GEOFF BENNETT: From the White House press secretary's exit after just five days on the job to President Trump's renewed feud with Ukraine's president, we turn tonight to the analysis of Capehart and Continetti.

That's Jonathan Capehart of MS NOW and Matthew Continetti, a Wall Street Journal, opinion columnist and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

David Brooks is away this evening.

Good evening, gentlemen.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Hey, Geoff.

MATTHEW CONTINETTI, American Enterprise Institute: Good evening.

GEOFF BENNETT: So President Trump's press secretary, former press secretary, Katie Zacharia, is out after five days on the job.

That's, what, roughly half a Scaramucci.

The president was said to be embarrassed by coverage of the briefing that she held earlier this week, and he spoke to aides and allies, and there was no one willing to defend her.

Jonathan, given the fact that the White House press secretary is the most visible role, among the most visible roles in any administration, what do you make of the way this all came together and then unceremoniously fell apart?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, the person at the center of all of this, besides Ms.

Zacharia, is the president.

He's the one who gave her the job.

He's the one, because of the bad press, told her maybe she should think about do doing other things.

This is a job that should have never been offered to her.

This is a job she never should have accepted.

The thought I have is, the White House press secretary is one of the most prestigious jobs there is in the administration, particularly the number of former journalists who've held that role.

And she doesn't even come close to rising to that level, one, just to be in the job, and then performing the job.

Look, it is not an easy job.

We have seen new press secretaries come in.

They're raw.

They're rough.

They're nervous, understandably, but, over time, you see them getting better.

And watching her in real time, it -- I felt for her, because there was just -- she was thrown in the deep end without very much help, and then didn't help herself when questions started coming up about her credentials.

GEOFF BENNETT: What does this say about the president's priorities and the White House's vetting process how this all came together?

MATTHEW CONTINETTI: Well, I don't think there was a vetting process, and that was part of the problem.

But I think, when you step back, you see that the White House is beginning to show signs of second-term-itis.

And when you have the talented folks, they start leaving.

Karoline Leavitt left big shoes to fill.

And so you're searching for replacements.

You're not always getting exactly what you want, or they're not meeting the marks that you would like them to meet.

And so we have had a flurry of stories in the past week about potential infighting in the White House, attacks against the chief of staff.

President Trump has to defend Chief of Staff Susie Wiles today on his way to his latest trip, press secretary mess, political consultants' infighting.

This is only going to get worse as we approach the end of Donald Trump's term.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: But could we just say, in any other administration, there would be incredible heat right now on the White House chief of staff?

There's no way a functioning White House with a powerful functioning chief of staff would ever have allowed Ms.

Zacharia to even be -- to have a meeting with the president about this job.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, let's shift our focus to something a bit more consequential, and that is this apparent rupture between President Trump and President Zelenskyy.

President Trump says he finds Ukraine's President Zelenskyy more difficult to deal with than Vladimir Putin.

At the same time, his administration is pressing -- pressuring Ukraine to stop attacking Russian oil facilities, even as Russia continues striking Ukrainian cities.

What explains the president's apparent willingness to exert more pressure on the country being invaded than the country that invaded it?

MATTHEW CONTINETTI: Well, I think President Trump has always wanted to find some type of peace in Ukraine and between Ukraine and Russia.

And now he has the added challenge of wanting lower diesel prices, in particular lower fuel overall.

But President Trump has also always thought that Ukraine is the obstacle to peace in the Ukraine-Russia war, when, in fact, it's the opposite.

Right now, I have -- he has all the tools granted to him by Congress in the Lindsey Graham Sanctions Act to actually apply the pressure where it is needed.

And that's the pressure on Vladimir Putin, who is responding to setbacks on the ground by escalating his proxy war against NATO and also escalating his attacks on civilians in Ukraine.

GEOFF BENNETT: What about that, the president effectively subordinating Ukraine's security to his own domestic political needs, which is to bring down rising energy prices?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, try to.

