GOP ANTI-DEMOCRACY - Dictator House Speaker Locks Democrats

As I've said before, the GOP cannot win playing by the rules, so the always rig the 'game.'

"McCarthy locks out leading Democrats from key committees, sparking partisan outrage" PBS NewsHour 1/25/2023

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Historic levels of drama played out over the first few weeks of the new Congress [House].  Legislative leaders are just now beginning to get into the day-to-day of Capitol Hill.  This week, Speaker Kevin McCarthy sparked outrage when he locked out leading Democrats from key committees.  Lisa Desjardins has a look at what's happening now and what's to come.

OPINION - Capehart and Abernathy 11/18/2022

"Capehart and Abernathy on the special counsel appointed to oversee Trump investigations" PBS NewsHour 11/18/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Washington Post columnists Jonathan Capehart and Gary Abernathy join Amna Nawaz to discuss the week in politics, including a special counsel appointed to investigate former President Trump, the balance of power in Washington [DC] and the battle for leadership on Capitol Hill.

U.S. CONSTITUTION'S "IRON LADY" - Nancy Pelosi

"Pelosi steps down from Democratic leadership after Republicans win control of House" PBS NewsHour 11/17/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  It was a day of momentous change in the U.S. House of Representatives. Republicans began laying plans after finally nailing down a majority and with the loss of the House confirmed, Speaker Nancy Pelosi surrendered her longtime position as Democratic leader. Congressional Correspondent Lisa Desjardins reports.

POLITICS IN AMERICA - The GOP and "Red Wave" That Wasn't

"Republican leadership on Capitol Hill in flux after midterm results" PBS NewsHour 11/14/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Lawmakers return to Capitol Hill after a drawn-out midterm battle for power.  Democrats kept control in the upper chamber, but a Georgia runoff will determine if they gain a seat or return to a 50-50 Senate.  The balance of power in the House is still pending as several races are still being counted.  All of this has put several key leadership issues in flux for Republicans.  Lisa Desjardins reports.

 

 

"How election deniers fared in their midterm races" PBS NewsHour 11/14/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Nearly a week after Election Day, we're getting a clearer picture of the winners and losers.  We're also seeing how the candidates who spread baseless lies about the last presidential election are faring.  Tammy Patrick of the non-partisan Democracy Fund joined Amna Nawaz to discuss the results.

 

 

"Factions of the GOP wrangle for power and influence" PBS NewsHour 11/15/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  With all but a handful of races decided, next year's Congress will be one of the most evenly divided in the country's history.  Legislative leaders will wrangle with fragile coalitions within and across parties, complicating even basic functions.  But first, leaders will need to convince their colleagues to put them in charge.  Lisa Desjardins reports.

 

 

"Republicans on the state of the party and Trump’s role in it" PBS NewsHour 11/15/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Disappointing midterm outcomes for Republicans prompted the party to question its future and its leaders.  Nearly all of former President Trump's hand-picked candidates in key races were defeated, but he may soon announce another run for the White House.  Republican strategist Barrett Marson and Daniel McCarthy joined Laura Barrón-López to discuss the Republican party and Trump's role in it.

 

 

"A historical perspective on Trump’s 2024 presidential bid" PBS NewsHour 11/20/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Former president Donald Trump launched a third bid for the White House this past week as he faces multiple investigations.  Meanwhile, Democrats are eyeing a generational shift in House leadership as Nancy Pelosi announced she will not seek reelection to the role of Speaker.  Beverly Gage, a professor of history and American studies at Yale University, joins Geoff Bennett to discuss.

OPINION - Brooks and Capehart 8/12/2022

"Brooks and Capehart on the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, the investigations surrounding Trump" PBS NewsHour 8/12/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including the multiple investigations hanging over former President Trump and primary victories by his supporters who are election deniers.

Judy Woodruff (News:Hour):  The press, politicians and the public are struggling to untangle a knot of questions, new and old, following the unprecedented FBI search of a former President home earlier this week, which leads us to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.

That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.

Hello to both of you.  It's Friday night.  Good to have you with us again.

And there's one story that's dominating the news today.

Jonathan, I'm going to start with you.

I hardly know where to begin.  But what do you make of this?  I mean, the FBI carted off 11 boxes, we're learning, of various degrees of confidential material this week.

Jonathan Capehart (Washington Post):  My head is still spinning.

And not just any material.  Some of the material, we now know from the released warrant, have to — have either classified markings, top-secret markings, or sensitive, compartmented information, which is probably the highest level of security intelligence documents there are.  You can only read those in secure locations, and they're not meant to be taken out of those secured locations.

Judy I'm trying to look at this, not from a partisan lens, not from my particular perspective, as someone center and left, but as just an American, taking out the name of the person involved.

We have just seen a former President of the United States be subpoenaed in June for documents, ignored the subpoena.  The FBI gets a search warrant based on three aspects of the Espionage Act.  They wait three days to execute it.  They execute that search warrant against a former President of the United States.

And now we're learning that some of the most sensitive information a government official can have access to, he had with him more than a year after being out of office at his private residence.

Judy Woodruff:  What should we make of this?

Jonathan Capehart:  Under normal circumstances…

Judy Woodruff:  Oh, I'm sorry.  I thought you were stopping.

Go ahead, Jonathan.

Jonathan Capehart:  No, I was just going to say, under normal circumstances, everything's should be on fire, because we should not be in the situation.  No President has done this.  No President should do this.  But Donald Trump did it.

David Brooks (New York Times):  Yes, when I first heard about it, I have to confess my stomach sank.

And my reaction was, does the FBI understand the political firestorm they're about to set off?  As the days have gone by, the gravity of what the FBI did and the justification for what they did have grown.

And so, first, we learned this was not a rash thing, that it has been months in the making.  They did issue a subpoena.  They walked through this step by step.  And then, even in the last few hours, we have learned that, as Jonathan said, if these documents are top-secret documents, the people who know more about this than I, they say that's a really big deal.

And the — one of the acts the President is being investigated for is the Espionage Act.  This is a serious act, which could be a decade in prison for a normal human being.  And there are other acts, the potential falsification and mutilation of documents.  That's also years in prison.

