find him immense lly charmg and totally in control. Heres the distinction of that catalog of moments of potential white house chaos. We learned about those after the fact. We learned about those in books. We learned about those after the crisis to which they were speaking had passed. The remarkable thing about yesterday is this is a realtime historical trove. It is not simply a matter of interest. Its a cause for action. You know, mika, whats the most, well, i mean, its just not a secret. This is i think what is most telling about the woodward book and most telling about this oped is that we have not only been saying this since he was president of the United States, we said that Kellyanne Conway would come on this show throughout Donald Trumps campaign, attack him, say my god, i cant wait for this campaign to be over and, you know, sean spicer will deny it, but saying the guy was going to lose and their only goal was to make sure that he didnt lose by eight or nine because then they would lose the house and the senate. But there was no way he was going to win. By the way, i just called out those two names. It was everybody up and down the line on the campaign and everybody up and down on the line in the white house. When they deny it, they prove themselves to be total liars. I can see in some ways it is almost for us and you speak to so many white house insiders and National SecurityForeign Policy leaders in office that youre like, well, of course. But this is a dangerous precedent that you have a group of people working, especially after what we heard from Bob Woodwards book. As a newspaper guy for new york ti times and willie has the piece. What was your reaction when you read this . I was stunned. I was absolutely stunned. By what . Stunned, a, that they ran an anonymous oped piece. I was stunned that constant of the piece and the descriptions of the ongoing crisis in the oval office. Can we start with the first one . You were stunned they ran the piece. This is, obviously, newsworthy. If they havent run it. Because of the anonymity. Because of running it anonymously by an anonymous offer. Thats what stunned me. But the larger, the context of it is the crisis in the oval office. Where a sitting president is described assed av ed sed ed sa my conclusion, my take on it i dont care who the author was, i would rather they be named, he or sheer, but the larger context is finally people like paul ryan and Mitch Mcconnell reading this, knowing what they know. Knowing what so many around this presidency do know is their larger obligation not to the country rather than to the party . They have known this all along, willie. They have known that donald trump is not well. They know. Everything that was in the woodward book. Everything theyve seen first hand. Everything in this article theyve heard first hand for a year and a half now and they have chosen to smile and go along with it. Many of them have said those things to us privately. This is a white house. And its something senator bob corker said yesterday publicly. He said, yeah, this is exactly what im hearing from people off the record when i speak privately. They have to work to contain this guy. If you havent read the oped. Its no surprise which article is a top trending piece on New York Times the column that has shaken. A senior white house official claims to be part of the resistance on the inside. The official claims in the oped. President trump is a moral and that many Senior Administration officials are quote, working diligently from within. Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails. He engages in repetitive rants and halfbaked, illinformed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back. Americans should know there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening and were trying to do whats right, even when donald trump wont. Let me ask you, willie, i guess maybe thats the news. Yes. That there are adlults. We have always known there were adults in the room. Is that the headline of this . Not that donald trump is unfit for office and hes a danger to this country and the constitutional norms and our National Security, but is the headline of this article the assurance that there are adults in the room that are working to contain it . I think the headline for me is that the adults in the room are subverting his policy. They say were actively working to push back against the president s policy initiatives. That is pretty extraordinary and this person suggests that he or she is not alone in this effort. There is a group of them on the inside. I am interested in who the person is. I think its different if its jim mattis. Im not suggesting its jim mattis, someone at his level. Or a staffer at the economic council. Thats what we heard, mike, from some former clinton alumni. Based on their experiences, it could be a lower level staffer at the nec. I do think that the New York Times owes a responsibility to its leaders and owed a responsibility to its readers before publishing this anonymous letter to give us a better understanding of the level of this person. One of his top advisors, a cabinet level official. You know, a highranking official could be one of 1,000 people in the government. You wouldnt have had the piece in the paper. Im sure, im sure the deal that was cut was, you have to protect me. Whoever wrote it. Whoever wrote it needs to step up and claim ownership here. I think the root of this piece that everyone is reading is in this one, two sentences. The root of the problem is, anybody who works with him First Principles that guide his decisionmaking. This is the description of a sitting president of the United States. By the way the description in New York Times gives the author a senior official in the Trump Administration. That could be an awful lot of people. It doesnt say white house, it says Trump Administration. Lets go to the white house, Peter Alexander is there. Peter, good morning. Take us inside the building yesterday. How the white house learned about this piece. How its reacting and what its doing to find out who the author is. Willie, its clear the white house was caught off guard by this oped. Literally the moment it came out it was flagged to me and printed a copy and ran inside the west wing and went into bill shine, the top communication of the president s office and handed him a copy and asked him if he had any response. I asked him if he had seen it and asked if he could read it himself. That was the first time the white house was aware of it it after they came out. They were already reeling from a series of other headlines, most notably the new details coming out of Bob Woodwards books and reporting from Washington Post that they are looking for replacement from jim mattis and this that landed with a thud inside the west wing. His reaction was, in their words, an eruption. In their words, volcanic. About an hour or so later he was scheduled to be in the east room where he was hosting some sheriffs from around the country and i was the pooler and you see the back of my head right there. At the end of his remarks i tried to pull him aside, as you can see, he was lured in when i brought this up. Initially he said he didnt understand what i was talking about and then i read the headline of it to him saying that i am the resistance inside the Trump Administration and he appeared to know about it at that point. You can see he pulled out some notes from his pocket. Here is the president s realtime reaction from yesterday afternoon. We have somebody in what i call the failing New York Times talking about he is part of the resistance within the Trump Administration. This is really a disgrace. I will say this, nobody has done what thiS Administration has