OPINION - Shields and Brooks 3/1/2019

"Shields and Brooks on Cohen testimony, North Korea summit" PBS NewsHour 3/1/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to analyze the week in politics, including reverberations from Michael Cohen’s appearance before the House Oversight Committee and conclusions from the Trump-Kim summit in Hanoi.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  It has been a turbulent week in the Trump administration, from hours of damning testimony from the President's former personal lawyer, to the collapse of nuclear talks with North Korea.

To help navigate the different twists and turns, we turn to Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Welcome to both of you.  Are you ready to navigate the twists and turns?

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

David Brooks, New York Times:  Just another week in Caligula's Rome.

(LAUGHTER)

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Ooh.

Judy Woodruff:  Ooh.

All right, on that note, we're going to talk about Michael Cohen's testimony all day long this Wednesday, David, before the House Oversight Committee, Government Oversight Committee.

What was your main takeaway from it?

David Brooks:  There were some things we learned.

We learned that Trump asked about the Moscow building project all the way through the campaign.  We learned about the $35,000 check.  We learned a few things.

But, to me, it was more of a moral occasion, more than anything else.

Judy Woodruff:  A moral occasion?

David Brooks:  A moral occasion.

What it illustrates is a President and, frankly, Michael Cohen who long ago decided that celebrity and wealth is more important than being a good person.  And they have dragged us all down there with us.

And the people they have dragged most effectively are the House Republicans, a lot of them on that committee, who decided that they were completely incurious about whether Donald Trump was a good guy or a bad guy or a really awful guy, that — their own leader, they didn't seem to care about that, but they were going to rip the skin off Michael Cohen.

And so they attacked him.  And what struck me is how moral corrosion happens, that you decide you're going to defend or ignore Trump, and then to do that, you have to morally distance yourself from him.  And then you have to morally distance yourself from him every day.

And, eventually, you just get numb to everything.  And so Jim Jordan and other people on the committee were saying, oh, we all knew this, like, it's all unremarkable.  And so that's — that's how moral corrosion happens.

Judy Woodruff:  How did you see the — I mean, was it — what role did the Republican questioning take, when most of them went after Michael Cohen, as David was saying, rather than talking about President Trump?

Mark Shields:  They took the old attack route, Judy, which is, if you can't argue the substance, you go after the source.  If you can't deal with the message, you shoot the messenger.

And that's what their whole strategy was.  The very fact that not a single member of the Republican committee defended Donald Trump or what he was charged or alleged to have done, to me, was revealing.  They just decided to go after Michael Cohen.

Now, it was — Michael Cohen's defects are there.  They're on the record.  He's going to pay for them, the legal defects in particular.  But there was no payoff for him to lie.  I mean, the Mueller crowd was sitting there, the Mueller, special counsel office.

They know exactly what he said.  If he said anything that was false or perjured himself, he faced further problems from them.  So there was a strong incentive for him not to lie.

And, to me, it reminded me of scripture's injunction that the meek will inherit the earth.  If that's the case, then the congressional Republicans someday will be land barons, because they are the meekest, most docile, most submissive group of people when it comes to any judgment at all, any opinion on what Donald Trump does.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, David — go ahead, David.

David Brooks:  What strikes me is that they don't fear final judgment.

I don't mean that in the ultimate sense, just like…

Mark Shields:  Primary judgment.

David Brooks:  Primary judgment.

The idea that you can side and suborn your soul to someone who lies constantly, and that you won't ultimately pay for that, how does that work?  Michael Cohen ultimately paid.  In my suspicion, Donald Trump will ultimately pay.  Most people who lie and cheat their way through life ultimately pay.  Maybe some get away from it.

But why you would want to hitch your career to that kind of wagon is just a mystery to me, because that's just not the way the law of the universe works.

Judy Woodruff:  But, of course, the Republican argument, Mark, is that Michael Cohen is a flawed character, that he's lied before, he's lied a lot.  Why should we believe him now?

Mark Shields:  Well, I mean, I just come back to the — there was no incentive and there was a strong disincentive for him to lie on — in his appearance under oath on television before the world.

So, I mean, everybody in the world could hear what he was saying.  And it could be stacked up to what he had — he had previously said and sworn to.  So, no.  And he acknowledged the fact.

I mean, you spend 10 years with Donald Trump, and it's going to come at a moral cost.  I'm sorry.  I mean, that is the lesson we have learned.  The one person in this entire administration that has gotten away with a reputation enhanced seems to be Nikki Haley.  Everybody else who's near him [Trump] is somehow tarnished, diminished, hurt, wounded by that association.

It is absolutely remarkable.  I think…

(CROSSTALK)

David Brooks:  Dan Coats.  You can think of a few.

(CROSSTALK)

Mark Shields:  Yes, Dan Coats.  Yes, Dan Coats.  You're Right.

David Brooks:  He's the Director of National Intelligence.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.

David Brooks:  The thing that got me about Cohen is, how many times did you become a thug to small businessmen to stiff them for dealing with the Trump administration?

Mark Shields:  Yes.

David Brooks:  Five hundred times.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

David Brooks:  And so that's — I don't know if it's illegal or what.