And so these are — these are not small crimes.  These are major, major criminal, if they get to it, accusations.  And if you have that kind of crime, and you're a law enforcement officer, you have got to do something.

Judy Woodruff:  Jonathan, how much of this depends on what actually was in those documents, how secret, how confidential, how explosive that material was?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, I think that sort of gradation depends on what potential charges could come down the road.

But we're still talking about documents that should never have left the White House, should be in the possession of the National Archives, because they are the official custodian of Presidential records.

There are laws to ensure that those records go to the National Archives.  No President, no former President, should have the documents that Donald Trump had before the FBI took them out, so — out of Mar-a-Lago.  So that's what we should be focused on, that, to my mind, yes, it matters what's in the documents.

What's even more important is that he took them, against the — against statutes, once he left the White House.  I cannot express how serious the situation is that the country finds itself in right now.

Judy Woodruff:  David, you started a minute ago by saying, initially, you had the sinking feeling that this could lead to sympathy, greater support for former President Trump.

How much is that still something that's a concern?

David Brooks:  Yes.

No, I do think this is — both things are true.  The FBI was probably right to do what they did.  This will help Donald Trump.  And it helps Donald Trump in a number of ways.

First, as a number of his potential primary opponents' consultants have been saying off the record on — in the media, their campaigns are now — have the air taken out this — out of their sails.  A couple — a month ago, a couple of months ago, half of all Republicans were saying they want to move on.

Now, in the last week, at least, and maybe short term, in the last week, the whole party is rallying around Donald Trump; 80 percent of Republicans say they're more motivated to vote in 2022 because of what they call this raid.

The vast majority are saying this is not an impartial investigation, [it] is a political hack job, something like 75 percent.  Half of all Americans believe that.  And so you get this situation where Trump — people are rallying around Trump.  His opponents now have a little to run on, because everyone's defending the guy who has been attacked.

And then here's where I get to the nightmare scenario.  What happens if, in a couple of years, a year or two from now, Donald Trump is cruising to the Republican nomination because he's winning primary after primary, and he gets convicted of something?

What happens if, a year-and-a-half from now, the American public decides he's going to be elected President…

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.

David Brooks:  … and the American legal system decides, oh, no, he's going to prison?  What happens then to our country?

Because I assume he has to be arrested.  And I assume half the country is just going to erupt in rage and, frankly, political violence.

So this — the presupposition for all this, we live in a society where there's incredibly low social trust.  [A] So people don't trust the institutions.  And (B) in a normal party, your candidacy is hurt if you're investigated by the FBI.  That is not the current Republican Party right now, at least right now.

And so the — this is — you can see down the road to a potential where our legal system and our political system crash, and society is really disrupted.

Judy Woodruff:  And, Jonathan, it's not even having a charge leveled against the former President.

I mean, just this week, this man went after the FBI in Cincinnati.  He was later killed.  He was somebody involved in January 6.  He's a very, very strong Trump believer.

I mean, so, how much do you think the former President is helped by this politically, as David is saying, and how worried are you about it leading to something else?

Jonathan Capehart:  Oh, Donald Trump is absolutely helped by this.  The people who believe in Donald Trump and love Donald Trump will believe everything that he says and believe that anything that is done — quote, unquote — "against him" is persecuting him and therefore persecuting them.

I do not think that fear of potential violence or fear of whatever political benefit could come to Donald Trump should factor into the wheels of justice turning.  He cannot be allowed to be above the law.

And if the Justice Department or the wheels of justice were to cower in the face of the potential of benefiting him, then our democracy is lost.  He must be held accountable, just like anyone else potentially accused or investigated, tried for or found guilty of the things that we're talking about right now.

Just because he was a sitting President, a former President of the United States does not mean he's above the law.  And if — let's say that crash happens that David is talking about, and he's elected, but he's convicted.

Well, he won't be President of the United States.  I just — Judy, David, I am so — I am so concerned about where we are right now, because we are in uncharted territory.  We don't know what the charges are going to be, what the real impact is going to be.

I do agree with David, however, that anything that happens negative, from Trump and Trump supporters' perspective, is going to lead to things that I don't think we're prepared for.  But we must get prepared for it, because our democracy is on the line.

Judy Woodruff:  David, should any of this worry about what this could lead to affect the judicial process in any way?

David Brooks:  Yes, I absolutely think it should.

We're all responsible for the consequences of our actions.  And prosecutors and investigators use discretion every single day.  And so they — if they're indicting a candidate for a major party (A), my own personal opinion is the bar should be pretty high, that they really — (A) it's a very serious crime, and, (B) it's a very crystal clear case that the whole country can see.

That doesn't mean you don't — as the experts of even the last few hours have talked about what Donald Trump may have done with these documents probably clears the bar.  January 6, I became more to think it clears the bar.

But you just can't ignore the society around you.  You can't ignore a society that is in perilously close danger of rupturing.  And does that determine what you do?  Do you let somebody get away with a major crime?  Obviously not.

But you can — and none of us can be blind to the consequences of our actions.  And I think prosecutors are comfortable with that.

Judy Woodruff:  What about that, Jonathan?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, I don't disagree.  I don't disagree with David.

I do think that the facts as we know them now, in terms of that FBI surge, that high bar was there, and that the Justice Department cleared those bars, and then some, because they understand the consequences of what they're going to do and the public, the public reaction, knowing that the subpoena was issued in June and ignored, that they got the search warrant three days before it was — it was executed.

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

Jonathan Capehart:  That, to me, says that the Justice Department and those people are exercising extreme caution and care.

Judy Woodruff:  Just a little bit of time left, but I do want to ask you both about more election results this week.

David, it's the election deniers who are doing well in so many of these primary contests.  And, in race after race, they seem to be the folks Donald Trump has endorsed.

David Brooks:  Yes, I'd say, in some weeks, we have had a mixed bag, that some non-Trump people did well.

But pretty much, in the recent ones, Arizona, Wisconsin, elsewhere, Trump people more or less swept the field.  The election, I can't remember if it was the day before or after the house raid.  I can't remember if it was affected by it.  But they had a very good — and then progressives did pretty well.

