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.

SEARCH FOR TRUTH - FBI's Search For Possible Violation of Espionage Act

"What we know about the FBI’s search of Trump’s Florida home" PBS NewsHour 8/9/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence was searched Monday night by the FBI.  Reports suggest the search was a part of investigations into whether Trump took classified records from the White House to his Florida home, marking a dramatic escalation into various investigations swirling around him.  Carrie Johnson, who covers the Justice Department NPR, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.

 

 

"Arkansas Gov. Hutchinson calls FBI search on Trump’s estate ‘alarming’" PBS NewsHour 8/9/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Questions are swirling after the FBI searched former President Trump's Florida home. Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who served as U.S. attorney for the Western District of Arkansas under President Reagan, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss the political implications.

 

 

"Why former Sen. Jones believes facts will back up FBI search at Trump estate" PBS NewsHour 8/9/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Former Alabama Sen. Doug Jones, a Democrat who served as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama under President Clinton, joins Judy Woodruff with some perspective from the Democratic side of the aisle on the FBI search of Trump's residence.

 

 

"DOJ files motion to unseal search warrant used for Trump’s Florida residence" PBS NewsHour 8/11/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said Thursday he personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant for former President Trump's home in Palm Beach, Florida.  FBI agents executed the warrant at Mar-a-Lago this week.  They were reportedly searching for classified documents but more details could soon be revealed.  Former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth joins William Brangham to discuss.

 

 

"FBI retrieved top secret documents from Trump’s Florida home" PBS NewsHour 8/12/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A federal judge on Friday unsealed and made public the search warrant for former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate.  A review of the warrant reveals that the FBI collected more than 20 boxes of items, including some material classified as top secret.  Sadie Gurman of The Wall Street Journal and Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor, join Judy Woodruff to discuss.

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 - The Shield Against Trump

"Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper details his fraught relationship with Trump" PBS NewsHour 5/10/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  During the 18 months Mark Esper served as Secretary of Defense, he often clashed with President Trump, who wanted to use the military in ways Esper thought were inappropriate.  Trump fired Esper in November 2020, a few days after Trump lost the election.  Esper sat down with Judy Woodruff to discuss his experiences, which he details in a new book, "A Sacred Oath."

AMERICAN POLITICS - The False Fraudulent Election Claims

Championed by Lier-n-Chief Donald Trump and supported by his GOP worshipers.

"As Senate examines Trump’s bid to overturn 2020 loss, GOP voters still buy fraud claims" PBS NewsHour 10/7/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  It’s been nearly a year since voters cast their ballots in the 2020 presidential election, but its results — and the violent aftermath — are still at the center of investigation and debate in Washington, D.C.  Amna Nawaz reports.

 

 

"How false fraud claims are eroding integrity of American election system" PBS NewsHour 10/7/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  For a deeper look at the efforts to undermine election integrity in the United States — and what can be done to stop it — Judy Woodruff is joined by Rick Hasen, professor at the University of California Irvine, and author of the book "Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy."

OPINION - Brooks and Capehart 7/23/2021

"Brooks and Capehart on Jan. 6 committee, infrastructure, budget, vaccine hesitancy" PBS NewsHour 7/23/2021

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including the Jan.  6 insurrection investigation, the infrastructure and budget negotiations in Congress, and vaccination efforts in America.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  From aspirations around infrastructure to political cracks in the investigation into the insurrection, there is a lot to unpack with the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.

That is New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, columnist for The Washington Post.

Hello to both of you on this Friday.

Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post:  Thanks, Judy.

Judy Woodruff:  It's always so good to see you.

Let's start with the fireworks this week, David.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi surprised, I think, a lot of people by saying, no, I'm not going to accept two of the five Republicans appointed to this January 6 select committee.  And then, in turn, you had Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, saying, well, if you are going to do that, I'm going to pull the whole group.

What did you make of all this?  Does it move the process forward?  What do you think?

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks, New York Times:  No, it's round 947 of stupidity in Congress, I guess.

