 OK, good afternoon, everybody, members of the Institute, members of the International Law Association, ladies and gentlemen. It's my great pleasure to welcome you here today to hear Professor Harold Hongjoo Coe provide us with a view from the United States on the topic of international law under stress. Let me remind you at the outset that while the lecture is public, the question and answer session afterwards is subject to the Chatham House rule. So first of all, I would like to thank Professor Coe for kindly agreeing to come to Dublin en route from the United States to the UK and for agreeing to speak to the Irish branch of the International Law Association of which I'm president. And I'd particularly like to thank Jill Donahoe and Owen O'Keefe and the Institute for so generously agreeing to co-host this event this afternoon. Professor Coe will speak for approximately half an hour followed by questions and answers, and then we must finish at 2 PM sharp because Harold has to get to the airport for the next leg of his journey. So ladies and gentlemen, Harold Hongjoo Coe is a very distinguished international lawyer and a champion of human rights. He has an extremely lengthy CV, but as time is short, I'll just give you some of the main highlights. Harold is currently Sterling Professor of International Law at Yale Law School, which he initially joined in 1985 as a very young man indeed. He returned to Yale in 2013 after serving for four years as legal advisor in the State Department. Harold was legal advisor during the tenure of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and he received the Secretary of States Distinguished Service Award for his work. He had previously served in the State Department as Assistant Secretary for Human Rights during the administration of President Bill Clinton. Harold has degrees from Harvard and Oxford and 17 honorary degrees and counting, I'm sure. He has over 30 awards for his work on human rights, including a Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Bar Association. He's the author of eight books and numerous publications on international law. He's litigated in various courts and tribunals, including the United States Supreme Court and the International Court of Justice. Harold is a citizen of the United States, born to Korean parents, with very strong Irish connections through his wife, Christy Fisher, herself, a distinguished lawyer, and their two children. Harold is going to address us in a few moments on a wide range of international legal issues, so I won't take up much time now telling you my own views on international law, but suffice it to say, whilst it's not a panacea, international law is an important tool in finding solutions to the issues that face the international community and particularly difficult issues in difficult times. However, it's not only the law, but the lawyers who apply it, interpret it, and help to shape it who can provide these solutions. And Harold is a prime example of someone who does this and has done this with great courage and distinction throughout his long and varied career. Harold and I first met during his tenure as State Department Legal Advisor, and we really came to know each other during the biannual dialogue on international law between the U.S. State Department Legal Advisor and his or her EU Foreign Ministry counterparts. The dialogue, having first been initiated by Harold's predecessor, John Bellinger, in the latter years of President George W. Bush's administration. This dialogue continued during Harold's term and indeed that of his successors. Each State Department is a highly distinguished lawyer, politically appointed, supported by a very skilled and dedicated team of career public service colleagues. These discussions are so valuable because if lawyers get to know each other, then they may come to trust each other and ideally become friends. And this helps us in our task of crafting solutions to deal with the issues and problems which we face. Harold was a particularly engaging and engaged participant in our dialogues. He helped to find common ground and even on occasions where we disagreed that disagreement was couched in respectful terms. He's a great friend to me and to many of my colleagues throughout Europe. And bearing in mind his great qualities, I'm sure will be educated, entertained and stimulated by the address he will now give us. So ladies and gentlemen, Professor Harold Hong-Ju Koh. Well, thank you, James. And it's just wonderful to be here. I look for every available opportunity to come to Ireland because my wife's family is from Nakh. We call it coming here a blessed event. And the other part of her family is from our ma and Belfast. It's a place where I have wonderful students to have here today, Conor Casey and Una Breen who have gone on to great distinction. And I have wonderful friends, James Kingston, who is really an icon for all of us on heroic work and international law. And I've been very excited to meet with other friends and to be here at the Institute