And so I'd say the overall story from all these primaries so far is increased polarization.

Judy Woodruff:  Jonathan, less than a minute.

What does this set up November to look like?

Jonathan Capehart:  A wild November, Judy.

But the thing that I'm looking at is, we now have five Republican gubernatorial candidates across the country who are election deniers, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.  Any one of them, if they actually become governor of their particular state, the 2024 Presidential election is in deep trouble.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, on this light note that we're ending on, on this Friday night…

David Brooks:  Another sober week in politics.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  Another — Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, thank you.  Thank you both.

David Brooks:  Thank you.

Jonathan Capehart:  Thanks, Judy.

AMERICAN POLITICS - Focus on Midterms

"What Republicans and Democrats are focusing on for midterm elections" PBS NewsHour 8/10/2022

WHAT I KNOW:  The Republican will lie, cheat, rig, and anything else to gain power.  The GOP no longer supports or believes in democracy.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  With less than three months until the midterms, Democrats hope recent legislative successes will help bolster their campaigns.  But Republicans are betting they can win back control of Congress.  Democratic strategist Joel Benenson who worked with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and Neil Newhouse lead pollster for Mitt Romney and John McCain’s presidential bids, join Judy Woodruff to discuss.

GOVERNANCE - Inflation Reduction Act

"How Democrats coalesced around the Inflation Reduction Act" PBS NewsHour 8/8/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  After working through the weekend, Democrats are on the cusp of passing an historic, half-trillion dollar spending package.  It's a mere fraction of what President Biden first sought more than a year ago, but significant nonetheless.  Lisa Desjardins is here to unpack what's in the deal and how party leaders managed to shepherd it to the finish line when losing a single vote would have sunk it.

 

 

"What the reconciliation bill would do to boost clean energy and combat global warming" PBS NewsHour 8/8/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  If the House passes the Inflation Reduction Act in the coming days it will lead to by far the biggest investment the federal government has made on tackling climate change.  Several estimates have indicated the initiative may mean a 40 percent reduction in America’s carbon emissions by 2030 from 2005 figures.  Paul Bledsoe of the Progressive Policy Institute joins William Brangham to discuss.

 

 

"Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer discusses Democrats’ major climate and health bill" PBS NewsHour 8/9/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Biden on Tuesday signed the bipartisan CHIPS Act into law, just days before his top health care, tax and climate change bill known as the Inflation Reduction Act heads to the House, where it's likely to pass after proceeding through the Senate along party lines.  Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who played a key role in getting the bill passed, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.

 

 

"How the Inflation Reduction Act could affect your taxes" PBS NewsHour 8/10/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  There’s a $1 trillion gap between what Americans owe in taxes and what the government collects.  The Democrats’ budget deal would unleash nearly 100,000 new IRS agents to round up all that missing money.  Former IRS Commissioner John Koskinen joins Lisa Desjardins to discuss the impact the crackdown on tax evaders will have on the nation’s bottom line.

 

 

"Democrats celebrate legislative win in passing of climate, health and tax bill" PBS NewsHour 8/8/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Congressional Democrats are celebrating a landmark legislative victory after passing the Inflation Reduction Act, which President Biden is set to sign into law this week.  Meanwhile, the Justice Department is investigating Donald Trump for potentially violating the Espionage Act after classified documents were found in his home.  Special correspondent Jeff Greenfield joins Geoff Bennett to discuss.

OPINION - Capehart and Gerson 6/17/2022

"Capehart and Gerson on the Jan. 6 hearings, gun legislation, the importance of Juneteenth" PBS NewsHour 6/17/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart and Washington Post opinion columnist Michael Gerson join Amna Nawaz to discuss the week in politics, including new revelations after the third public hearing on the Jan. 6 Capitol attack and a framework for gun regulations is beginning to splinter as senators try to turn broad agreements into law.

Amna Nawaz (NewsHour):  As new revelations are reverberating across the political landscape after the third public hearing on the January 6 Capitol attack, meanwhile, a framework for new gun regulations is beginning to splinter, as senators try to turn their broad agreement into a detailed plan.

That brings us to the analysis of Capehart and Gerson.  That is Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post, and his colleague at The Post opinion columnist Michael Gerson.  David Brooks is away.

Welcome to you both.  Nice to see you.

Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post:  Hi, Amna.

Michael Gerson, Washington Post:  Thank you.

Jonathan Capehart:  Great to see you.

Amna Nawaz:  So let's start with those talks in the Senate.

A bipartisan group of senators, we know, have been close.  They say they have a framework when it comes to gun violence prevention.  Those are led by Chris Murphy of Connecticut, of course, John Cornyn of Texas.

But, just yesterday, just yesterday, John Cornyn walked out of those talks saying this as he walked out.  He said: "It's fish or cut bait.  I don't know what they," meaning Democrats, "have in mind.  But I'm through talking."

So, Jonathan, could the talks fall apart once again?

Jonathan Capehart:  Yes.  Yes, they can.

How many weeks have I sat here on Friday saying I'm happy they're talking, it's great that they're talking, but I will believe it when I see it, when we get — when we go from talks to press conference to passage of the bill to signing?

The fact that Senator Cornyn has walked away from the table is the least surprising thing.  The announcement of the framework on Sunday was really hopeful.  And, in fact, there were a lot of things on there that Democrats thought, wow, we didn't think that they — we could get this as part of the framework.

But the fact that Senator Cornyn is saying he's done talking and it's time to fish or cut bait, well, what's the issue?  I mean, does he have a problem with the boyfriend loophole, which is what a lot of the reporting is?  Well, what's your proposal?

We have to keep in mind that it's not like Democrats haven't compromised.  If Democrats put forth all the stuff they wanted, an assault weapons ban would be in it.  So many other things would be in the framework.  But Democrats have made it clear, we need to do something.  The fact that Senator Cornyn is walking away from the table, quite sadly, more of the same.

Amna Nawaz:  So, Michael, this — Jonathan's right.  The reporting is that it's this boyfriend — closing the boyfriend loophole, keeping guns away from abusive partners, that's the sticking point for Republicans and John Cornyn.

There's a lot of stuff in here.  There's funding for school safety and mental health, background checks for states to pass and bolster red flag laws.  So what does Cornyn walking away do?