But it's unbecoming in the extreme.  And so I don't treat Michael Cohen as sort of the repented Chuck Colson.  I mean, he — I think he didn't have any the air of someone who's really repented or really faced the spiritual music.  He's just decided one side is against his interest, which is Donald Trump, and now the other side is for his interest, so he will say things that are nice for his interests.

I don't think he lied.  I think what he told was basically the truth, but he was basically catering now to the left and some sort of GoFundMe campaign that will help pay his legal bills.

Judy Woodruff:  But does this advance…

(CROSSTALK)

Mark Shields:  I don't know.  I don't have that kind of moral X-Ray.

(LAUGHTER)

Mark Shields:  I mean, I don't know if he was a sinner and became a saint.

I will say this.  The story of 500 people did you threaten or entities, did you threaten on Donald Trump's behalf, it was a good question asked by Congresswoman Speier from California.  And it was a — and he said 500 — 50, 100, 200, 500.  Let's say 500.

And — but the thing about it is, when he stiffed those small business — the plumbers and the electricians who did the work in the Trump projects, and he came back, and Donald Trump loved to hear about it, I mean, reveled in it.

Now, I mean, at what point do you say that there's no honor here?  I mean, there's nothing to admire.

Judy Woodruff:  And he made a point of telling that — of sharing that…

(CROSSTALK)

Mark Shields:  He did.  He was not — he did not set out to flatter…

(CROSSTALK)

Judy Woodruff:  But quickly, to both of you, does this advance the case against Donald Trump, advance the case of impeachment, David?

David Brooks:  I think a little.

We know the Trump Tower stuff in Moscow, the hush money.  I tend to think there's much more — and, actually, everybody agrees, and I agree too, that AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, did a very good job of laying down specific questions for specific predicates.

And she focused quite a lot on the business side of the Trump empire.  And if I'm a Republican, I'm thinking there's a lot of bad news to come from there, and just whether it's taxes for all — whether it's other things.

And that's what the Southern District of New York is looking into.  And so I think I'm less concerned that — there seems to be less to the Russia collusion and a lot more to everything else.

Mark Shields:  I agree.

I mean, he advanced the collusion case not at all, but he certainly laid out — I mean, he gave them leads, suggestions, people to talk to, to interview, and I would say enough stuff to keep several committees going.

I did want to give a shout-out to Elijah Cummings, the chairman of the committee.

Judy Woodruff:  The chair.

Mark Shields:  I thought he did a good job.

I mean, I thought there was an earnestness and a directness about him.  And I thought his summation is worth repeating and thinking about for all Americans, that this is important and we have got to return to normal.  This is not normal.

AMERICAN POLITICS - Cohen & Trump's Border Wall

"Trump faces challenges on 2 sides, as House pushes resolution and Cohen testifies" PBS NewsHour 2/26/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The House is pushing a resolution to invalidate President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency over illegal immigration.  Meanwhile, Trump faced a challenge from the other side of Capitol Hill as his former attorney Michael Cohen testified in a closed session with the Senate Intelligence Committee.  Lisa Desjardins updates Judy Woodruff on a busy day on Capitol Hill.

"What new information came out of Cohen hearing?" PBS NewsHour 2/27/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The testimony of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen in front of the House Oversight Committee produced plenty of material.  Lisa Desjardins, who attended the hearing, and Yamiche Alcindor join Judy Woodruff to discuss the day’s key takeaways, including House Republican and White House attacks on Cohen as not trustworthy and Cohen's argument that Trump ran for President solely to enrich himself.

"Cohen calls Trump ‘a conman’ and ‘a cheat’" PBS NewsHour 2/27/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In public testimony before the House Oversight Committee, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen said some of his past offenses were “for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in coordination with” President Trump.  He also called his former boss a conman, racist, and cheat but said he had no "direct evidence" of Trump's campaign colluding with Russia.

"Cohen accuses Trump of inaccurately reporting finances to IRS, banks" PBS NewsHour 2/27/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In his congressional testimony on Wednesday, Michael Cohen produced evidence of hush money paid to porn actress Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, to keep her from revealing an affair with President Trump.  Cohen also accused the President of inflating his financial assets during dealings with banks but under-reporting them to the IRS.  Judy Woodruff talks to Lisa Desjardins for more.

"Why Cohen’s answers on Russia could pose potential legal problems for Trump" PBS NewsHour 2/27/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  During his appearance before the House Oversight Committee, Michael Cohen was questioned about possible ties between the President and Russia, as well as Trump’s relationship with Roger Stone.  Yamiche Alcindor talks to Judy Woodruff about the significance of the information Cohen relayed and whether any of it could pose a potential legal problem for the President.

"How a former independent counsel analyzes the legal implications of Cohen’s testimony" PBS NewsHour 2/27/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Michael Cohen’s testimony raises many questions about President Trump’s personal, political and financial dealings.  For analysis of its potential legal implications, Judy Woodruff turns to Solomon Wisenberg, who was Deputy Independent Counsel during the Whitewater investigation of the early 1990s.

"The ‘stunning’ details Cohen offered about Trump’s business" PBS NewsHour 2/28/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  During a public hearing before the House Oversight Committee, former Trump attorney Michael Cohen discussed the president’s personal, political and financial affairs.  William Brangham talks to The Washington Post’s David Fahrenthold, and Andrea Bernstein co-host of the podcast "Trump, Inc.," about "startling" details of Trump's business and why Congress might want to talk to Allen Weisselberg.