through the kind invitation of Jill and Owen and also the Irish branch of the International Law Association. As James described, I've had four live streams as a professor, a dean, human rights lawyer and a government official. Please don't add these up as we say in the criminal law, some of these sentences ran concurrently. This is the most famous picture of me. Which became a meme during Hillary Clinton's campaign. We were on a plane and they put us in these seats in the middle of the plane and started taking photographs. It was a little awkward. So we started texting each other. What I texted her is look over your shoulder. That's what she's actually reading, not who run the world girls, although it would be better if they did. I mention that because when we mentioned that international law is under stress, it is the Trump administration that for the last two years has put it under stress. If you're having trouble reading this, don't worry, I'll just talk you through it. The concern is that Trump's strategy will permanently change our relationship with international law and institutions. And one of the questions I'm repeatedly asked is, is there a counter strategy that we can deploy to preserve the rule of law? This is a subject on which I wrote a book for Oxford University Press. It's called The Trump Administration International Law. I was asked by one of our Supreme Court justices, can you summarize your book in three words or less? And I said yes, he's not winning. Now this came as a surprise and in fact I think people were happy to hear this because if you've been following the day to day, which maybe you shouldn't do, every day Trump seems to be doing something which is more shocking and more disruptive than anything that's happened before. But because there's other things that happen in the afternoon, people have just sort of lost track of what things he's done. Ooh, I'm not getting it. So the counter strategy, and you can ignore the words which are too small here, it's very simple. From the outside, generate interactions that lead to interpretations that lead to internalizations. This is what I call transnational legal process. For example, if you wanna preserve international law and you're outside the government, sue Trump, interact, create an interpretation of law that then it becomes binding as a matter of domestic law and constrains his behavior. If you're inside the government, I suggest that you use a strategy which I call engage, translate and leverage. When in doubt, government officials should engage with their allies on common issues, try to translate from existing situations to the present day. That's indeed what James and I did in these sessions with our European allies and then try to leverage these legal bases into long-term diplomatic solutions. If you use these two strategies in conjunction from the outside, interact, interpret, internalize or transnational legal process and international law is smart power, engage, translate and leverage from the inside of the government, you make international law sticky. It's hard for one person to change it. It creates powerful default patterns of compliance. And I think what we're watching is Trump trying to break these default patterns and being largely unsuccessful. Now, if this is too complicated, let me analogize it to the greatest prize fight of all time. As you may recall, the great Muhammad Ali in his later days was fighting against a much younger, stronger opponent. And what he did in the first round, he retreated to the ropes and let his opponent, George Foreman, pound him. This went on for eight rounds. And during that period, he covered up, he counterpunched, he taunted his opponent. And his opponent got exhausted just from flailing around. And then when his opponent was weakened, he knocked him out. I mention this because if you had watched the sixth or seventh round of that fight, everybody thought that Foreman was winning. In fact, he was about to be knocked out. And it's my position that that's about where we are. Everybody's focused on this wild flurry of activity by Trump. In fact, I think he is on the verge of collapse. Now, where did the idea of international law, smart power, or engaged translate and leverage come from? You can consider it the Obama-Clinton doctrine in that this was the process that Obama pursued and Hillary Clinton implemented. It came from her famous statement about international law and U.S. foreign policy as smart power, using the full range of tools at our disposal, including respect for the rule of law, diplomacy, and human rights to achieve outcomes. If Hillary Clinton had been elected president and she in fact got three million more votes, that would continue to be the policy of the United States. I mention this because Trump's policy is the opposite. Wherever possible, disengage unilateralism. Do not try to translate rules of law to new situations. Just rely on power politics. And don't try to leverage from law to other situations. If anything, go it alone without any kind