Michael Gerson:  Well, I agree with Jonathan.  This is an incremental bill.  That's the way it was designed.

And, in fact, what's in there, my fear is that it would not do enough to kind of address these issues, and then you would still have some difficult problems.

But it does matter that Mitch McConnell has at least provisionally endorsed an approach like this.  And that gives kind of permission to a group of senators, I think, who are in more purple states, and some of them running for reelection, that they may want to have something to say about, a problem, a huge moral problem.

We need to remember the context here, which is just the murder of children.

Amna Nawaz:  Right.

Michael Gerson:  And I think that Cornyn looks bad, because he's ignoring essentially the moral imperatives of our moment.

Amna Nawaz:  But Cornyn also got booed, we should say.

Today, he was speaking at a Republican convention in Texas.  He brought this up, that this deal is in the works, and he got booed.  What does that tell you?

Michael Gerson:  Well, this was a pretty hardcore audience, I assume, of Texas Republicans.

But it's — there is some risk in any deal.  My concern, though, is that we were — we were moving towards a deal on criminal justice reform, for example, and it fell apart.  And I'm afraid that may happen in this case, although I think there are some — not yet.

Amna Nawaz:  All right, I want to move on to the January 6 Committee hearings, of course, because it was another big week with two more hearings, public hearings, on the books.  They now have three hearings behind them, three more, we believe, to go.

Each of you actually shared with us moments that stood out to you.  And there was a lot of information in those hearings.  I want to play for you those moments and get you to react.

Jonathan, you remembered this moment from former federal appellate Judge Michael Luttig.  He'd been advising Vice President Mike Pence that Pence couldn't do what Trump wanted him to do, which was throw out the election results.

Here's just part of what Luttig said.

J. Michael Luttig, Former Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge:  I would have laid my body across the road before I would have let the Vice President overturn the 2020 election on the basis of that historical precedent.

Amna Nawaz:  That is Judge Michael Luttig.  I apologized.  I mispronounced his name.

Why did that moment stand out to you?

Jonathan Capehart:  Judge Luttig is a giant.  He is a giant among conservative lawyers.

His reputation is sort of — I'm trying to think of the liberal equivalent.  You don't get more senior and more revered than that.  The fact that he said he would have thrown himself in the — in Vice President Pence's way to stop him from doing that was pretty incredible.

But the other thing he says that we did not show was that he had a warning, that Donald Trump and the folks who follow him present a quote, clear and present danger to our American democracy.  This is no liberal Democrat who's talking.  This is no just rank-and-file Democrat talking.

This is a tried-and-true, dyed-in-the-wool conservative jurist who is saying — ringing the alarm about this scheme that Eastman had come up with that they were trying to get Vice President Pence to go along with, and who is also saying, they're not done.  This scheme is not done.

January 6 — and he didn't say this part, but I'm saying this part.  January 6 was a rehearsal for what we could see in 2024.

Amna Nawaz:  Michael, I found it interesting.  Most of the folks who testified, most of the people we heard from more Republicans.

And you recalled this one moment that stood out to you where we heard from chief counsel to the vice president Greg Jacob.  We learned a lot about what Mike Pence was doing on January 6, how he was down in a secure location continuing to work, even as rioters outside were chanting, "Hang Mike Pence."

Here's a moment in which Greg Jacob was talking about what happened then.

Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA):  Does it surprise you to see how close the mob was to the evacuation route that you took?  Forty feet is a distance from me to you, roughly.

Greg Jacob, Former Counsel to Vice President Mike Pence:  I could hear the din of the rioters in the building while we moved.  But I don't think I was aware that they were as close as that.

Rep. Pete Aguilar:  Make no mistake about the fact that the vice president's life was in danger.

Amna Nawaz:  Why did that moment stick with you?

Michael Gerson:  Because it's something we shouldn't get used to.

I mean, we had a moment with a mob intent on harm, fed and pushed by the sitting President of the United States against his most loyal lieutenant, and it was a near-run thing.  This could have been the murder of the Vice President.  I mean, how would that — how would American politics have responded to such a thing?

And one thing that came out in the hearing is that, during this, as it was happening, President Trump was tweeting pressure tweets attacking the Vice President for lacking courage, as this was happening.  And that indicates to me a reckless regard for not just his political future, but his life.

This is a President — I think we learned again, but it's the most dramatic example.  This is not just a corrupt politician.  This is an evil man, an amoral man.  And that, I think, is important as we come around to the next election, where he's the Republican front-runner.  That is a dire situation for the republic.

Amna Nawaz:  Jonathan, there was another moment that stood out to me, when we heard from communications between Trump's lawyer John Eastman sending messages — he's the one who's recommending sort of a plan for how to do this, to overturn the election results.

And the committee basically shared that he e-mailed, saying:  "I have decided I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works."

What was your reaction when you heard that?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, I mean, my mouth was agape.

You only ask for a pardon if you know or feel that you have done something wrong.  I would never ask for a pardon, right?  Why?

Amna Nawaz:  You can say that…

(CROSSTALK)

Jonathan Capehart:  What have I done?

But Eastman knew.  He knew.  The committee showed that he knew from the beginning that what he was proposing was — this is public television.  I almost went there — was not right, was not right.

And so he pushed it, pushed it, pushed it.  And then, after January 6, he sees what happened and then says:  I want to have — give me a pardon?

It's…

Amna Nawaz:  We still have — we still have three more hearings to go, I should say.  And there's already been so much evidence laid out by the committee.

But, Michael, do you see — do you see a world in which they end the hearings, they wrap all this up, and there's no action from the Department of Justice?  Is that a possibility?

Michael Gerson:  It's a definite possibility, although the Department of Justice made some noise this week, essentially, saying, we'd like those transcripts, the ones that you have of these witnesses, because there is a parallel investigation going on with the committee and the Justice Department, and they have started stepping on another's feet a little bit.

But that does show that the DOJ is looking closely at what's happening in these hearings, which I regard as a good sign.  There's going to be tremendous pressure on Garland to do this.  But I think it's going to be a very tough choice for them, because it would set a precedent of pursuing criminal charges against former presidents that we have never really had before.

