Michael Scherer

There's no discussion of it afterwards.

That's what happens.

But I've talked to people who've talked about meetings with her during the campaign and afterwards where she often says almost nothing during much of the meeting, and then she'll say something quietly at the end.

I'm not sure that's a good idea.

And so it's not—you know, you could argue that obviously she has allowed things that, you know, many people would say are unconstitutional.

But I think there's a different litmus test she's using for a lot of these things.

You know, another example that gets at this is after the Pretty shooting in Minneapolis—

You had that Saturday, Noem and Miller leading the charge, saying, you know, this was basically a terrorist who was going to assault officers.

Obviously not true.

The president came in and basically reversed his course.

You know, overruled Stephen Miller, kind of puts him in the penalty box.

overrules Nome, sends Tom Homan up to Minneapolis.

We now know that almost all the surge of troops there have been pulled out.

Like a very dramatic reversal that happens very quickly.

You know, if you were to ask Susie, why did that happen?

She would say, well, the president made that decision to do that.

But I think there was like a clear...

set of discussions engineered by Susie and other people in the White House to basically allow for such a dramatic shift to happen.

And I don't know if Reince Priebus or some of the other people who worked for him in the first term, you know, would have been able to guide that process in the same way.

Yeah, no, absolutely not.