done in terms of getting things passed. And getting things through. When you talk about some anonymous source within the administration, probably whos failing and probably here for all the wrong reasons. And New York Times is failing. If i werent here, i believe New York Times probably wouldnt even exist. The president would tweet about this, as well. Let me show you the tweet he wrote and i want to contrast that with what Sarah Sanders says, as well. Does the Senior Administration official exist or New York Times with another phony source. The times must turn him or her over to government at once. He also wrote as you see, treason, questionmark. The president questioned that this person even existed because Sarah Sanders, the press secretary in a statement only moments before that effectively said they believe this exists by saying this coward needs to resign immediately. The bottom line here inside this westwi wing. Filled with mistrust and the president describing this as a treasonous act of disloyalty. And this is like those horror movies when you get the phone call and you find out that the bad guy is inside the house. This was first reported by Washington Post. A source told similar language to me last night. The bottom line right now is nobody knows who to trust and its only getting worse. Could be the whole house. Peter lexander, thank you very much for getting up early. John meacham, have we ever been here before . Is the closest weve come to this Woodrow Wilson . Where are we here . In terms of disability, you know, wilsons stroke in the last year and a half or so of his term which had incredibly important effects on the life of the nation and it was covered up. His second wife effectively ran the government. We had some questions about disability, episodic disability with Franklin Roosevelt at the end of his term. We see photographs now and its extraordinary that he got through it. Eisenhower had his two heart attacks in the 1950s all of which led to the creation and the passage 1965 and 65 and 67 of the ameandment, which im sue well get to, is a weapon on the table. Let me say one thing about the author here as we inevitably try to guess. Henry adams wrote a novel, democracy about washington in the 19th century which was an anonymo anonymous. Joe cline. Here is something particularly important about who this author is and willie was talking about the process of it. It would be fascinating to know exactly when the conversations with the New York Times and the author or the authors representatives began. Because this reads to me as though there are really two elements to it. One is about donald trump. But the other is, hey, were trying. And its a defense of the people who are publicly associated with the administration and i cant help but believe that the death of john mccain, a week ago saturday and the eulogies of someone who put country first, who stood up to donald trump did not have some atmospheric effect here. I dont know that this. And, so, this is purely speculative. Stipulate that. But this reads to me like it was written by someone who was either in the National Cathedral or watching it and thinking, what are they going to say about me . Mike, youre agreeing with that. I think all talking to each other on that day said that this is, this is a moment in time and this is something thats going to i think were seeing part of that impact now. My understanding is that this piece, the times has had this piece for several day negotiating various elements of the piece, whether it would be run anonymously. They had it for several days. I agree with john meacham. I think they had it it in hand and maybe prior to last weekend. Couple notes on what the president said and we have been talking about who the person is. First of all, New York Times talking about how horrible New York Times is failing. New york times are enjoying glory days. Their glory days of the 21st century. You look at all the numbers. Washington post doing as well as anyone could have imagined. It is extraordinary the turn around at Washington Post. Also, this is inest the interes. We were talking before about who this person was. If you take everything add face value. They are a republican and they support the tax cuts and reg Regulatory Reforms and what is interesting they brought up john mccain. Now the tribe from which i came if you were trying to prove y, u would talk about what an honorable man john mccain was, but you would not bring him into the discussion. If you were a military man or woman, you would do that. But not if you grew up in Movement Conservatism because john mccain was another part of that. Its very interesting of the person saying im a republican, i love the tax cuts, i love the Regulatory Reform and love the judicial nominees but then bringing in john mccain beyond the Service Aspect of john mccain and what a hero he was. Maybe suggests to me, at least, if there is a tell and if you can take everything at face value that this is a republican. But its a republican, lets just say from the military sort of military faction of the Trump Administration. And theres a pig fobig focu further your argument a little bit. But definitely a conservative. An entire graph here the president showing free mind, free markets. Talking about how he attacks those things. Saying this guy is not one of us, effectively. The question for me is, does this piece as an american make you feel better or worse . Better that there are people on the inside pushing back or worse when you put this together with Bob Woodwards book . I think its both. What is coming out of the president s mouth is just the people who work for him he is at times consistent and cruel in his language and in his tweets. But were watching. You know, we talked to people on the inside and weve seen them for quite some time being visibly uncomfortable with this president and talking quietly. Now, and i think inspired by john mccains legacy and his funeral, people are becoming openly hostile towards this president and they show theyre not following his orders and hiding things from him. While that might be helpful given how disappointing this president is, i think it sets an incredible dangerous precedent. John, perhaps the most dangerous precedent is you have military leaders ignoring the recommendations of the civilian head of the armed forces. Even if it is an illegal order, it is one thing for the president of the United States to say, assassinate assad and then mattis to say, okay and then hang up the phone and ignore him. Another thing to go over there and say, mr. President , you cant do that. Thats illegal. This would happen and that would happen. It seems you have people who are just brushing his orders aside. While we celebrate that in the age of trump, it sets a very dangerous precedent for, lets say, the 46th president or 47th president who tells the military leader, dont assassinate the leader. Dont cross that boundary. Dont fire that missile. Exactly. Thats a great point. And as weve said before we know that the presidency has not changed donald trump. The question is to what extent has he changed the presidency . The chain of command and the civilian military control of our projections of force is a huge part of this. Now, it is true that Henry Kissinger spent most of his time and Bob Halderman spent most of his time ignoring latenight orders from Richard Nixon like go bomb brookings or, you know, lets go take out cronkitekrocr boat and theres a great theory about watergate, in fact, that somebody screwed up and did what he might have said. Never in the particular file. Never do that. The next morning nixon is like you broke into what . No, no, i meant i was just kidding. So, we can sort of chuckle about