We had this commission.  The idea is, you each — in normal life, in a normal country, the two parties would get together, leaders would get together, and say, let's put — do this commission, important to understand.  We have a basic kind of person we want on this commission, the kind of people who is trusted by both sides, and then we will put some honorable people, trustworthy people on this commission.  And we will get to the answer.

But, of course, none of that obtains in this situation.  Pelosi and McCarthy never get together.  There are very few people trusted on both sides.  And then McCarthy takes the extraordinary step of appointing Jim Jordan and Jim Banks, two people who are explicitly opposed to the commission, and would clearly undermine it.

He could have picked any one of dozens of other people who would have been quiet and seemed sort of normal.  But this is like throwing it right in your face.  And Pelosi then takes another extraordinary step of not letting the Republicans pick their own people.

And so it's just one escalation of dysfunction after another.  And we're not going to get, at least out of Congress, a bipartisan investigation.

Judy Woodruff:  What did you make, Jonathan, of the arguments that each one of them was making here?  And where does that leave this whole thing?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, I just want to push back on something David just said, that Speaker Pelosi wouldn't let Leader McCarthy pick his own people.

He picked five people, or he picked — he picked Republican members.  Two of them, as you rightly said, were basically stink bombs in the process.  But he was given the opportunity to choose people.  He decided to throw a huge wrench in the process.

I think I have said it on this air.  And I'm going to say it again.  For Nancy Pelosi, for Speaker Pelosi, her faith in the Constitution is only second to her Catholic faith.  She takes her role as a constitutional officer in the United States government extremely seriously.

So, for her, getting to the bottom of why Americans storm the U.S. Capitol to overturn a free and fair election, at the behest of the then sitting President of the United States, is something that is important to her.  It is vital for the history of the country.

And so for Kevin McCarthy to do what he did, and then to blame her, blame her for — she's the reason why the Capitol Police weren't prepared, to me, listening to — listening to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy had shades of — had flashbacks to Benghazi.

January 6 is the new Benghazi.  Speaker Pelosi is the new Hillary Clinton.  The Capitol — she didn't have the Capitol Police prepared enough is the Hillary Clinton gave a stand-down order.  It is theatrics on the part of Kevin McCarthy.  It is constitutional duty that Speaker Pelosi is trying to engage in.

Judy Woodruff:  David, Kevin McCarthy more to blame here than the speaker?

David Brooks:  I think, on balance, yes, more to blame.

I think Republicans should still get to pick, but, clearly, they would have screwed up the whole works.  Why did Jordan and Banks get picked?

Well, (A) it could have been so Nancy Pelosi would throw them off, and McCarthy could have a fit.  He must have foreseen that.

Jonathan Capehart:  Right.

David Brooks:  She's not going to — and, second [B], it's further regulatory about where the party is, that it's more a [Jim] Jordan party than it is a Cheney party, Liz Cheney.

And so the party is still over there.  And McCarthy is not an ideological person, but he probably knows where the center of his caucus is.

And just this afternoon, I read a piece in The New York Times by Michael Wolff, who's written three books on Donald Trump, just had dinner with him, saying he was certain Trump was going to run for President again.  And if he's going to run for President again, then I guess that's the center of the party, and that's what McCarthy has to genuflect to.

Judy Woodruff:  And, given that, Jonathan, that's — I mean he's — I mean, this is a minority leader of the party who is responding to the — in his view, the titular head of the Republican Party.

Jonathan Capehart:  Right, and also taking his cues where he thinks the base of the party is.

And then there's another golden rule to keep in mind.  I told you the golden rule about Speaker Pelosi.  Here's the golden rule about House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.  Everything he says, everything he does is geared to one goal, becoming Speaker of the House.

That's why you see him doing what he's doing.

Judy Woodruff:  Infrastructure, our favorite subject.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  I know you're dying to talk about it.