OPINION - Brooks and Marcus 1/18/2019

"Brooks and Marcus on shutdown stagnation, Michael Cohen report" PBS NewsHour 1/18/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Ruth Marcus join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including the historic government shutdown, a report that President Trump instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, and the growing list of possible Democratic candidates for President in 2020.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  So, the shutdown was just one of a handful of major stories this week to rattle Washington and point directly to the Oval Office.

To help make sense of it all, the analysis of Brooks and Marcus.  That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus.  Mark Shields is away.

Hello to both of you.

Ruth Marcus, Washington Post:  Hi.

Judy Woodruff:  So, the shutdown.

David, they were it again this week, but no movement.  Is one side — we saw what the poll results are saying, but is one side winning this, or not?

David Brooks, New York Times:  No.  They're all losing.

It's gone from like junior high food-fight to nursery school sandbox fight.  I don't know.  It just gets worse.

And, weirdly — I don't want to get too grandiose, but it reminds the World War, the lead-up to World War I, where each side thinks the other side, surely, they will cave.  But neither — and they're both vastly misestimating the other side.  And neither side thinks they're going to cave.  They both took the other side will cave.

And so it gets worse and worse.  I have been moderately hopeful in the last couple weeks.  That's all evaporated for me.

And I blame Trump, mostly.  I blame the Republicans in the Senate a lot.  I really think, if there's a key leader who can get us out of this gridlock, it's Republicans taking some control in the Senate and saying, we're going to go forward with something.  If Pelosi and Trump want to come with us, that would be good.

There has to be some way forward to get out of just the gridlock.

Judy Woodruff:  But Mitch McConnell, Ruth, has he's not going to touch this until he knows what the President would sign.

Ruth Marcus:  Indeed.

And he — his view is, let everybody else work it out.  I — when I was negotiating that — and finding deals, that was with a Democratic President.  So now let the Democratic leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, let him handle it.

Nobody wants to be involved in this, because it's so — it's both solvable and intractable at the same time.  It's solvable for all the reasons that caused David's optimism, and it's intractable because there is nothing to gain with your own base that you have to worry about by solving it.

And you started out by saying that nothing happened this week.  But I think, as David said, actually, something did happen this week.

Judy Woodruff:  Well…

Ruth Marcus:  It got worse.

Judy Woodruff:  All right, forgive me.

(LAUGHTER)

Ruth Marcus:  We're worse off this week than we were a week ago.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.

And now, we are told, the President is going to make a — quote, unquote — David, "major announcement" about all this tomorrow.  Somebody was speculating maybe he's going to announce an emergency, the government's going to take over this and do the wall itself.

But a lot of — there's some reason to think he might not do that.

David Brooks:  Yes, I hope he doesn't.  I think he won't.

Often, major announcements are only major in the minds of those doing the announcing.  They seem like just restatements of the same position over and over again.  So, we could see that.  Who knows.  I don't know.

I would be surprised if he did the emergency thing.  That — there's just so much upset, even in the Republican Party, about that.  That — if there's anything that would lead to the weakening of the Republican-being-stuck-with-Trump position, that would do it.

Judy Woodruff:  But, Ruth, you don't see any inkling that one side is feeling more heat than the other side?

Ruth Marcus:  I don't.  I think they are each dug in.

They want the solution, but they want the other person on the other side to blink first.  I thought I — earlier today, I was worried that I was being too negative.  So I did a round the phone calling on the Hill.  And what I discovered was that I simply wasn't being negative enough, that I talked to folks who were like, I have been around for all these shutdowns, and this is the worst I have seen it, and I don't see the way out of it.

I almost wonder if there wouldn't be some element, as much as people would balk at the notion of declaring the emergency at this point, since it seems so bleak, to get out of it, if they wouldn't give a little bit of a pass for that.

I think that — I'm not encouraging that.  I think it would be dangerous and constitutionally dangerous.  But we have to find some way out of this also.

Judy Woodruff:  So maybe it is World War I all over again.

So, the other thing that happened overnight, David, is, you have this report — only one news organization so far — but BuzzFeed is reporting, they're quoting law enforcement sources as saying that the investigators have evidence that the President told his former attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress.

David Brooks:  Yes.

This is significant for a couple reasons.  One, it's a felony the President allegedly committed while being President, unlike all the previous stuff.  And then it is a bit of a — he's President of the United States or running for office, and he puts the U.S. national interest behind his own interest in getting a Trump Tower built in Moscow.

And so these are both very serious things.  David French of "National Review" pointed out that, in Michael Cohen's sentencing agreement months and months ago, this was right out there in the open for all of us, that Cohen's lawyers said he did — he lied to Congress because person number one, Donald Trump, told him to do it, and he didn't have the strength to resist.

And so that suggests there's some meat to this.  BuzzFeed is a real news organization, it should be said.

And the final thing, the thing that is of interest to me in the BuzzFeed report, you can't tell whether they have written evidence.  They say there's a trove of documents.  They say there's a trove of e-mails and texts.  But is there an actual piece of paper with Donald Trump saying, lie to Congress?  That would be pretty explosive, if that exists.

Judy Woodruff:  Or a recording.