We will see.

Amna Nawaz:  Do you also think Mike Pence should testify?  We haven't heard from him.

Michael Gerson:  I would have loved to have heard him about all this.

Amna Nawaz:  Yes.

Michael Gerson:  And — but he has tried to get as far away from his actions, his own actions, as he possibly could, because he still sees a path to the presidency that doesn't exist.

Amna Nawaz:  We will see.  Three more hearings, as I say, to go.

Before we let you go, Jonathan, I do want to get your thoughts on this, because ahead this weekend, Sunday is Juneteenth.

Jonathan Capehart:  Right.

Amna Nawaz:  It is just the second time in our country's history we are marking this day as a federal holiday.

And I just wanted to ask, as the country notes this day, as we mark it together, how are you reflecting on what it means this year?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, I'm reflecting on the fact that there are school districts and states that would make it difficult to even teach what Juneteenth is about, simply because some parents offended that the word slavery is used, that people were enslaved and worked for free and were tortured and all sorts of other things in the creation and the building of this country.

We just saw in Buffalo African-Americans targeted by someone who was a believer in the Great Replacement conspiracy.  Juneteenth gives us an opportunity to talk about this nation's foundational wound that we still refuse to talk about, that we still refuse to confront.

And so we're in a moment in this country where Juneteenth, if a lot of these folks get their way, very well just might be a marker on the calendar with no explanation about what it means and why it's important that we commemorate that holiday.

Amna Nawaz:  Let's hope we don't waste that opportunity.

Thank you for that.

Jonathan Capehart.  Michael Gerson, thank you so much for being here.  Good to see you.

Jonathan Capehart:  Thanks, Amna.

OPINION - Capehart and Abernathy 5/13/2022

"Capehart and Abernathy on COVID deaths, pandemic funding and Jan. 6 subpoenas" PBS NewsHour 5/13/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart and Washington Post columnist Gary Abernathy join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including the U.S. marks a million deaths from COVID-19, Congress reached an impasse on pandemic funding, and the Jan. 6 committee issued subpoenas for five Republican lawmakers.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  As the United States marks one million deaths from the pandemic, President Biden has asked Congress to approve new money to fight future coronavirus variants.  That spending has been stalled for weeks.

Meanwhile, Congress' January 6 Committee issued subpoenas to five Republican lawmakers.

And that brings us to the analysis of Capehart and Abernathy.  That is Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post, and Gary Abernathy, a Washington Post columnist.  David Brooks is away tonight.

Hello to both of you on this Friday night.

Jonathan Capehart (Washington Post):  Judy.

Gary Abernathy (Washington Post):  Hi, Judy.

Judy Woodruff:  Very good to see you.

The subject is grim, you won't be surprised to know.

But I want — I do want to start, Jonathan, by asking you about where we are on COVID.  Here we are at a million deaths.  We are all incredibly sobered by that.  We're hearing from the experts that there could be another, what, 100 million infections — or — I'm sorry — yes, 100 million infections coming.

And the administration is saying, we need between $10 million and $20 million — billion dollars — to deal with COVID.  Are there good arguments against that?

Jonathan Capehart:  No.  No.

Can we just pause for a moment and understand we have lost one million Americans?  I don't know what the particular folks on Capitol Hill, what other evidence they need to see for why that funding needs to be — needs to be passed.  Think about just how much pain and death and agony the American people have suffered, not just the one million people who died, but their families and loved ones and colleagues.

There's going to be another variant.  For the United States not to be — to do everything possible to be prepared for that moment, to do everything possible to forestall another 100 million infections, that's — that would be dereliction of duty.

In March 2020, we had no vaccines.  We didn't know what this was.  Everything was shut down just to try to stop this virus, this thing from spreading around.  We know so much more two years later.  We have got vaccines.  We have got boosters.

Why on earth would we not do everything possible to ensure that we don't go back to those to those horrible days two years ago?

Judy Woodruff:  Gary, what is the argument?  Republicans are resisting this funding.  What are the good arguments not to give it?

Gary Abernathy:  Well, it's hard to come up with good arguments not to offer a lifesaving vaccine.

But when you talk about what happened two years ago and how it happened, you have got to remember, we took a one-size-fits-all approach to fighting this thing nationwide.  And I know communities that got a tremendous influx of COVID money and couldn't find out — couldn't figure out how to spend it all.

I mean, it was kind of a, let's just throw a lot of money out there.  And this is not a Republican or Democrat criticism.  Donald Trump was a part of this.  Donald Trump was approving these things too.  Republicans and Democrats did this.

And now some people are kind of starting to say, well, wait a minute, where's our priority list?  Where's this on President Biden's list of priorities?  Is it — is it above Ukraine?  Is it above helping more — with more money for Ukraine?  Is it more important than the Build Back Better program?  Is it more important than forgiving student loans?

Maybe.  To me, I think providing these vaccines is.  But, at some point, we get to a point where this money doesn't exist.  We don't have this money to spend really.  And so I think people are asking — are asking the President, hey, come up with priorities.  And I think he does have a plan that says, OK, now we're going to prioritize people.

We're going to provide vaccines maybe to just the most at-risk people, people 60 and over, people with immune issues.

Judy Woodruff:  What about the argument, Jonathan, that some of this money was spent, and it's not clear where it went, or it went in other directions?

Jonathan Capehart:  Sure.  Sure.

But that's not an argument to do nothing.  You do better the next time.  But the idea that, because some money went somewhere it shouldn't — it shouldn't have gone, that we shouldn't prepare and protect against a future variant, I think, is ridiculous.

Also, this idea of more money for Ukraine, I wrote down politics, because folks are playing politics with money for Ukraine.  And it's clear why that money is needed.  Again, it's for Ukraine, but it's really for the fight for democracy.  So the same firefight — some of the same folks who are who are complaining about the COVID money are some of the same people who are complaining or stalling funding for Ukraine.

This — when — to bring it back to COVID funding, the administration and basically Washington [DC] cannot not do anything, cannot not prepare for what's to come.

Judy Woodruff:  Gary, how much of this is politics, and how much of it is based on a real, legitimate argument?