Negotiators are still negotiating, David, but it looks like — the smoke signals look like something's going to happen.  Are you getting the sense that this is going to be a good thing?  What is your — how are you reading all this?

David Brooks:  We should have Thomas the Tank Engine to talk about infrastructure.  It would be more PBS-like.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  Wait a minute.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  In a good way.

You know, I think what's interesting to me is that there — for those who remember last week's episode, there are two bills.  There's a bipartisan bill that's smaller and infrastructure-y.  And then there's a partisan reconciliation bill that's more progressive.

One would have thought the partisan-only bill would have had smoother sailing, because it's all — just all Democrats.  But, to me, it looks like the bipartisan bill is progressing, progressing, progressing.  And we will know, of course, they're negotiating and there are stops and starts.  But that bill seems to be really moving forward.

And I begin to wonder.  Say they pass or at least get a deal on the bipartisan bill.  Do a bunch of moderate senators on the Democratic side say, I got what I need, I really don't need this other bill?

And so I wonder if the bill I thought was more secure is actually more in trouble, which would be the partisan reconciliation.

Judy Woodruff:  You mean in trouble among Democrats?

David Brooks:  Among Democrats.

Judy Woodruff:  Among Democrats.

How are you reading this, Jonathan?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, you mentioned smoke signals.  To me, that says that something might be on fire.

And so, just before we came out here, a story hit about how there's another wrinkle.  Last week, it was Republicans were against the pay-for by the IRS enforcement.  You had the interview yesterday with Senator Capito.

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

Jonathan Capehart:  And you asked her a question about that.

Then, earlier this week, it was — I guess, even this morning, battle over transit funding, the proportion of transit funding.  Then, just before we came on, there's a story about there's consternation with — among Democrats because Republicans are pulling out something related to the prevailing wage.

It seems like this bipartisan bill that you have so much hope for, there's still so many moving pieces and so many embers that are burning that I don't know if the bipartisan bill is really going to — is going to make it.  We will see on Monday.  So they say.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes, we will learn more earlier — early next week, we think.

Vaccine politics.

David, we are now seeing more Republicans, a few more Republicans come out and say openly, hey, people, please get vaccinated, Steve Scalise, who's the number two Republican in the House of Representatives, a number of Republican governors, including Kay Ivey of Alabama.

And I'm reading what she said in part this week:  "It's time to start blaming the unvaccinated folks, not the regular folks.  The unvaccinated let us down."

I mean, that's not all Republicans, but it's — how significant is it?

David Brooks:  I loved what she said.  I think that is true.

If we face a shutdown again, herd economy, poor people laid off, that's not the disease.  That's human error.  And that's us.

And so getting more aggressive, the way she is, and the way some others strikes me as absolutely right.  Will it be effective?  I'm not so sure.  I think, once Donald Trump and other Republicans made it a manhood issue, or a freedom issue, or whatever kind of issue they made it, it's hard to walk back that culture war signal.

And it comes at a time when the party has trouble talking about collective good and the common good, and how we're all in this together.  We're certainly all in the air we breathe together.

And so I'm not — I think that has been dug deep into American history, but especially the Republican Party right now.  And I'm not sure Mitch McConnell saying a few things is going to reverse that trend.

Judy Woodruff:  How do you — how much difference do you think this could make?

Jonathan Capehart:  This being more…

Judy Woodruff:  A few more Republicans in the media, as well as conservatives in…

Jonathan Capehart:  I have to — David just spoke for me in what he said.

I think, if we had had a President of the United States who took this seriously when this first came on the scene, if we had a Republican Party that took this seriously enough to warn everyone, their constituents saying, wash your hands, then put on a mask, then go get the vaccine, we wouldn't be where we are right now.

And I agree with David.  I think that this has become such a cultural point that, even if Donald Trump were to come out tomorrow and say, you know what, not only did I get COVID, I survived it, and I also took the vaccine, and you should too, so you can vote for me again in 2024, he could say all of that, and, to David's point, I think the point has been driven so far deep, that he won't convince anyone, no one to get the vaccine who doesn't want to get it right now.