of diplomatic engagement strategy. Now, it's a bit much to say that Trump has strategy. He exhibits impulses. The main impulse reverse what Obama did and Hillary would have done. It's an isolationist hard power posture, withdraw from global leadership, disengage from international institutions. And when challenged, he makes extreme claims of presidential power, citing national security. His means are even clearer. He denigrates expertise. He would diminish diplomacy as a tool. He would gut the career of bureaucracy. He challenges what the media says about him as fake news. And most important, as I mentioned, he floods the zone with constant tweets that confuse people and that make them think almost anything is possible. Let me in the very brief time I have illustrate this counter strategy as it plays out across the realm of US foreign policy. I do this not so that you're persuaded by any one of them, but so that you see the broad pattern. So his signature policy is immigration. Travel bans attack on sanctuary cities, building a wall, attacking the caravan. His real strategy in immigration is shock and awe. To scare immigrants so that they deport themselves, he has taken the extraordinary step of separating children from their parents, saying he will end birthright citizenship, deporting those people who were brought here as children and have no other place to live, the so-called dreamers. Most recently that he will pursue immigration based on skills and not family relations. He treats refugees and asylees as terrorists, not as a favorite of the international law which they should be. He expresses hostility to the courts and perhaps most disgusting. He's willing to bomb for the same Syrian children who he will not admit to the United States. What happened, well here's my wife, you can see she's a bona fide Irish woman. My daughter concealing her red hair, my son also red haired was marching in another city. On inauguration day which of course had the greatest crowd in history, there was almost nobody there, we know because we were there. The next day, millions of people marched in protest. This was the mobilization of the opposition chanting this is what democracy looks like. The next day Trump instituted the travel ban, the first one, blocking people from coming from seven majority Muslim countries. This was an outrageous policy. First, because it was illegal. It violates the covenant on civil and political rights, it violates our constitutional law. Second, it was wildly over and under inclusive which means that on the one hand, nobody from any of these countries had ever committed a lethal terrorist attack. Let me repeat that, no one, not a single person from any of the seven countries had ever committed a lethal terrorist attack. On the other hand, people from countries that were not on the list like Saudi Arabia had committed dozens. Now Trump ludicrously said, we need a system of extreme vetting. What he didn't appreciate is that that's what we had. We have a system of extreme vetting of individuals. But here's the catch, our whole system of immigration and counter-terrorism is about individuals. You can have someone who looks very innocent, who in fact has joined Al Qaeda. What we do not do is hold people responsible for stereotypes based on who they worship. Or as Dr. King famously said, we judge people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. It was a crazy process seen by no senior official. They never judged that it would cost more than $2 billion in the first three years. So my students and I founded a rule of law clinic and what we did was we organized a whole series of former famous officials, many of whom you know, Secretary Albright, Secretary Kerry, in which what we pointed out was many of these people had been in the government on the 20th of January. No new threat had arisen in the intervening seven days. So there was no basis for this threat. What Trump didn't absorb is that there would be deep resistance by the bureaucracy. This is what he calls the deep state. A thousand state department officials protested saying, we're better than this. Trump never checked to see whether the Justice Department would defend his ban. They wouldn't. And so he forced the acting attorney general to resign. Our students at Yale Law School, clinical students, were representing immigrants who were being blocked at the airports. And they filed a habeas class action motion which is kind of unusual. They went to John F. Kennedy Airport and uploaded templates about habeas petitions that could be filed by anyone. Across America, 4,000 volunteer lawyers, none of whom know anything about immigration or refugee law, went and they downloaded our templates, put in the names of their particular clients and got parts of the ban revoked on the spot. The Uber, Lyft and taxi drivers who were driving them to the airports joined the protest and then suddenly in less than a week, the protest that had been on the streets of the big cities had moved into the airports. The military protested, tech