Gary Abernathy:  In Washington, there's politics?

Judy Woodruff:  Hello.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  I know.  I know.  What kind of a question…

Gary Abernathy:  Yes, right.  All of it.

But even on Ukraine, the Associated Press a couple of weeks ago — and PBS highlighted it, I think — talked about there comes — there's coming a point where, how much can we — how much can we give?  I mean, everybody wants to help Ukraine.  It's the most worthy cause, but we're depleting our own resources.

There's real questions now about our ability to defend ourselves against a North Korea or an Iran if something were to happen, because there's only a limited supply of these things.  So, people are starting to now take a look and say, look, we'd love to do it all, but we have to start prioritizing and figuring out, because, really, this is money that just doesn't exist.

Judy Woodruff:  And, of course, Ukraine, we don't know how long that's going to go.

Gary Abernathy:  Right.

Judy Woodruff:  I mean, the predictions are, it could be months, even years, is what we were hearing this week.

The January 6 Committee, they have issued more subpoenas, Jonathan, this time to five House Republicans.  One of them is the minority leader, Kevin McCarthy.  He's indicated he's not particularly excited about going.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  But what does this lead to, I mean, these high-profile — well, asking for their own membership to come and testify?

Jonathan Capehart:  So, let's keep something in mind here.  When someone is subpoenaed, that's an extraordinary step.  And when that person is a sitting member of Congress in an investigation into an attack on the Capitol, an attack on American democracy, that is a serious step.

But it's not the first step.  The first step was asking House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and some of the others to come in voluntarily and do their duty as a member of Congress, but also as a patriot, to come in and talk about what they know, and to help fill in the gaps, to help that committee and the American people, by extension, to understand what happened on that day as a means of trying to prevent it from happening again.

They refused.  And so the fact that they're being subpoenaed, yes, it's an extraordinary step.  I think it 100 percent should have been done.  It needs to be done.  The attack on the Capitol was an attack on the American people, an attack on our democracy.  And we need answers.

Judy Woodruff:  How do you look on these subpoenas?

Gary Abernathy:  Yes, I agree 100 percent that we need answers, that what happened on January 6 was one of the most horrible things in our nation's history.

And I think we have already had a lot of answers.  I think answers are coming in many ways, including through law enforcement with the people who are charged.  One thing that I know a lot of people are worried about is conflating the peaceful rally that day with the riot.

In other words, there's a lot of talk about, well, who did — did you know, did you help plan this rally?  Did you help?  And planning the rally was perfectly fine, OK?  It's the 100 — a few hundred that broke off and actually invaded the Capitol that are being prosecuted.

But I think the committee does risk some partisan suspicions if it doesn't — it depends on what it finds.  I think that people have already made up their mind about whether this committee is going to uncover anything, without a bombshell revelation.

If this committee comes up with and says, you know what, here's a bombshell revelation about what was really behind this and what the intent was, and it kind of rocks the whole world, both sides of the aisle, that's going to be one thing.

But, short of that, I think people have kind of already settled on their talking points and what they're going to come out with at the end of the day, when this thing eventually wraps up.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, you do have committee members saying there is eye-popping, big information to come from what they have discovered.

Jonathan Capehart:  And I hope it's eye-popping.

But I also hope that the information, even if it's stuff that we already know, even if it's stuff that we have read about, that we have listened to with some of these — these audio — the audio recordings that we have listened to, that we not become numb to the seriousness of the information that we're getting, and that it is important that an investigative body with subpoena power and the ability to write a report, to put on hearings for the American people to see, to bring in witnesses, to show them what people were doing, what people were saying, how this thing got planned.

And, yes, we need to know how the rally got organized, and then how all — how some of these people went to the Capitol and ransacked the Capitol and tried to attack our democracy.  I don't want us to lose sight of the fact that, even if we have read some of this stuff on the front page of The Washington Post, or we have watched news reports here at "PBS NewsHour," that it's not important.

Judy Woodruff:  The fact that it's almost a year and — a year-and-a-half later.

Jonathan Capehart:  Yes.

Gary Abernathy:  Well, here's what we do know.

The rally happened.  And what we know is bad enough.  Donald Trump stood up at a rally and said, if you don't fight for your country, you're not going to have a country, and basically pointed them to the Capitol, where his own vice President was overseeing the count of electoral votes in a constitutional process to certify this election for Joe Biden.

I mean, that's bad enough.  How much more do we need to — how much more bad things do we need to come out to say — for enough people to say, Trump's responsible for what happened?

Jonathan Capehart:  It would be helpful if House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy would tell the American people what he told the President in those moments.

It would be helpful if Jim Jordan, who wants to become the next — I think Judiciary Committee chair in the House, what he said to the President when he talked to him probably multiple times that day.  That's important for us to know.

This is not a partisan issue.  This should be a patriotism issue.  Our country was under attack.  And it could happen again, which is why that commission, that select committee is in place to do this report.

Judy Woodruff:  And his point is that there's maybe culpability on the part of some of these members.

Gary Abernathy:  Yes.

And, again, there's a fine line.  And, again, you're talking about your fellow members of Congress.  There's a fine line between saying things to try to — we know a lot of those conversations that were happening, through what's been leaked, were to try to get Trump to take action to calm things down, to put an end to this thing.

And who knows what they said to try to appeal to him and his ego to make that happen.  But would it be interesting?  Yes.  I just think that a lot of it's being found out in other ways.  And the committee just needs to be careful when it comes to subpoenaing members of Congress.

Republicans are going to control Congress, very likely, very likely, after November.  And what goes around comes around.  And you just got to be careful how you treat your fellow members of Congress.

Jonathan Capehart:  They have already said that, if they come into power in the House, that there are going to be investigations galore.

Gary Abernathy:  Yes.

Jonathan Capehart:  The White House is already preparing for that moment.

Gary Abernathy:  And that's not — we need to back off from those vendettas.

(LAUGHTER)

Jonathan Capehart:  Gary.

Judy Woodruff:  On this Friday night, all right, we thank you both.

Gary Abernathy:  Yes.

Judy Woodruff:  Jonathan Capehart, Gary Abernathy, thank you very much, both of you.