The diesel deal, which I can't believe was only a week ago that it was announced just before we came on, is about, to his mind, lowering prices here.

But it's not going to happen.

It's not going to happen in the short term that he needs it to happen.

This is just one more piece in an ongoing effort by the United States and by President Trump to make Volodymyr Zelenskyy, make him knuckle under to the pressures and the whims and the desires of Vladimir Putin.

I mean, Matthew, you call it, some -- the president wants to bring about some type of peace.

I call -- it's capitulation.

Every time the two of them seem to talk, it is always about, Ukraine, you must do this.

You must give up your territory.

You must accede to the wishes of the country that invaded you.

And thank God for President Zelenskyy and being able to do so much with so little help from the United States.

MATTHEW CONTINETTI: I would just say, what strikes me about the diesel deal and the calls for Zelenskyy to step down was how out of the blue they were.

And so we were in a position, I think, where the Trump administration had the right policy with Ukraine.

And as recently as the UNGA in September, President Trump had a pretty good meeting with Zelenskyy.

What intervened?

A phone call with Vladimir Putin.

And the phone call was supposed to be about this lab leak.

Instead, we got this string of anti-Zelenskyy pronouncements.

That's what needs to change, and the pressure needs to be -- go back where it belongs, on Putin.

GEOFF BENNETT: In the time that remains, I want to talk about what is the intersection of money and influence at the White House and this new reporting about who's paying for the president's ballroom.

The Washington Post obtained records identifying major donors to President Trump's $330 million White House ballroom project.

You have got individuals and companies that have benefited from government contracts, regulatory decisions, even a presidential pardon.

What concern, Jonathan, does this raise about the intersection of private money and public power?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: I mean, this -- there is a poll.

I cannot remember where it's from.

It's brand-new, showing that corruption, concerns about corruption is the number one issue for those surveyed.

It's like up in the upper 80s, 80 percent.

This, the ballroom in this story, is a perfect crystallization of that, folks who are regulated by the federal government giving money to a ballroom, to a president who initially told everybody, this isn't going to cost anyone anything, I'm going to -- I am going to pay for it, I am going to put money into it.

And as we now know, not a single dollar is coming out of Donald Trump's pocket or his family's pocket for this ballroom.

And so what I wonder is, where -- this is a rhetorical question.

Where is Congress?

This should not be happening without any kind of congressional oversight, and certainly no private funding should be happening on public land, and particularly at the White House, in a spot where the president demolished the East Wing to put this up.

GEOFF BENNETT: And there will be those who say presidents have always relied on wealthy donors and have cultivated relationships with corporate America.

What, if anything, is different about this arrangement?

MATTHEW CONTINETTI: Well, private money was used to build the bowling alley at the White House.

It was used to build the pool in the White House.

And, in a way, the president is stuck in a crossfire here, because, as Jonathan said, he said he and his private donors would pay for the ballroom because Congress wasn't going to appropriate the funds.

Well, now he's being attacked for paying it with private funds.

The end result would be, what, just a hole in the ground?

At some point, the ballroom is going to be completed.

And then I think, to Jonathan's point, the next Congress is going to start taking a look at how not only this deal was financed, but also the broader questions about corruption that surround this administration.

GEOFF BENNETT: Right.

There are questions about transparency.

The Washington Post had to get these secret documents to identify the major donors.

Why shouldn't the White House be required to disclose those donors?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Yes, that's an excellent question, Geoff.

Yes, they should be required, especially because this is something involving the people's house, involving the White House, something that is a pet project of the president.

And the other thing that I forgot to mention is, right, yes, private entities have always given money and helped support.

But the question, particularly with this White House, what are they getting in return?

GEOFF BENNETT: Jonathan Capehart, Matthew Continetti.

MATTHEW CONTINETTI: A big, beautiful ballroom they're getting in return.

(LAUGHTER) GEOFF BENNETT: It's certainly big.