Judy Woodruff:  How do you — David, I mean, what kind of a divide is this among Republicans?

I mean, is it based on science?  Is it — how do you read what's going on here?

David Brooks:  Yes.

The people I know personally who are not getting the vaccine, for them, it was like, they rushed this thing.  Who knows what's going to happen to all these people who get the shots in 10 years or 20 years?  So, why should I take the risk?

And that's not completely crazy, but it's not — it's based on some sense of general distrust for the establishment, including the medical establishment.  And that establishment — that distrust is the core of this thing.

If we lived in high society, where we all felt the institutions of our society could be trusted, we'd all get the shots.  But the pervasive distrust, which really started in the '60s and 70s with Vietnam and Watergate, and has been ramping up pretty steadily over the last five decades, that's the core villain here.

And how do you get people to trust each other and societies like this, the fundamental problem in America right now?  And it's a very big one.

Judy Woodruff:  And there's still a stubborn — or a core out there, Jonathan, of people who are saying, I'm not going to take this.

There was a new survey out this afternoon, I think, from the Associated Press, people saying, I am not going to get it, no matter what.

Jonathan Capehart:  Which is — it breaks my heart, because you read stories of the — I think it was a doctor in Alabama who wrote about — talked about how, before she intubate someone, they plead with her, can I have the vaccine, and she's, I'm sorry, it's too late, and then going to the family members and saying, honor your loved one, get the vaccine.

And they tell her, I thought it was all politics.  I thought it was a hoax.

That just broke my heart, because that says, to David's point, trust in anything and anyone that isn't themselves, it's completely broken down, completely.

Judy Woodruff:  And, I mean, I remember seeing an interview this week with a man in the — in his hospital bed after serious COVID saying, even if he had it all to do over again, he wouldn't get vaccinated, that he so distrusts — it's just what you said.

David Brooks:  Religion is a powerful thing.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  And I would just say, we have got to make it so to get into any fun thing to do in America, you have to show your card.

And that, to me, I think is the only way to do it.

Judy Woodruff:  David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart, both of you, stay safe.  The Delta variant is out there.

Jonathan Capehart:  You too, Judy.

(LAUGHTER)

Jonathan Capehart:  Thanks, Judy.

Judy Woodruff:  Thank you.

U.S. CAPITOL INSURRECTION - Law Enforcement Heads Testify

"Law enforcement officials testify on security failures during siege at U.S. Capitol" PBS NewsHour 2/23/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The men who were in charge of security during the U.S. Capitol assault told their stories in public on Tuesday for the first time.  Their testimony at a Senate hearing was a tale of bad communications, bad intelligence, and blame-laying.  Lisa Desjardins reports, and Yamiche Alcindor joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.

GOP TRUMPERS - Threats to 7 Republican Senators

IMHO just more proof that today's GOP has been radicalized by Trump.  They no longer true conservatives nor believe in democracy and our Constitution and ONLY want more power, party before country.  Today's GOP do not support the poor or middle class citizen, they support only the very wealthy who can buy the GOP.

"Republican Senators who voted to convict Trump face political peril at home" PBS NewsHour 2/22/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  It is a time of political peril for the seven Republican Senators who voted to convict the dominant figure of their party.  State and local Republican parties have censured -- or are thinking about censuring -- several of those Senators.  And Donald Trump himself is set to re-emerge for his first public appearance as former President this coming weekend.  Yamiche Alcindor reports.

INSURRECTION'S LEADER - Donald Trump

Hint....I don't like Donald Trump.  Donnie is only thinking of himself and how 'great' he is and a dictator-want-to-be.  He does not believe in the Rule of Law and has never supported the U.S. Constitution.

"With mounting legal challenges, what are the potential consequences for Trump?" PBS NewsHour 2/16/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A top Democrat in the House of Representatives sued former President Trump Tuesday for allegedly inciting the Capitol Insurrection, adding to his growing legal challenges.  But what conduct is still being looked at and what consequences may result?  WNYC's Andrea Bernstein, who has been reporting on Trump's finances as part of the "Trump Inc." project, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.