Jonathan Capehart:  Thanks, Judy.  Thank you.

AMERICAN POLITICS - Extreme Political Polarization

"Examining the crisis in America’s democracy and the polarization of its politics" PBS NewsHour 5/12/2022

aka Republican anything goes to win politics.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Nearly 250 years ago, America's founders declared that everyone has "unalienable rights."  What those rights are has been debated ever since.  As the Supreme Court weighs the future of abortion rights the nation's divide has come into sharper focus, as growing political polarization plays out in the midterms.  University of Virginia politics professor Sidney Milkis joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.

AMERICAN POLITICS - U.S. Senate On Record, Abortion Stance

COMMENT:  Make the anti-women's rights Senators pay in next election!  Hay, hay they must go!

"U.S. senators go on the record with their stance on abortion" PBS NewsHour 5/11/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Republicans in the U.S. Senate blocked efforts on Wednesday to enshrine abortion rights into federal law.  Democrats fell well short of the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster on codifying abortion access, with Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin joining all Republicans in voting against the Women’s Health Protection Act.  Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff from the U.S. Capitol with more.

OPINION - Brooks and Capehart 4/1/2022

"Brooks and Capehart on Biden’s shifting immigration policy, the Jan. 6 investigation" PBS NewsHour 4/1/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including President Biden's decision to tap the country's strategic petroleum reserve, a return to pre-pandemic border policies and the latest on the Jan. 6 investigation.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  What you were just hearing about, that return to pre-pandemic border policies, President Biden's attempt to reduce pain at the pump, and the January 6 investigation all heating up.

To discuss another busy week, we turn to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.  That is New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post, new position.

Congratulations.

Jonathan Capehart (Washington Post):  Thank you, Judy.  Thank you.

Judy Woodruff:  So good to see both of you.  And there is a lot to talk about.

Let's start, David, with the report that we just heard Amna talking to a reporter about.  And that is the Biden administration rescinding this rule that was handed down under President Trump, the argument being that COVID — we're in a different place with COVID, this is the humane thing to do.  Is it the right thing to do?

David Brooks (New York Times):  Intellectually, yes.

I mean, it was — there seems to be a bipartisan agreement, Republicans and Democrats, saying the reason it was put in place for COVID reasons doesn't pertain anymore.  It's just not — it's not a health matter.  It's become an art of convenience to simplify what goes on at the border.

The question is what plan they have in place.  And we're at a rate now where there are two million encounters at the borders a year.  Like, two million times, U.S. officials are encountering immigrants or people are trying to get in.

And it's just flooding the system.  And there's a lot of skepticism that there's a system in place, if we not get rid of 42, that they will be able to have the hearings, do all the stuff we normally do with asylum seekers.

And so, as we just heard, it's just a gigantic political issue.  And in the bumper, that little quote there, that 21 percent of Americans say immigration is the highest, if you think about the dominant issues right now, inflation is number one, immigration is probably number two.  Probably education and crime are three or four.

These are all nightmare issues for Democrats right now.  And so Republicans put up this long fact sheet.  And I don't want to vouch for its veracity.  It's a partisan fact sheet.  But you see the ads writing themselves, chaos at the border, drugs coming in, record opioid deaths.

Republicans are going to go to town on this one.

Judy Woodruff:  So, Republicans against it, Jonathan.  Even some Democrats are saying they think it's the wrong thing.

Jonathan Capehart:  Right.  And I think the — what it points to is the lack of a comprehensive immigration overhaul.

And this is something that's vexed Republican presidents.  I remember when President George W.  Bush wanted to do something.  It's vexed Democratic presidents.  President Obama wanted to work with Congress.  And Congress gave him the stiff-arm.  And that's what pushed him to do DACA, after saying over and over again that he had no power to do anything about immigration.

This is a political problem for the President, for the White House, for Democrats.  In a normal, functioning Congress, the White House and the House and the Senate would be able to get in the room, get together, and come up with a solution.

But there's no political will on the part of Republicans.  And it's great that they put out what — you called it a fact sheet, but a fact sheet with no policy prescriptions.  A functioning party would say, Mr. President, you're in trouble, the country's in danger.  Here's what — here's our proposal.

I have yet to hear what the Republican proposal is, other than fearmongering.

David Brooks:  Build a wall.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  Oh, yes, there's that.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

David Brooks:  Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

Judy Woodruff:  But we just — yes, we just seem stuck on this issue.

David Brooks:  Yes.

Well, it's a complicated moral problem.  People are coming here not because their lives are great back home.  They're coming here because situations in a lot of Latin American countries are deteriorating.  And some of them are genuinely in horrific circumstances.  And one's heart leaps out to them.

And yet they're coming in such large numbers, it's probably beyond our capacity to absorb all the people who want to come.  And a lot of people are coming for economic opportunity.  I don't blame them.  My ancestors came for economic opportunity.  And they — I wish they would go through the regular means.

But it takes a morally complicated government or a policy or a collective mind to say, we're going to help the people we are capable of helping.  How many people are we capable of helping?  And how do we help them humanely?  And how — for those who can't, how do we say sorry, but how do we do it humanely?

And that kind of moral nuance is not something we have seen a lot of in American policymaking for a while.

Judy Woodruff:  We're not seeing that.

Jonathan Capehart:  No.

And it's made more complicated because the party opposite the President, instead of lending a hand, is hurling brickbats and not being part of the solution.  The only way we get to this nirvana you're talking about, David…

(LAUGHTER)

Jonathan Capehart:  … is if the Republican Party wanted to be a true negotiating partner wanting to get something done.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, another hot issue, I think it's fair to say, that surface this week, and it's something the president announced yesterday, David, and that's that he said, yes, the jobs numbers are looking good.  And we had more proof of that today.

But the administration is still very worried about inflation, very worried about the price of gas.  The president announced he's going to release 180 million barrels from what's called the Strategic Petroleum Reserve just to try to get gas prices down a little bit.

Is this — is this a good move at this moment?

David Brooks:  It's hard to know.

Presidents always do this.  They always release from the reserve, and it never works.  Now, in Biden's — to his credit, this release is way bigger than any other President has done.  And so they're trying to dump stuff on the market.  And they're saying that it may produce a 10, 15, 20 percent gain per gallon at the pump.