Ruth Marcus:  Or a recording.  'Lordy, let there be tapes,' as somebody said.

If true, this is beyond explosive.  It's not just an impeachable offense, but an offense that you could actually imagine even this Republican Congress not just impeaching the President for, because, of course, that's up to a Democratic House, but convicting him and removing him from office for.

But it would require not only for it to be true, but for it to be evidence that's more than simply a swearing contest between one person with a history of less than truth-telling, the President, and another person who is an admitted liar, Michael Cohen.

So, not the — not the best witness for the prosecution or the impeachment prosecution.  But if you had evidence to back it up, this is really, really a serious allegation.

Judy Woodruff:  But it looks as if, David — I mean, talking to Jamie Raskin, who's involved in House leadership few minutes ago, it looks as if at least the Democrats are talking about an investigation, whether they move on to the impeachment.

David Brooks:  Right.

And a lot of this is about putting the Republicans — the Democrats where they are — where they — are we really going to impeach, or are we not?  Where does their emphasis go?

This is an interesting debate on the left.  Do we want this guy impeached, or do we want to vote him out?  Which is better for the country?  I think voting him out would be better for the country.

But if — as the evidence mounds, you really have no choice.

Ruth Marcus:  It's interesting.

I know many Democratic members of Congress who believe, as David said, they would be better off running against Donald Trump than against whoever the Republicans would put up in his place.

But this is, as Jamie Raskin was suggesting, an insult to the very constitutional system, the notion that you could, as a sitting President, suborn perjury, about an — not just about a general matter of government, but tell somebody to lie in order to protect your own business interests and your own private conduct.

That cannot be allowed.  The reason we know it can't be allowed is that Bill Barr, the nominee for attorney general…

Judy Woodruff:  Said so.

Ruth Marcus:  Said so in hearings with questions that now sound prescient.

THE INVESTIGATIONS - Trump Ordered Cohen to Lie?!

"What it means for Trump if he ordered Cohen to lie to Congress" PBS NewsHour 1/18/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  BuzzFeed reported Friday that President Trump personally directed Michael Cohen, his former lawyer, to lie to Congress about a potential Trump hotel project in Moscow.  In response, some congressional Democrats said ordering a subordinate to commit perjury "is an impeachable offense."  Judy Woodruff is joined by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md) a member of the House Judiciary Committee, to discuss.

Editor's Note: After this story aired, a spokesman for special counsel Robert Mueller's office released a statement: “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate."  BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith said the organization stands by its reporting.

COHEN TRIAL - Sentencing

"‘Real drama’ in the courtroom as Cohen gets 3-year sentence" PBS NewsHour 12/12/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison on Wednesday.  He admitted to arranging hush money payments to women claiming affairs with Mr. Trump, as well as lying about Trump’s business dealings in Russia.  Judy Woodruff talks to Andrea Bernstein of WNYC, who was in the courtroom, about how both sides emphasized the case's significance for American democracy.

TRUMP - At Legal Risk

NOTE:  As I have read in various reports the Justice Department policy is you cannot indite a sitting President.  Note that this is NOT a law.  IMO that a sitting President CAN be indited but you cannot do anything until he/she leaves office, then lock-him-up.

"Why Cohen’s hush money places the president at legal risk" PBS NewsHour 12/10/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Last week’s court filings by federal prosecutors and the special counsel have shifted attention to the hush money payments made on President Trump's behalf during his 2016 presidential campaign to two women with whom he had allegedly had affairs.  William Brangham speaks with Rick Hasen, an election and campaign finance law scholar about the President's apparent proximity to a felony.

TRUMP ORGANIZATION - Latest on Flynn/Cohen/Manafort

Trump Nightmare

"What’s in the latest court filings about Cohen, Manafort" PBS NewsHour 12/7/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Mueller team has released new details regarding its interactions with Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, and Michael Cohen.  According to court filings, former Trump lawyer Cohen informed investigators about contact among Russia, the Trump Organization and the Trump campaign, while Manafort lied about four topics, including his contact with the administration.  William Brangham joins Judy Woodruff.

"How the latest Cohen filings could get ‘close to the President’" PBS NewsHour 12/7/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Two court filings Friday reveal new information about Michael Cohen.  Judy Woodruff speaks with Jessica Roth, law professor at Yeshiva University and a former federal prosecutor, about the differences between how Mueller and the Southern District of New York characterize Cohen, Russian “synergy” with the Trump campaign and potential overlap between Trump's political and business interests.

OPINION - Brooks and Klein 8/24/2018

"Brooks and Klein on Trump’s ‘moral affront’ and the rule of law" PBS NewsHour 8/24/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  It’s been a dramatic week for President Trump and some of his former associates.  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Ezra Klein from Vox join Judy Woodruff to discuss the President's legal and moral standing, emerging patterns among the circle of Trump intimates, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the rule of law, and the final episodes of 'great man' John McCain.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  But first to the analysis of Brooks and Klein.

That is New York Times columnist David Brooks and Ezra Klein of Vox.com.  Mark Shields is away.

Hello to both of you.

It’s Friday.  And I say this every week.  What a week.  But it really is what a week.

David, this week, we saw the President’s former campaign chairman, manager being found guilty of some very serious charges, a number of felonies.  We saw the President’s personal lawyer, former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleading guilty to a number of serious crimes.