companies, you understand that well from here in Ireland, obviously immigration is critical to tech development. Key Republicans like the Koch brothers, Dick Cheney and John Yu, let me repeat this, the Koch brothers, Dick Cheney and John Yu said this is too much for us, saying a lot. 20 courts ruled against the ban and it was withdrawn. Our allies weighed in, including Ireland, Republican members of Congress, state attorneys general, universities spoke against, our bureaucracies have leaked against this at an unprecedented level. The second executive order was also withdrawn. At this point, our group of signatories had grown to 49. We were applying the famous theory of Bill Clinton. It doesn't matter how much lipstick you put on that pig, it's still a pig, you know? It doesn't care what you call a Muslim ban, it's still a Muslim ban. By this time it had been substantially narrowed. Culture, Saturday Night Live, late night comedians, the revival of Alec Baldwin's career. Trevor Noah, Stephen Colbert, the media, there were dozens of marches. Finally, it was narrowed to a travel ban 3.0. Now, as you may know, the Supreme Court upheld the ban by a five to four margin. But what people haven't appreciated is the case goes on. In fact, it's now in the discovery phase. All they did was they said it wasn't illegal on its face. It's being challenged as applied. It also is being challenged in European courts because people fly through European capital subject to the European Convention to get to the United States. And now there's legislation to overrule it in the Congress. So it's not over. And what this illustrates is that there's been resistance at every stage. The point is that Trump's signature policy immigration is being challenged at every turn. He adopted the zero tolerance policy which led to separating parents from their children. They're blocked by two judges, his own wife plus the Pope protested. He then switched to say he was opposed to birthright citizenship. Unfortunately, our 14th amendment says all citizens, all persons born in the United States are citizens. He can't change that on his own. It's a legal requirement. He then tried to build a wall claiming a national emergency. It was blocked on Friday. We have five lawsuits going. I think this will be the case that goes to the Supreme Court that strikes down his claim of presidential power. What about human rights, an admitted disaster? The first man Rex Tillerson was briefly the worst secretary of state in American history. I knew that when he said he wasn't ready to judge human rights in Saudi Arabia, China, the Philippines, he wasn't ready to pass judgment on Erdogan's irregular referendum. I was assistant secretary for democracy, human rights and labor and Tillerson acquiesced in an effort to try to remove the words democracy and human rights from the mission statement of the state department. So he was fired by Tweet. Mike Pompeo who succeeded him recently in his bilateral press conference with Jeremy Hunt was asked, what do you think about Corbyn speaking up for Maduro? And he said, it's disgusting when a democratic leader apologizes for human rights abuses. It sure is. It equally applies to Trump's actions on Khashoggi, North Korea, Xi Jinping, Putin, et cetera. The United States is withdrawn from the Human Rights Council, attacked the International Criminal Court, and been pathetically quiet on human rights in Korea. Now, one of the key issues has been, Trump's claim that he will return to torture, but there are two problems. One, it's illegal. Obama declared it illegal at the end of his time. These prohibitions exist everywhere and all places. Second, it doesn't work. Shane O'Mara who lives here in Dublin, a professor of neuroscience demonstrated in a very powerful book called Why Torture Doesn't Work. The torture is a meaningless act. Every single recollection that's supposed to be affected by these torture methods is actually impaired. So there's no reason to think that you're getting any kind of truthful information from torture. You're just getting whatever it'll take to make the torture stop. But Congress has forbidden torture by both treaty and statute. And even though Mattis, Kelly, and Sessions are gone, the other three are still there, Haspel, head of the CIA, Pompeo, and Barr. I don't like them. Every one of them has taken a pledge in front of Congress that they won't execute a torture order. So there's no report of torture under Trump. Now, Trump said, I will pardon war criminals. Today, Memorial Day, he didn't do it. Why? Because the US military protested. This is the internalization of these norms, which makes it very difficult for even a willful chief executive to change the way things go. What about Paris, the environment? This is another brilliant example of engaged, translate, and leverage. Many people believe that the United States has withdrawn. We haven't withdrawn yet. The treaty, as a matter of law, says, you can't give notice till November 4th, 2019. That's this fall. If we give notice, the