And so that would have some effects.  That is far from certain, because when we release from the reserve, the markets think, well, they're releasing now, but they're going to have to put back in the reserve.  And so the markets can think long term and think, well, that's not going to really reduce demand.

Second, we're not the only people producing oil, in this country.  OPEC could say, we want to keep prices up.  If they're releasing, we will just limit our supply for a little while.  And so there are plenty of other actors who have the chance to mess with our plans.

And so I remain, I guess I would say, guardedly skeptical…

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  … that this is going to do — that this is going to do much for the people who are paying 60, 70 bucks to fill up their tank.

Judy Woodruff:  How do you size this up?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, the key thing you said, David, is that markets think long term, but Presidents think in short — well, they try to think long term, but when presidents go to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, this is short-term thinking.

There is short-term pain that the President has to deal with.  And the reports I saw showed that this release would/could lead to 10 cents per gallon, up to 35 cents per gallon for consumers.  When you — when you are a consumer, and you're saving 10 cents, that adds up; 35 cents, that's huge.

And gas prices is — they are the one thing that consumers feel immediately.  And so, if you're a White House looking at tough economic news, and the American people are angry about inflation and everything, if you can give them something where they're saving in the short term, you will go with it.

But David is right.  The market does think long term and think, yes, they're releasing it, but they're going to have to buy it back.  So — but I think administrations always do this, but I think it's the right thing to do for their political calculus right now.

Judy Woodruff:  They're saying it's — excuse me.  They're saying it's for six months.  I looked at the calendar.  That's right about November, David.

David Brooks:  Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  Do you think — do you think this is going to matter in the elections this year?

David Brooks:  Oh, yes.  Oh, absolutely.

Judy Woodruff:  Hello.

David Brooks:  As Jonathan said, you look at the — you drive down the street, you see the gas prices.

And I was out in California, and it's like, whoa.

Jonathan Capehart:  Oh.

David Brooks:  And so it's definitely going to matter.

The — substantively, the better policy, in 2015, Barack Obama and Paul Ryan, the Republican House speaker, did a deal where they increased production, which the Republicans wanted, lightening regulations on producers, but then, in exchange, increased money for green energy, which the Democrats wanted.

And Joe Manchin saying, let's do that all over again.  And that sounds like a good idea.  But it probably won't help Joe Biden between now and November.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.  That's the question.

Do you think it helps Democrats at all between…

Jonathan Capehart:  Which…

Judy Woodruff:  Between now and the midterms.

Jonathan Capehart:  David — what David was just talking about, it's long term.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.

Jonathan Capehart:  So, in the short term, no, it's not going to help them.

But I do think the SPR, that will help.

Judy Woodruff:  The January 6 Committee, two developments this week, David.

One of them, there's this seven-and-a-half-hour gap in the phone records from the White House on January the 6th.  There appears to be a gap.  The committee's still figuring out what that's all about, whether that was deliberate where it was an accident.  We will see.

The other is that the members of the committee — I ended up talking to two of them this week, Adam Schiff and Zoe Lofgren, who are just more openly critical of the Justice Department for not picking this up and running with it and moving towards some kind of prosecution of people like Mark Meadows, the former White House Chief of Staff.

Zoe Lofgren said to me yesterday — what did she say?  What he [Trump] did was completely lawless, she said.

David Brooks:  Yes.

Well, first, on the gap, it sparked a bunch of conspiracies, reminded us all the Watergate, so we could all plug and play on that one.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.

David Brooks:  But is he using a burner phone secretly?

And I think CNN seems to have the most plausible explanation, which is, when — the record-keeping in the Trump administration is not always meticulous, was 'not always meticulous' which I know was a shocker for everybody.  And — but, apparently, when he went into the Oval Office, he didn't use the White House phone system, and then it wasn't recorded.

That could be it.  They were just bad record-keepers.  It is weird that it happened to be at the crucial moment on January 6.  So I assume we will find out here.

To be honest, I trust Merrick Garland.  The political players on Capitol Hill are political players.  And they're going to go maximalist.  They have no incentive to be balanced.  Merrick Garland and the Justice Department have an incentive to be like prosecutors.  And my overall approach to this whole deal, there have been a lot of extremely questionable things that have been done.

But the Trump administration does us a favor by doing most of their questionable things out in the open.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  And I haven't seen much that would make me think that there's some hidden, gigantic scandal, like, there's some phone call somewhere where Donald Trump was saying, storm the Capitol.

If that call exists or that e-mail exists or that tweet exists, then we're in a whole new ball game.  But it's easy for people who want to delegitimize Donald Trump to get excited that they have got something and get a little overpoliticized about it.  So, right now, my trust would be of the Justice Department.

Judy Woodruff:  How do you read all this?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, when it comes to the Attorney General, I think what Chairman Schiff and Congresswoman Lofgren, their upset with him over the contempt charges, I think, are — they're valid.

They have passed out of the House.  They're sitting at DOJ.  And no one knows what's happening with them in terms of prosecution.

Where I agree with David in terms of trust Merrick Garland is on the call from the — from Democrats and folks on the left for the DOJ to investigate Donald Trump.  And I think these are two separate things.  And when it comes to investigating the former President, I — it would be, I was about to say, insane if Merrick Garland telegraphed that this was happening before he had all the I's dotted and the T's crossed.

This has been — there are lots of former prosecutors out on television who keep saying the same thing you're saying.  Trust — they trust — they trust Merrick Garland.  But, at some point, that trust is going to erode.

But, right now, when it comes to the contempt charges, I say, Mr. Attorney General, what are you doing?  But when it comes to the overall issue of, should Donald Trump be investigated, I'm willing — I'm willing to wait, because I want DOJ, I want the attorney general to be as careful as possible, to make his case as bulletproof as possible, if there is one, so that it doesn't make things worse by falling apart.

Judy Woodruff:  Their focus right now seems to be Mark Meadows, but we will see.

Jonathan Capehart:  Yes.

Judy Woodruff:  We will see.

Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, thank you both.

Jonathan Capehart:  Thanks, Judy.