Where does this leave the President?

David Brooks, New York Times:  I think hurt.

But the debate a lot of my friends are having, is this the unraveling moment?  And I personally do not think it is.  It may lead to the unraveling moment.

But the Manafort conviction is on matters that were scarcely related to Donald Trump.  The Cohen conviction is about a campaign finance law.  I mean, to me, one of the things — weird things about our culture is, the President of the United States paid off two porn stars to keep them silent from an affair, and we’re talking about campaign finance.

To me, the moral affront is so gigantic.  The legal affront seems to me less.  And so I don’t think that’s the kind of — whether the — whether Michael Cohen fronted him some money to pay off the hush money, that doesn’t strike me as the sort of thing that really alters a presidency.

It does open up a lot of legal avenues.  And as the prosecution grants people immunity, the thing about these special prosecutors is, you don’t know where they’re going.  And so they may start out with Russia collusions, they may wind up with Stormy Daniels, and then they’re off to the races.

And so, assuming Donald Trump did something else in his life, it seems to me a lot more likely they’re going to find that.

Judy Woodruff:  So, Ezra, I mean, just the fact, though, that these two people who are — had such a prominent role for — working for the President in his campaign for presidency, the campaign, and then the person who was his personal — they called him fixer, lawyer, whatever you want to call it, somebody close to him, Michael Cohen.

Ezra Klein, Vox.com:  Yes, it does seem like a tremendous coincidence that there was so much criminality and thuggish behavior all around Trump.

I think the thing that is important here is twofold.  Number one is what we’re actually seeing is tolerated around Donald Trump.  David’s right that I don’t think we know where any of this ends.  And I’m not sure that the things we have found out so far are going to lead to the unraveling or lead to impeachment.

But we only know what we know.  And what we also know is, there’s a huge amount we don’t know about the Donald Trump Organization, about the connections with Russia.  We know that Bob Mueller knows a lot more than we know.

And so, as we see different things come out, as you see what kind of behavior was tolerated, and even encouraged, right — the Michael Cohen behavior appears to have been directed by Donald Trump within the Trump Organization — that should change our estimation of what is going on in the things we don’t know.

The second thing that I just think is interesting and telling this week is Donald Trump coming out and saying that he thinks it ought to be illegal or potentially ought to be illegal, for low-level criminals to flip on their bosses, coming out and saying that what he really hates is rats.

We have a sort of President now saying that what he doesn’t like is snitches.  And people who don’t think they have a lot to hide don’t come out with principled objections to that kind of prosecutorial pressure.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, I don’t know whether we’re calling them flip — people who flip or not, David, but you have got the man we have been talking about tonight, Allen Weisselberg, who’s the man with the knowledge of the money inside the Trump business organization, on top of his good friend, a man named David Pecker, who runs the company that runs The National Enquirer.

They’re both cooperating.  They have been given immunity.

David Brooks:  And Cohen and, before that, Omarosa.

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

David Brooks:  I mean, one thing we have learned about Donald Trump is that he does't inspire a lot of lifelong personal loyalty, that, if you’re working with Trump, it’s not personal, it’s business.

And he turns on people like a dime.  And, as a result, people turn on him like a dime.  And so you have a lot of people who are loyal for pragmatic reasons right now in the White House and in the Republican Party, but it’s not because of any affection.

And so the lesson is, if things turn, they will probably turn all at once.  If it’s no longer useful to pretend you like Donald Trump, people are going to stop liking Donald Trump.  And so when something — if there is something big out there — and I want to caution us, we don’t know.

Judy Woodruff:  That’s true.

(CROSSTALK)

David Brooks:  But if there is something big out there, you will see a turn all at once, because there’s just not a lot of love there holding people to loyalty.

Judy Woodruff:  But is the President already weakened by this, Ezra, or do we just wait and watch and withhold judgment?

Ezra Klein:  I mean, I do think he’s weakened.  The question is weakened in what and in what way.

Long term, I think people underestimate how important Donald Trump’s drain the swamp, anti-corruption plank was to his 2016 victory.  It was a very close election.  And if you look at the final polls — there was a Washington Post/ABC News poll from just a couple days before the election.

The single category on which Trump led Hillary Clinton was corruption.  He was tied on the economy.  He was behind on immigration and national security and other things.  But people believed in him to clean up Washington, or at least believed in him more than they believed in her to do that.

Donald Trump has now had multiple Cabinet secretaries resign for corruption.  He’s had key people around him go to jail.  He’s under constant investigation.  Things around his family are very strange.

To give up that is going to be rough for the Republicans in 2018.  That’s already becoming an issue for the Democrats.  But, in 2020, I do think people underestimate how much more difficult it is going to be for him to run as the person who is now a paragon of Washington corruption, as opposed to its key enemy.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, how do you see that, David?

David Brooks:  It could be.

I mean, if you look at the polling — Ezra would know this better than me, but I saw in AP today where he was down to 38, so maybe there is some slippage.

I would just say, from my personal experience — I was with a lot of — some Trump people this week in North and South Carolina.  First of all, we didn’t talk about it.  We talked about politics and life in general.  But these scandals were just off the radar screen.