OPINION - Brooks and Capehart 2/5/2021

"Brooks and Capehart on the Republican Party’s identity crisis" PBS NewsHour 2/5/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including tensions in the Republican Party, Democrats and bipartisanship, President Biden's economic relief plan and former President Trump's impeachment trial.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And now to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.  That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, columnist for The Washington Post.

Very good to see both of you this Friday night.

Let's start by talking about the Republican Party.

Jonathan, the Republicans in the House of Representatives this week voted — just in the last day voted not to take away committee assignments from Marjorie Taylor Greene, conspiracy theorist, someone who has made deeply disturbing statements.  They left to it the full House, meaning Democrats took the vote.

She said, Greene said today that it didn't really bother her, that committees didn't matter, and, besides, it's Donald Trump's party anyway.  Is she right?

Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post:  Well, she's right in that it's Donald Trump's party, but she's wrong about the fact that it doesn't matter.

It does matter.  And if she doesn't think committee assignments or being assigned to a committee matters, then she shouldn't be in government.  She should resign her seat if she doesn't believe that sitting on a committee, doing the work of being an elected representative and representing your constituents in Congress, if that doesn't matter, then perhaps she should go back to Georgia.

But this is indeed Donald Trump's party, and we saw it with the votes that were taken within the Republican Caucus.  Marjorie Taylor Greene was able to hold onto her committee seat because the vote was a public vote within the caucus.  Liz Cheney was able to hold on to her leadership post within the Republican Caucus because that vote was a secret ballot.

And we talked all last week or all this week about how her hold on her [Cheney] leadership post was tenuous because the base was so angry, the caucus was so angry.  And yet, by secret ballot, she won reelection to that leadership post within the caucus overwhelmingly.

So, this might be Donald Trump's Republican Party, but, behind closed doors, within the Republican Caucus, at least as it's playing out in the House, there are some tensions there.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, I mean, what Congresswoman Greene actually said was that it's a waste of time.  She views committees as a waste of time.

But my question to you is, I mean, what does this say about the Republican Party in Congress?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes, I have decided to look on the bright side.

I think this was the week we saw more anti-Trump activity in the Republican Party than any week in the last five years.  We had Mitch McConnell calling Marjorie Taylor Greene's ideas cancerous.  Liz Cheney won by 2-1.  That was not automatic.  And it shows there's a lot of people who — in the House Republican Caucus who are not with the Trumpsters.

They're a little intimidated by them, but, in private, that's not where their views are.  We had Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse with a very forthright assault on the GOP of one of the counties in Nebraska who wants to censure him.  And so people are beginning to stand up in ways that haven't happened.

And I think, partly January 6, partly looking at the things that Greene believes, they see, as McConnell said, that these are just disastrous cancers for the party.  And so it's not all the way there, but we're beginning to see much more of an assault than we saw before.

And then, just finally, we had 10 Republican senators break from a bit of their party and put out a COVID relief proposal.  So, I'm seeing progress.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, let's pursue that.

I mean, Jonathan, I interviewed former Missouri Senator John Danforth this week, who said that his party, who — he says he's still a Republican — has become, he said, a grotesque caricature of what it once was, that it's no longer conservative, it's populist at the extremes.

Do you see — where do you see this going, is the question.

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, I do agree with David that there are green shoots to use a phrase from a previous presidency, green shoots of progress, and maybe even green shoots of a new beginning.

But the Republican Party right now is going through — I think, is going to be a multicycle refreshing, that the these green shoots that we are seeing, will that mean that Republicans become more emboldened and stand up for themselves and, going into the midterm elections, the non-Trump Republicans get elected, maybe even Republicans take over the House, but not with Trump Republicans?  I don't know.