United States won't withdraw until November 4th, 2020. That's the day after the next presidential election. If a Democrat is elected and announces we're staying in, we'll never leave. Now, what about the fact the president doesn't come in till January? Well, we might have to ask the Paris parties for an extension, but I think you know how that is done. The point is that Trump is not leaving. His default is what I call resigning without leaving, staying in and underperforming. This man, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said leave, he's gone, because of corruption. Under the Miller case here, if you try to withdraw from the treaty without parliamentary participation, it will be struck down, and there will be such litigation in the United States. The Clean Power Plan, which implements the Paris Agreement, is still in effect, and it will be litigated for years. Other players are compensating. So, we're still in. In fact, the group says we're still in. The United States was in a rear of its UN dues for many years, but the next administration couldn't make it up. The message is the same. Trump doesn't own climate change, all of us do. How about trade? Again, Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. He thought that would end it, it's continued. And now the other countries joined it, and the United States doesn't have access to the Asian markets. And so, Trump is trying to get back in. He said he'd renegotiate with Korea and the North American Free Trade Agreement. He forgot that he needs South Korea for the North Korean negotiations. So, the South Koreans won the renegotiation. Now we have the new MCA, Mexico-Canada Agreement. Trump simply changed the name. We might ask why MCA? Or as some of us call it, the Ushmaka, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. It hasn't been approved. It won't be approved before the election. And if you look at the key provisions, it's the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The very provision that Trump rejected are actually the core of what he wants people to accept. What about the Iran nuclear deal? Again, engage, translate, and leverage. It was a remarkable diplomatic achievement. It led to the reduction of enriched uranium stockpiles by 98%. And the International Atomic Energy Agency has certified 12 times that Iran is complying. The United States withdrew under Trump. All it did was strengthen Iran's hardliners. Rouhani has tried to buy some time by threatening to disengage, to put the Europeans to a choice between Europe and the United States. But the Israelis, most of them, don't see the benefit of getting into a war. The Democratic House won't support withdrawal. Bombing wouldn't destroy Iran's nuclear program. It would only drive it underground. The only long-term solution here is negotiations. And here's the catch. If Trump really wants a negotiation with North Korea, he can't walk away from the only negotiation he has, which is with Iran. And what we're already seeing is that Trump is repeating the pattern of first insulting people by tweet and then negotiating in Iran that you already saw in North Korea. So my guess is that the Iran Agreement will hold. It's obviously shaky. This brings me to North Korea. I went to North Korea three times. I was on the last diplomatic mission to North Korea with Albright in 2000. We went for five days. Talk about an irresponsible policy. Trump first threatened to bomb them with fire and fury. And now he says, I fell in love with one of the worst human rights violators in the world. He attacked Tillerson for negotiating, and then he negotiated. Kim is a smart man. He looks funny, but he's smart. He knew he was entering a great poker game, and so he escalated. He built weapons to bargain. And then the mountain, he was testing them and broke. And so then he de-escalated and bargained. And one of his great moves, we used to see this all the time, you're all arrested and the Trump appears, you're all released. You should get no credit for that. It's obviously, but what happened was, this is what Kim did, and Trump said they were released because of me. Yes, they were also arrested because of you. And then astonishing piece of incompetence. Trump agreed at Singapore to move toward denuclearization on a handshake. Well, I'm moving this toward you, now I'm moving it back. It doesn't specify anything. And so, we have no agreement on denuclearization, cyberspace or human rights. As you may notice, Kim keeps testing. He's been testing a projectile. He calls it a projectile because it's not in violation of the agreement. Meanwhile, Trump keeps canceling sanctions here's the thing. When we were negotiating with the Koreans, we would never give a tin pot dictator the advantage of saying they had met with the president of the United States without making, they're making all of the concessions upfront. They should decommission reactors, destroy nuclear weapons, allow full transparency, release political prisoners, say that they will stop interfering in cyberspace and then