I certainly didn’t detect anybody who was a Trump supporter not being a Trump supporter.  So, as long as he has a death grip on the Republican Party, and as long as that death grip — or the loyalty is to Trump himself and not to the party, not to any position, which I think it is, he’s where he has been, with a very solid party really wrapped around his finger right now.

Judy Woodruff:  But, Ezra, this does seem to be giving pause to at least some of the Republicans.  They’re not abandoning him yet, but, in their language, in the way they’re talking about this, you sense a — I don’t know, a discomfort, at the very least.

Ezra Klein:  I think has been — I think there’s a lot of discomfort lurking very, very close to the surface.

(LAUGHTER)

Ezra Klein:  But, in general, I think this something that we always need to be careful with.

I think the media has a tendency to think about Trump’s support as this one kind of thing.  And so we will go and talk to very die-hard Trump supporters and say, OK, do you still support Donald Trump?  And they will say, of course I do.

Donald Trump clearly has a base of support, and it’s big.  It looks to be around 30-ish percentage points in the polls.  There’s a Morning Consult that — this is way too early to do, but matched Donald Trump up against every Democrat they could think of.

And what was surprising was that the support for Democrats varied a lot, from people like Joe Biden, who people knew, to Montana Governor Bullock, who they didn’t.  But what didn’t change was Trump supporters, always right around 30 percent.

The key for Trump is not strong Republicans who support him.  The question is that sort of 5, 10 percentage points that pushed them over the edge.  That’s the people who he can’t lose.  And while they’re probably not paying a huge amount of in-and-out attention — a lot of these folks might be less attached to politics than, say, the people in this room — they’re also not die-hard Trump supporters.

And if they begin to think he is part of the problem, that’s where things get very dangerous for him, because his margins have been small.  And, also, the coming election is 2018.  And Republicans, they don’t have his personal charisma.

TRUMP - In Legal Cross-Hairs

"What we know about Don McGahn’s cooperation with the Mueller probe" PBS NewsHour 8/20/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Another member of President Trump's team has been working with special counsel Robert Mueller, according to the New York Times.  White House Counsel Don McGahn has reportedly shared detailed accounts about events at the heart of the investigation.  Amna Nawaz reports, and Judy Woodruff talks with former deputy independent counsel Solomon Wisenberg, and former White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler.

"What does Michael Cohen’s guilty plea mean for Trump?" PBS NewsHour 8/21/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty on Tuesday to charges including campaign finance violations for paying off women at Trump's direction, bank fraud and more than $4 million in tax evasion.  The deal could result in prison time.  Judy Woodruff learns more from Jessica Roth of Yeshiva University Cardozo School of Law, [and] Andrea Bernstein of WNYC.

"How Paul Manafort’s conviction could affect the Russia probe" PBS NewsHour 8/21/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A jury found President Trump's 2016 campaign chairman Paul Manafort guilty on eight counts of bank and tax fraud, and failing to disclose foreign bank accounts.  A mistrial was declared on 10 other counts.  Judy Woodruff learns more from William Brangham and Jessica Roth of Yeshiva University Cardozo School of Law.

"How are Republicans and Democrats reacting to Cohen and Manafort charges?" PBS NewsHour 8/22/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Fallout continued today after a guilty plea and a guilty verdict for two men with close ties to President Trump in federal court on a combined 16 counts, ranging from tax fraud to campaign finance violations.  Yamiche Alcindor, Lisa Desjardins, and Larry Noble a campaign finance expert and former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission, join Judy Woodruff to discuss the latest developments.

"Does Cohen plea have legal implications for the President?" PBS NewsHour 8/22/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Lanny Davis is one of two attorneys representing Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal lawyer.  Davis joins Judy Woodruff to discuss the legal implications of Cohen’s guilty plea, whether he plans to share information with the Mueller investigation and his desire to go forward with truth in his new life.

"Former AG Mukasey: there’s ‘not really’ an election law problem with Cohen" PBS NewsHour 8/22/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  For another perspective on Michael Cohen’s guilty plea, Judy Woodruff is joined by a former attorney general under President George W. Bush, Michael Mukasey.  According to Mukasey, the payment in question would have violated campaign finance law only if its sole purpose was to influence the outcome of an election, which Mukasey says was not the case.

"Cohen crimes ‘totally unrelated to the campaign,’ says Trump" PBS NewsHour 8/23/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump today reiterated his belief that he is not implicated by the guilty pleas of his former lawyer, Michael Cohen.  The President expressed frustration that he should be associated with Cohen’s crimes, saying they were “totally unrelated to the campaign.”  Also, another longtime Trump friend is reportedly preparing to share additional information about the hush money payments Cohen made.

"A second top Trump associate receives legal immunity" PBS NewsHour 8/24/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In exchange for immunity, the Trump Organization's chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, will reportedly talk to investigators about the reimbursements he helped arrange to Michael Cohen.  Judy Woodruff gets analysis from Renato Mariotti a former federal prosecutor experienced in trying white-collar crime, and Caleb Melby who covers business and the Trump Organization for Bloomberg News.

CLOSER LOOK - Manafort and Cohen

My answer to headline, arrogance.

"Why Manafort and Cohen Thought They’d Get Away With It" by Jesse Eisinge, ProPublica 8/24/2018

It takes a special counsel to actually catch white-collar criminals.