But what I do know is this.  The Republican Party is not — is not going to cure itself of what former Senator Danforth talked about until it has concerted leadership within the caucus to push the Marjorie Taylor Greenes and the other folks within that caucus, because she is not the only one, push them aside and get about the business of governing.

I focus on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who should have used the Marjorie Taylor Greene moment as a leadership moment to do what a leader is supposed to do and stand up for the values of the party and the caucus, and to push aside those who run afoul of that.

I don't know what Leader McCarthy stands for.  I don't know what the Republican Party stands for.  And if his calculations this week are about retaking the House in 2022, my question is, what is your program?  What are you for?

Because unless you can tell the American people, and particularly folks in the districts around the country, unless you can tell people what the Republican Party will do and what Leader McCarthy would do as speaker proactively, positively, then why should the American people look at the Republican Party as a viable alternative to the Democratic Party?

Judy Woodruff:  Well, speaking of what the Republicans can do, David, you mentioned the Republican role, I think, in COVID relief.

What role do you see them playing?  As the president is saying, we need to go big, Republicans and even some Democrats raising questions.

David Brooks:  Yes, I — Joe Biden ran on bipartisanship and unity.

He had a chance when the 10 Republicans put forth their $618 billion proposal to say, OK, let's try for a week.  I'm not going to give you more than a week, but I will give you a week, and we will see if we can get you over a trillion.  The Republicans have already voted for roughly $4 trillion dollars in aid.  I think they could have gotten a fifth.

But the problem is, aside from Joe Biden, I don't think there's any taste for bipartisanship in the Democratic Party, sometimes with justified reason.  They have just lived through the horror of the Trump presidency.  They just lived through January 6.  They just don't have much respect or trust for the Republican Party.

And so they don't want to do bipartisanship.  I think those 10 Republicans really do.  I think there are another 10 or 15 in the Senate who would prefer it.  They're not going to go as big as Biden wants to go, but I think they would like it.

But you can't tell people to trust people they don't trust.  Trust takes time.  And the trust is not there for bipartisanship in this Congress.  I think Biden really wants to do it.  It — the evidence of this week is, we're just not going to see that.

Judy Woodruff:  Jonathan, what do you see as the outlook for bipartisanship?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, it depends on your definition of bipartisanship.

If bipartisanship, you mean sitting with people from the other — from the other side of the aisle, talking through the issues, talking through policies and programs, and then, as President of the United States, you decide that what you have heard does not meet the policy proposals that you have in mind and the mandate you feel you have from the American people, well, then, if you go a different route, that doesn't mean that you haven't been bipartisan.

It just means that you have a different governing philosophy.  I do think President Biden has lived up to his promise to be bipartisanship.  He didn't have to meet with those 10 senators, and yet he did.

I do think that David was absolutely right in his — in what he said and in his terrific column today in The New York Times.  I don't think that Democrats don't want to do bipartisanship.  I do think that Democrats do suffer from a lack of trust, because they have been Charlie Brown to the Republicans' Lucy with the football.

When President Obama was in the White House, President Obama tried desperately to negotiate in good faith with Republicans, only to have them say no, be recalcitrant.  And having learned that lesson, President Biden, having been part of the Obama/Biden White House, does not want to be in that position, nor should he, especially when you have millions of Americans who are not only suffering through a pandemic, but also through the resultant economic crisis.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, lingering effects?  If the Democrats end up doing this with Democratic votes, what's the fallout?  What does that mean for the future?

David Brooks:  Well, people do really like bipartisanship.

Our own Amy Walter had a good column this week saying that, when you try to pass something with — on a partisan basis, what happens is that piece of legislation tends to be unpopular, because independents would rather you do it on a bipartisan basis.

So, I think, in the long term, Democrats probably made it slightly more likely the Republicans will do very well in the midterm, if they ram this through on a partisan basis.

Having said that, I think the size of our social problems are so large that $1.9 trillion basically given to the least fortunate among us is about the right size.  And so I wish they had done it with bipartisanship.  I wish the Republicans had come up to like $1.2 trillion.

But I'm thinking about the country, I'm thinking about a country that is suffering from inequality, from decay, from declining prospects, from a rural-urban income gap.  And $1.9 trillion, can go a long way to setting us on a different social path, a more equal social path.

And so, despite my reservations about the way they're doing it, I still think it needs to be done.

Judy Woodruff:  Just a little over a minute left.

I want to get from both of you your expectations for next week's impeachment trial, the second one, Jonathan, for President Trump.  What do you think will happen?

Jonathan Capehart:  I think we will hear wrenching testimony, in that the House managers, the House impeachment managers, will present a case that will bring the American people and the witnesses/jurors back to that day on January 6.

I expect the moment to be probably one of the most impactful, emotional moments in recent American history.

But I also expect this trial to be short.  I wouldn't be surprised if we're talking about the end of this trial a week from today.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, what do you expect?

David Brooks:  Yes, that sounds about right.

I'm mostly struck by how Donald Trump has sort of vanished.  Obviously, he's off Twitter, but he's not taking any measures to be anywhere.  And so it's just going to be a one-sided affair, which will end in an acquittal.  And then we will get back to business.

I will be very curious to see if the nation tunes in or whether they're really ready to move on from the Trump era.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, we are going to be covering it, and we are going to be asking the two of you about it one week from tonight at exactly this time.

David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart, thank you both.

Jonathan Capehart:  Thanks, Judy.

David Brooks:  Thanks.

PRESIDENT BIDEN - Policies Update

"Biden looks to ramp up pandemic relief as Republicans press for smaller aid package" PBS NewsHour 2/1/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Negotiations over new action to stimulate the economy are moving into higher gear Monday.  After releasing a $1.9 trillion aid plan last month, President Biden held a first meeting with Senate Republicans who are pushing an alternative plan.  White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor reports.

 

 

"Biden rolls back Trump’s immigration policies with a raft of initiatives" PBS NewsHour 2/2/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Biden is out with a raft of initiatives Tuesday directed at the U.S. southern border, and the man who will manage immigration policies, Alejandro Mayorkas is joining his Cabinet after being confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as Secretary of Homeland Security.  Yamiche Alcindor reports.

 

 

"Biden’s economic adviser on pandemic relief: ‘We can’t afford to wait another few months’" PBS NewsHour 2/2/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Biden appears ready to continue the push for his $1.9 trillion pandemic relief plan a day after he met with Senate Republicans to discuss its size and scope.  Jared Bernstein, who was appointed to the White House Council of Economic Advisers, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss the Biden administration’s stance on the plan.

 

 

"How President Biden’s policy shifts are impacting immigrants" PBS NewsHour 2/2/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Biden signed a series of executive actions Tuesday undoing many of the Trump administration's signature immigration policies.  This follows orders he already signed that reverse other controversial Trump era immigration items, like reinstating the DACA program and stopping construction of the border wall.  We spoke to some of those who are immediately and directly impacted by the changes.

 

 

"Arizona community divided over border wall after Biden’s policy changes" PBS NewsHour 2/3/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In Arizona, people are feeling the impact of President Biden's order to halt border wall construction.  While the wall's presence has already had a profound impact on border communities, its enduring legacy under a new President remains unclear.  Amna Nawaz reports.

 

 

"Bipartisan report urges the Biden administration to remain committed to Afghanistan" PBS NewsHour 2/1/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  One of the Biden administration's primary foreign policy challenges is how to end the United States' longest war.  A new bipartisan report urges the administration to remain committed to Afghanistan and ongoing peace talks.  Nick Schifrin reports.

 

 

"Congressional Democrats back blueprint for Biden’s relief plan" PBS NewsHour 2/5/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Biden's plans to pass a $1.9 trillion stimulus package picked up some momentum Friday as Democrats in Congress approved a basic blueprint.  While the measures don't have the force of law, lawmakers are expected to begin writing the details of a major package next week.  Yamiche Alcindor reports.