we might allow a photo opportunity. Trump gave it all away in the first minute, getting nothing in return. Otto Warmbier died. Trump took Kim Jong-un at his word that he wasn't involved. This is an astonishing piece of foolishness. And then, perhaps most important, no one believes that the North Koreans would affect the US economy by ICBM launch. They would use cyber commands. How do we know? They already did in the Sony hack and the WannaCry virus. They took that a very significant part of Sony's grid for two weeks. So what should be the first word out of Trump's mouth? Do not touch our grid. No mention of this. No mention of human rights. Astonishing incompetence. Now, Mike Pence weighed in saying we've rejected the Obama policy of strategic patience. For what? Strategic impatience? The New York Times said we're back to square one. The policy is what it was. Diplomacy, deterrence, containment, sanctions, cyber sabotage. The Hanai summit. Trump went in there, botched the summit and then he walked away. Anyone who's any lawyer knows, you don't have a high stakes negotiation where the only options are you get everything you want or you walk away. You create a third option. They didn't do that. The North Koreans were allowed to have the summit without involving the South Koreans or the Japanese on thinkable. And what Trump has really done with North Korea is he just stopped tweeting about it. He tweeted it up, created a crisis, and then it turned into a disaster so he stopped tweeting about it. But here's the catch. If Trump were ever to get a deal with the North Koreans, the best possible deal he could get would look like the Iran nuclear deal which he just walked away from. In fact, the texts that they are debating now for North Korea are based on the Iran nuclear deal which Trump called the worst deal in history. On counter-terrorism the same. Obama, and this is a lot of what I looked through with James and my European colleagues, tried to narrow the so-called war on terror. We said that drones are a tool but not a strategy, the real strategy, engage, translate, and leverage. Trump unilaterally is leaving Afghanistan. As a result, the Taliban are just saying whatever they want so he'll leave. Obama had tried to integrate targeting and detention, lawful targeting, lawful detention, and no torture and lawful cooperation into a more restrained policy. Trump is undoing that but we're not sure exactly how because it's all classified. On ISIS, Trump claims victory because the hard power planks of his plan seem to have destroyed ISIS and its elements. But on money, internet, and alliances, the soft power pieces of the Hillary Clinton plan, Trump has done nothing and these are the real keys to stopping attacks on the homeland. This brings us to Russia and the Mueller report. A lot to read there but two astonishing conclusions. First, the Russians interfered in the election in a sweeping and systematic fashion by a social media and computer intrusion campaign against Clinton. The investigation didn't establish coordination but intended and Trump benefited from deep infiltration of his campaign. The most shocking thing is that Trump took no steps at all to stop this. If I was stealing something and giving it to James and James didn't report that this was happening, we would find this shocking. Trump happily received this information. And when Trump heard about the appointment of special prosecutor, he famously said, that's the end of my presidency. I'm, as Trevor Noah put it well, is that the response of an innocent man? The question is not collusion, it's the extent of Russian infiltration and criminal conspiracy. The second part of the report recounts 10 detailed incidents of obstruction of justice which his subordinates refused to carry out. And here's the key phrase. If we had confidence he didn't commit obstruction, we'd sow state but we're unable to reach that judgment. We can't clear him of this massive crime. Now Mueller said I couldn't prosecute him because of our standing policy. But this is a stunning indictment. They can't clear him of repeated episodes of obstruction of justice. Again, 1,000 plus former prosecutors have weighed in. They said the overwhelming weight of judgment would come down in favor of prosecution. These are not matters of close professional judgment. Mueller's own report has made it clear that Trump could be prosecuted after he leaves office. What's coming is subpoenas, 34 indictments, 12 investigations. Trump is panicking, more electoral challenges and what you could call slow motion impeachment. Remember nobody claimed that Nixon collaborated in the theft from the Democratic National Committee at Watergate, he just covered it up. So it doesn't matter whether Trump participated, he's covering it up. And that will be the basis for a possible impeachment. He said I had no dealings with Russia, except for all of these. The last is the most interesting. Was there a collaboration with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange and the Russians? It's only the end of the beginning. You're gonna see repeated calls from Mueller to testify, Attorney General Barr will be held in contempt. Many documents will be subpoenaed. They'll censure Trump. They may pursue slow motion impeachment. Congress should call on the states to protect electoral outcomes in the future. All of this sets Trump up for paralysis this year and a knockout next year. As for Putin, he said what interference? After all, he's winning. But the hack violated international law. Interestingly, the policy against Russia has gotten tougher despite Trump, particularly after the Salisbury nerve agents, the Russian sanctions kicked in. The question now is will the Russians try to steer with their computer exercises the 2020 elections toward Bernie Sanders, who Trump can beat? And will they end up trying to influence the result of a second UK referendum? There's no reason to think that they won't. Finally though, to calm the waters, Mike Pompeo reaffirmed he's still opposed, the US is still opposed to the annexation of Crimea. I'm one of the lawyers for Ukraine. I'm going to the Hague after this and we're gonna litigate both before the International Court of Justice and the Law of the Sea. On Saturday, we got an order-ordering release of Ukrainian ships, so you'll see more on this as things move forward. What's at stake is what Emmanuel Kant called a law-governed society among free sovereign states like ourselves and Ireland, explicating our shared values. What Trump has put forward instead is an Orwellian view of spheres of influence where the great powers rule in their domain and lie about it. This is where the authoritarians are rising. Trump has seized on the fact that globalization hurt the middle class and enhanced inequality to join a group of nationalist authoritarians. They all share the same playbook. They attack courts, they reject diversity, they call legislators, they demonize immigrants, they disparage bureaucrats, they attack the media, they reward their cronies, and they call on populism over constitutional checks and balances. You could add to this mix Nigel Farage. And it's a flawed diagnosis. The United States has a positive sum relationship with the world, not zero sum. Globalization can make the middle class better off. You've seen that here in Ireland. Immigrants and aliens can be part of the solution. And the United States should continue to exert its sovereignty through international organizations, not resign from them. But what Brexit is teaching us is breaking up is hard to do. It's not easy to exit. Many of our citizens want what these international regimes offer. Staying in and underperforming is curable down the road. And in the end, Trump cares less about actually leaving than he does about saying he's leaving. Now these regimes may suffer damage. Remember that Muhammad Ali was ultimately unglued because of this kind of battering. Our alliances, our bureaucracy, our media, and most fundamentally, we're wasting time with Trump when we should be addressing the real problems of the world. The leadership vacuum being filled by Russia and China. But our challenge is to support the system of global governance, not trash it. So will Trump, Donald Trump international law, will his coalition hold or break? Will he get knocked out by impeachment, losing the political process, prosecution, or the 25th Amendment? Will the Republicans dispose of him in favor of someone more palatable, like Romney or Haley or Pence? Here's the tally so far to those of you who think Trump's winning. He's got two justices and some tax cuts. He has executive orders with no impact. Most of his senior officials have resigned. No legislation. He's losing all of his immigration suits. He hasn't gotten a torture order. He hasn't withdrawn from Paris. North Korea needs an Iran deal. The Iran deal is still shaky and beholding. He lost on Russian sanctions. The trade wars are hurting our economy. After Mueller, many more investigations to come. He lost the House of Representatives and he's gonna face huge electoral challenges. One of my favorite jokes is Mel Brooks, the 2,000-year-old man, is asked, before God was there someone else, he said, yes, there was a guy called Phil. And we used to say to him, oh, Phil, don't beat us and don't kick us. And then one day, lightning came out of the sky and struck Phil dead. And we said, there's something bigger than Phil. Well, there's something bigger than Trump. It's transnational legal process. He's not the only player in the process, we all own it. The counter strategy is battered, but it's working and we need to keep fighting for it. The message is not just resistance, it's resilience. We need not just to resist Trump for now, but to rebuild our system after it's gone. And I say to all of you who wonder, where is the America that you believe in? We're still here, we're still fighting. Donald Trump doesn't speak for us. As our friends from Liverpool like to say, we can get by, but we need a little help from our friends. Thank you. Thank you.