This article was co-published with The New York Times.

Oh, the audacity of dopes.  The crimes of Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen are notable not just for how blatant they were but also for their lack of sophistication.  The two men did little to hide their lying to banks and the Internal Revenue Service.  One can almost sympathize with them: If it wasn’t for their decision to attach themselves to the most unlikely President in modern history, there’s every reason to think they might be still working their frauds today.

But how anomalous are Mssrs. Manafort and Cohen?  Are there legions of K Street big shots working for foreign despots and parking their riches in Cypriot bank accounts to avoid the IRS?  Are many political campaigns walking felonies waiting to be exposed?  What about the world of luxury residential building in which Cohen plied his trade with the Trump Organization?

The answer is more disturbing than the questions: We don’t know.  We don’t know because the cops aren’t on the beat.  Resources have been stripped from white-collar enforcement.  The FBI shifted agents to work on international terror in the wake of 9/11.  White-collar cases made up about one-tenth of the Justice Department’s cases in recent years, compared with one-fifth in the early 1990s.  The IRS’ criminal enforcement capabilities have been decimated by years of budget cuts and attrition.  The Federal Election Commission is a toothless organization that is widely flouted.

No wonder Cohen and Manafort were so brazen.  They must have felt they had impunity.

How could they not?  Any person in any bar in America can tell you who was held accountable for the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, which peaked 10 years ago next month: No one.  No top officer from any major bank went to prison.

But the problem goes beyond big banks.  The Department of Justice — in both Democratic and Republican administrations — has lost the will and ability to prosecute top executives across corporate America, at large industrial firms, tech giants, retailers, drug makers and so on.  Instead the Department of Justice reaches settlements with corporations, which pay in dollars instead of the liberty of their top officers and directors.

Beginning with a charge to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election, special counsel Robert Mueller has fallen upon a rash of other crimes.  In doing so, he has exposed how widespread and serious our white-collar fraud problem really is, and how lax enforcement has been for years.

At least he is also showing a way out of the problem.  He and his team are demonstrating that the proper attention, resources, technique and experience can go a long way to rectify the white-collar prosecution crisis.

What’s Mueller’s secret?  For one thing, he has a focus.  He and his team have sufficient resources to go after a discrete set of investigations.  In the early 2000s, the Justice Department had similar success setting up the Enron Task Force, a special SWAT team of government lawyers that prosecuted top executives of the failed Texas energy trader.  That contrasts with the financial crisis, when the Justice Department never created a similar task force.  No single department official was responsible for the prosecutions of bankers after the global meltdown.

The investigation’s techniques are also instructive.  The Southern District of New York, which was referred the Cohen case by Mueller, raided President Trump’s former attorney’s offices and fought for access to the materials, even as Cohen asserted attorney-client privilege.  When federal prosecutors investigate large companies, out of custom and deference they rarely use such aggressive tactics.  They place few wiretaps, conduct almost no undercover operations and do almost no raids.  Instead government attorneys reach carefully negotiated agreements about which documents they can review, the product of many hours of discussion with high-powered law firms on behalf of their clients.  All the battles over privileged materials happen behind closed doors and without the benefit of a disinterested special master, as the Cohen case had.

Indeed it’s worse than that.  The government has essentially privatized corporate law enforcement.  The government effectively outsources the investigations to the companies themselves.  The companies, typically trying to appear cooperative or to forestall government action, hire law firms to do internal investigations.  Imagine if Mueller relied on Trump to investigate whether he colluded with the Russians or violated any other laws, and Trump hired Rudy Giuliani’s firm to do the probe.

The aggressive Mueller techniques have yielded the most crucial element for white-collar cases: flippers; i.e., wrongdoers who agree to testify against their co-conspirators.  Rick Gates, the Manafort protégé, helped tighten his mentor’s noose.  We are going to see in the next few months how many people flip and what they will say.  No wonder President Trump mused that flipping “almost ought to be illegal.”

Mueller’s experience has given him the courage to take cases to trial, where juries are mercurial and the federal bench has turned hostile.  Mueller’s prosecutors tried a “thin case” against Manafort, as the expression goes, boiling their evidence down to a few elements that the jury could absorb easily.  They even managed to overcome the open hostility of U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis.  Good prosecutors are used to that in white-collar cases.  Judges and justices have not looked favorably upon white-collar prosecutions for more than a decade now, overturning verdicts and narrowing statutes.  But with well-marshaled evidence and clear presentation, prosecutors can surmount the difficulties.

Moreover, Mueller isn’t looking to go soft in order to preserve his professional viability.  I’m assuming that at age 74, he’s not going to go through the revolving door after this.  That hasn’t been true for most top Justice Department officials in recent years.  Many of them come from the defense bar and when they leave government they go back to defending large corporations.  The same goes with the younger prosecutors who negotiate those corporate settlements.  Almost all go on to become corporate defense attorneys.  In those negotiations, they are auditioning for their next jobs, wanting to display their dazzling smarts but also eventually needing to appear like reasonable people and avoid being depicted by the white-collar bar as cowboys unworthy of a prestigious partnership.

Of course, we don’t know whether Mueller can go all the way to the top.  The big issue in white-collar crime is whether the Justice Department can prosecute CEOs.  Sure, it occasionally brings charges against lower-level executives of major corporations, but hasn’t held the chief of a Fortune 500 company accountable in more than a decade.  While most observers believe Mueller will adhere to policy and not indict the President, will his report to Congress implicate the chief executive of the United States, if the evidence warrants it?

One man cannot fix the large problem on his own, however.  “For these individual episodic financial crimes, the government can muster the capacity and courage to investigate and prosecute,” says Paul Pelletier, a former federal prosecutor who recently ran for Congress in a Democratic primary.  “The real question is whether, in the context of a national economic crisis, the Department of Justice has sufficient experience, resources and leadership to effectively tackle it.  I’d argue that it’s pretty obvious it does not.”

For that, the Justice Department requires more resources and bodies than the government devotes to white-collar crime today, and probably some changes in the law.

Nevertheless, this should be a moment of reflection for white-collar prosecutors.  It should not take a special counsel to uncover millions in bank fraud, money laundering and tax evasion.  Using proper techniques, prioritizing crimes that can harm millions of people and stiffening their obsequious posture toward corporate executives will go a ways to remedying the situation.

Here’s the bad news, which will be the least surprising thing you’ll read today: the Trump administration is moving in the opposite direction.  Its law enforcement agencies are engaged in something of a regulatory strike, especially when it comes to white-collar enforcement.  Regulators are not policing companies or industries and are not referring cases to the Justice Department.  The number of white-collar cases filed against individuals is lower than at any time in more than 20 years, according to research done by Syracuse University.  The Justice Department’s fines against companies fell 90 percent during Trump’s first year in office, compared with in Obama’s last year in office, according to Public Citizen.

That must be sweet music to not just to other Manaforts and Cohens but also any corporate malefactors out there.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 7/27/2018

"Shields and Brooks on Trump’s role in the economy, Michael Cohen, and the Russia probe" PBS NewsHour 7/27/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including a blockbuster new report on U.S. economic growth, the fallout from President Trump’s trade wars, plus the latest developments in the Russia investigation, including whether the President knew about a 2016 Trump Tower meeting ahead of time.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  So, from the Russia investigation to the economy, and other things, it’s been a busy week for this President.

We turn now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

It is so good to see both of you together.

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Thank you.

Judy Woodruff:  Sometimes, in the summer…

Mark Shields:  I have been here, Judy.

(LAUGHTER)

Mark Shields:  I haven’t been missing.

Judy Woodruff:  So, let’s start — David, we’re going to start with you, because you have been away — with the economy, our lead story tonight.

Blockbuster numbers for the past second quarter of the year, growth off the charts.  The President said today several times that he deserves the credit for this, his policies have led to a turnaround in the American economy.

Does he deserve the credit?  What’s the significance for him?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Totally.  We would be back in medieval economy if not for Donald Trump. [sarcasm]

No, it’s just a truism that Presidents get the blame when it’s going down and they get the credit when it’s going up.  But their effect on the economy is generally over the long term.  It’s not a short-term thing and not a quarter-by-quarter thing.

I think, if you look at the economic data, there is a lot of consumer spending.  And that probably, as David Wessel said earlier in the program, because of the tax cuts.

I think the business investment is not as high as you would think it would be.  The whole idea of corporate rate cuts is, you’re handing a lot of money back to corporations, and they’re going to blow out the ceiling.

And it’s fine, but it’s not what you would expect.  And, earlier, I thought the tax cut really was having an effect in inducing corporations to invest.  That seems not to be the case.  It’s not bad, but it’s not fantastic.

And so I would say the tax cut gets some credit, but not a lot.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, how do you look at these numbers and the President’s role in all this?

Mark Shields:  I look at it, Judy, that Donald Trump is capable of convincing people of just about anything.

I mean, recall, if you will, November 2016, when he got elected, he convinced enough voters that the country was at the brink of desolation and destruction.  We, at that point, had — were in a point of 89 consecutive months of economic growth, of 80 months (an historic high in the country) of job growth, consecutively.

Judy Woodruff:  When he was elected.

Mark Shields:  When he was elected in November 2016.

He somehow was able, at a time when longevity was an all-time high, graduation rates were at an all-time high, pollution, other than greenhouse gases, were at an all-time low — I mean, it was — it was really a good era.  And yet he was able to say, this is the worst time in America, it’s the darkest moment.

Now, David’s right.  He does — the President does either get credit or blame.  And I would just point out to him, as a cautionary note, the last time the economy grew at a faster rate was third quarter of 2014, when it grew — Barack Obama was President.  It grew at 5.2 percent, David Wessel mentioned.

And that election of 2014, the Democrats’ numbers in the House of Representatives lost to the point where they had their lowest number since 1928, they held fewer state legislatures than they had at any time prior to the Civil War.

And so, when the economy is bad, the economy is the only issue.  When the economy is good, the elections are oftentimes about other issues.

TRUMP - On Tape

"What does Trump on tape reveal about the plan to pay off a former Playboy model?" PBS NewsHour 7/25/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The President’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen released a recording of then-candidate Trump in which they seem to discuss a possible payment to the chief of a media company that reportedly agreed to pay a former Playboy model for her story alleging an affair with Trump.  Yamiche Alcindor reports, then Judy Woodruff gets analysis from former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti.