SUMMARY: Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. Ahead of his appearance, the White House had instructed Lewandowski to discuss only matters covered in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report -- and indeed, Lewandowski refused to answer numerous questions from members of the committee. Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.
SUMMARY: The debate over the Mueller Report and its political fallout continue. More than three months after the investigation concluded, the former special counsel himself will testify before two congressional committees on July 17. Yamiche Alcindor joins Judy Woodruff to discuss the format of the appearances, why Democrats are hoping for a “breakthrough moment” and what Mueller won’t be able to discuss.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s political news, including President Trump’s comments about willingness to accept foreign opposition research, the status of election security legislation, candidate lineups for the upcoming Democratic Presidential debates and the politics of Democratic socialism.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): Back in the U.S., the stages are set for the first Democratic primary debates, and President Trump weighs in on accepting information from foreign governments about political opponents, which brings us to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.
That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Hello to both of you.
So let's start with the story that has pretty much dominated the week, David, and that is President Trump saying in that interview with ABC that if he were offered information from a foreign government about a political opponent, he wouldn't have any trouble taking it, and he — why would he report it to the FBI? Now, he's walked it back a little.
David Brooks, New York Times: Yes.
Judy Woodruff: But how serious is this?
David Brooks: Well, it's a great moment in moral philosophy when you're asked if you're going to cheat, and you say, of course, everyone cheats.
(LAUGHTER)
I salute him for not pretending to be better than he really is. He's pretty candid about it.
But I do think that's a bit of his mind-set, that the rules — everybody breaks the rules. And maybe he conducted his business life that way, and he certainly wants to do that. It's just his natural reaction is, of course. Everybody breaks the rules.
What's disturbing to me is not so much him. We sort of know him already — is how many Republicans are now walking themselves up to the position, well, we're in a death match, and so we need a leader like that.
And I think, in order to justify their support for President Trump, they have talked themselves — or many people have — into the position that this is a life-or-death struggle, the left is out to destroy us, and so breaking the rules is what you got to do.
And so that, to me, is almost a scarier prospect than the heart and soul of Donald Trump.
Judy Woodruff: So, some of them, some Republicans have said that he made a mistake.
David Brooks: Yes.
Judy Woodruff: But you're right.
David Brooks: Mitt Romney and others.
But some of the others, the people who are supporting him, it's the ends justify the means argument.
Judy Woodruff: Mark?
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: Yes, I agree with David.
It just — it strikes me that the President remains unchanged in a changing world. Being President has not changed him in the least. Even Warren Harding, not a particularly thoughtful or self-reflective man, said, the White House is an alchemist. It finds what your strengths are, in his case, finds what your weaknesses are.
Donald Trump said in an interview with George Stephanopoulos: I have heard a lot of things in my life. I have never gone to the FBI.
I mean, he was talking as a New York real estate guy. He's never made the transition to, I'm thinking, is it good for the United States of America, is it good for the working families, is it good for world peace or whatever, that a President is supposed to think through that prism.
It comes right down to, is it good for me? And, to David's point, hey, hey, get a little advantage over my opponent, yes, you better believe I will do it. What am I, a sissy, a snitch that's going to go to the FBI?
And it's a — it really is sort of a sad moral judgment.
The other thing I would just point out is ABC — it was ABC's story. And ABC today broke the — they revealed the Trump state polls at this point. And I don't know if you saw that, but he is now trailing Joe Biden by 16 points in Pennsylvania, by 10 points in Wisconsin, by seven points in Florida.
So, I mean, we're looking at the cusp right now, given those kind of numbers, of a campaign that literally would do anything.
Judy Woodruff: Which the President, when he was asked about those polls the other day, said that that's not correct.
Mark Shields: That's right.
Judy Woodruff: That his polls show that he's ahead in every state.
Mark Shields: And these are his polls that they revealed today.
(LAUGHTER)
Judy Woodruff: But, David, to your point about Republicans being on board, I mean, the fact is, you have mainly Republicans holding up efforts in the Congress right now to tighten election security.
So, this is — this is having some consequences here.
David Brooks: Yes. And this is Mitch McConnell.
And, frankly, I don't — the federal government has already authorized $380 million for the states. One of the bills would give them another billion. And so I don't really know what — the right spending level for this.
But you would think, given what we have been through and the seriousness of what we have been through, that you would want to err on the side of preventing the corruption of our electoral system, which has happened, which we know is going to happen again, from multiple sources, maybe, the Russians doing something different than they did last time.
And so you think you would — if we're going to spend whatever hundreds and hundreds of billions on defense, on our military defense, a billion on — to defend our electoral system doesn't seem to me an outrageous expense.
And so it seems like something they should be doing. And you get the impression Mitch McConnell doesn't want to do anything that will annoy Donald Trump.
Mark Shields: Yes, Mitch McConnell has been constant on this. He's no Johnny-come-lately.
He was the one voice, you will recall, in the leadership in 2016, when the leadership of the Congress unanimously agreed with the Obama administration to go public on the revelation that Russia was already deeply involved in the systematic undermining of our electoral process, he resisted it, and, as a consequence, stopped it.
He is now stopping the reforms. I mean, even Roy Blunt, the chairman of the Rules Committee, has been quite candid about this. I mean, the fact is that, in a secular democracy, the closest thing to a public sacrament is a national election.
And when you're starting to tamper with that and trifle with that — I mean, we went through it in 2016.
Judy Woodruff: In '16.
Mark Shields: We saw what happened when there was strife and disunity nurtured on the Democratic side between Sanders and Clinton campaigns by those e-mails. A party chair was forced out.
And Donald Trump himself 140 times mentioned WikiLeaks approvingly during the campaign.
Judy Woodruff: Right.
Mark Shields: I mean, so, there was a play. And the Mueller report — committee — investigation confirmed it.
Judy Woodruff: But, at this point, not — nothing is really moving that would change — that would protect…
Mark Shields: No, thanks to Mitch.
Judy Woodruff: … that would protect what we have — gone on.
Mark, you mentioned the polls. The Democrats, it probably brought a little spring to their step. But we know these polls are temporary.
Today, David, the Democratic National Committee announced that they have got their first debates coming up next week. And they're divided into two nights because there are so many candidates. The Democrats — the party said, OK, the most we're going to allow on the stage on any one night is 10. So they have got 10 one night and 10 the next.
Today, they drew names. And we can show you the lineup now. On the first night, June the 26, there are going to be these 10. And I'm not going to name every single one of them.
Mark Shields: Yes.
Judy Woodruff: But I can tell you that this is — Elizabeth Warren is included here, Beto O'Rourke, and then the others, Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar and a number of others.
The second night, you have, frankly, several of the front-runners, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, and others.
SUMMARY: President Trump has caused a new outcry by declaring that he would accept information about a political opponent provided by a foreign government. The admission comes after Robert Mueller warned of significant Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. Yamiche Alcindor reports, and Judy Woodruff talks to former federal prosecutor Shan Wu and Trevor Potter of the Campaign Legal Center.
SUMMARY: Special counsel Robert Mueller broke his silence Wednesday about his office’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. In a nine-minute statement, he reiterated that Justice Department policy prohibits charging a sitting president with a crime, and that his report did not clear President Trump of committing a crime. Judy Woodruff reports.
SUMMARY: Special counsel Robert Mueller has finally addressed the findings of his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. What is the political reaction to his remarks at the White House and on Capitol Hill? Yamiche Alcindor and Lisa Desjardins join Judy Woodruff to discuss why both sides say Mueller’s remarks support them and potential implications for the 2020 election.
SUMMARY: After special counsel Robert Mueller spoke out about his investigation, some Democrats felt they had new motivation for impeachment. Judy Woodruff talks to Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va) about Mueller's "consequential" remarks and how they differed from Attorney General William Barr’s, why Mueller should still testify before Congress and and whether Democratic opinion on impeachment is shifting.
SUMMARY: Special counsel Robert Mueller made it clear in his Wednesday statement that he wants his team’s lengthy report to speak for itself. NPR’s Carrie Johnson and former Justice Department official John Carlin, join Judy Woodruff to revisit key sections of the report and discuss Mueller's approach to his first public appearance since his appointment two years ago.
SUMMARY: Judy Woodruff talks to Chris Buskirk of American Greatness and Kent State University’s Connie Schultz about Robert Mueller’s first public statement in two years and whether it will increase momentum for impeachment, policy plans among 2020 Democratic presidential candidates and the top issues on voters’ minds.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s political news, including 2020 Democrats on the campaign trail in Iowa, the standoff between Congress and the White House over the Mueller report and subpoenas, President Trump’s trade war with China and escalating tensions with Iran.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): And now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Hello to both of you.
So, before we turn to all the whatever we want to call it that's happened in Washington this week, Mark, let's talk a minute about Iowa. We heard this voter tell Amna, this is really hard.
I don't know why it's so hard. There are only 23 candidates.
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: That's right.
But that is — Amna captured the Iowa essence. I mean, these people take their responsibility very seriously.
Judy Woodruff: They do.
Mark Shields: It's not casual. They are gatekeepers. Between Iowa and New Hampshire, they are 1.4 percent of the population of the country, and unless you finish in the top three in Iowa and the top two in New Hampshire, you will not be elected President of the United States, based on the historical precedent.
And that's why it makes sense for both Mr. Castro and Mr. O'Rourke to be spending time there.
Judy Woodruff: They get one-on-one time.
David Brooks, New York Times: Yes.
If you love politics, this is the time go, actually, right now, because there's like crowds of three or eight. And there are candidates everywhere. You can drive to — in beautiful weather and see beautiful candidates.
And then it all peaks at the state fair, where they all sort of congregate. My most profound political coverage moment was covering Gary Bauer, who was running in the Republican primary, as he toured a refrigerated railway car with the Last Supper carved in butter in life size.
And that was politics at its best.
Mark Shields: Yes.
Judy Woodruff: That was the state fair.
David Brooks: That was at the state fair.
Judy Woodruff: Which is coming up in August. We have already got it on our calendar here, here at "NewsHour."
Mark Shields: Raise the cholesterol level of the entire state and press corps.
Judy Woodruff: All right, so now tear ourselves away from Iowa, Mark, to talk about what's gone on in Washington this week, this escalating battle between the Congress and the White House.
Just today, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the House, Richard Neal, is subpoenaing the secretary of the treasury, the head of the IRS, to go after the President's tax returns, this on top of subpoenas for the President's son, subpoenas for the attorney general.
What do we make of all this?
Mark Shields: Well, I mean, we — I think it's approaching almost situational overload, in terms of — we're talking about subpoenas from committees, including the House Intelligence Committee, the House Banking Committee, the Judiciary Committee, the — across the board.
And now we have the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, as you mentioned, led by Republicans, that have subpoenaed the President's son.
I just think, Judy, that, in a strange way, this plays to Donald Trump's strength. I mean, Donald Trump lives in chaos. I think it's sort of almost an emotional and technological and intellectual overload, given the fact that we're on the cusp of war in Iran, in Venezuela, in a showdown with the Chinese.
I mean, there's just — but this is what he thrives on. And I think there's a — almost I dare you to impeach me attitude that's prevailing.
Judy Woodruff: Overload, you mean for the American people?
Mark Shields: For the American people and for the — this isn't — the system wasn't intended for this.
I mean, this isn't the way it's constructed, that we can deal with crisis upon crisis upon crisis.
Judy Woodruff: David, the Democrats say they're very serious about all this. They want this information. They want this testimony.
I mean, are they pursuing the right strategy for them?
David Brooks: No.
Well, neither side is. It's the complete breakdown of the checks and balances system. The President has to say, Congress, I need you. I need you to oversee what I'm doing. I need you to correct for my imbalances. And so I'm going to cooperate with you.
And that's just the normal way we do business. And the Trump administration is not doing that. So that's the first crisis.
The second is, if you're going to do oversight, you got to oversee. You got to try to say, I'm at least going to try to be a productive force here. But what we're seeing on the side of the Democrats is an escalation of the passion. And it's just become an attack machine.
And so there's just a lot of — there's a lot of talk now about jailing people. There's a lot of talk about just holding multiple people in contempt. This fight over the redaction is the wrong fight to have.
Judy Woodruff: Of the Mueller report.
David Brooks: Of the Mueller report.
The administration has offered to show of the volume two, which is about obstruction, the vast majority, 99.5 percent, to least the elite Democrats. And that wasn't good enough. And so there was a little negotiation, which broke down.
But, to me, that — just issuing orders of contempt, which may go forward, just freezes everything. It just pushes everything into the courts, and we sit there and do nothing for a couple of years. And so there's a way to do this, and there's a way not to do this.
So there's a lot of error on the Trump administration. But, nonetheless, I think the Democrats across the board and across many committees are sort of walking slowly up toward impeachment. And we could end up in impeachment. And I do think that's what Donald Trump…
(CROSSTALK)
Judy Woodruff: But, Mark, we had on the program last night Jerry Nadler, who is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee…
Mark Shields: Yes.
Judy Woodruff: … who essentially said, if we don't carry out our responsibility, we're not fulfilling what the Constitution, what the founders wanted and expected Congress to do, which is have oversight over the executive.
Mark Shields: That is a — it's a legitimate argument, make no mistake about it, I mean, that if you lay down a precedent that, literally, that this precedent can — this President gets away with what he's getting away with, and the Congress does nothing, then that certainly lays the precedent for the next President.
I think, just to add to what David — the point David made, Donald Trump, according to USA Today, which has established a database, has been a plaintiff or a defendant in 4,095 lawsuits. Now, think about that.
I mean, that's an awful lot.
Judy Woodruff: Over his career.
Mark Shields: Over his career.
I mean, about employment, about contracts, about subcontractors, you name it. He'd been — and you talk about litigious. He enjoys this. I mean, he thrives on this. This is modus operandi.
And I really think they're playing to his strength, quite honestly. And he's — and he's sitting there, quite honestly, Judy, with 91 percent approval among Republicans. And just, I think, intimidates his own party.
Judy Woodruff: But, David, are the two of us saying Democrats just drop this?
David Brooks: No. No.
Judy Woodruff: What should the approach be?
David Brooks: No, they should be in the business of trying to inform the American voters.
And so getting Mueller to testify…
Mark Shields: Absolutely.
David Brooks: The fact that Mueller may not testify is outrageous, and Mueller should testify.
Mark Shields: Yes. Yes.
David Brooks: And so they should be in that business.
But, basically, what they're doing is walking up toward the line of impeachment. And you can see the passions rising, as they get further and further down that line. And there's a difference between going toward the prosecutorial impeachment, and having hearings to educate the American voter.
And when you get down one path, you're really trying to appease the part of the party that wants — that wants impeachment. And the problem, when you try to appease that part, you end up emboldening, and you just turn it into an attack game.
And what Donald Trump wants — who would — who does Donald Trump want to be his foil, his opposite member? Does he want it to be the Presidential candidates, most of whom are kind of attractive, who he is actively running against, or would he rather run against Congress? Of course he would rather run against Congress [the House].
Any President would.
Judy Woodruff: But, Mark, I mean, I just — I come back to what the Democrats are saying is, we want this information. The administration is saying, we're not going to give it to you.
So how does it ever get resolved?
Mark Shields: No, there's no question that they're playing — they're playing absolutely hardball, is the administration. And they're being — they're not being respectful of the law in the least.
I think, Judy, you have to make — the difference is, the Russians were involved in this election in 2016, make no mistake about it. Our intelligence agencies have all concluded that unanimously. They were around in 2018. They all got all the way into a county in Florida, into its official site.
Judy Woodruff: Right.
Mark Shields: So that is a legitimate area.
What, are we going to have American elections for Americans and not interference? That — and nobody could argue with that, save Donald Trump. I mean, his own administration is mindful of that.
Judy Woodruff: And you're saying that's what they should be talking about, rather than…
Mark Shields: Yes. I think that's where they ought to be going.
Judy Woodruff: Let's turn…
David Brooks: There is even a weird moment where a senator started acting like a senator, Richard Burr, the Republican from North Carolina…
Mark Shields: Richard Burr.
David Brooks: … who wants to bring Don Jr. in to investigate that exact question. The rest of the Republican Party went crazy because he was acting like an actual senator who wants to get to the bottom of a very serious issue.
Mark Shields: And, Judy, I would point out that his own colleague in — Thom Tillis in North Carolina, who had written a very straightforward op-ed page piece in The Washington Post opposing Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency on building the wall, and then caved like a $4 suitcase when Donald Trump objected, went after — went after his own colleague, Richard Burr, and criticized him for leading a bipartisan investigation.
Judy Woodruff: I'm thinking of a $4 suitcase.
Mark Shields: OK.
SUMMARY: The showdown between the White House and Congress over the Mueller report is escalating even further. House Democrats took initial steps to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt Wednesday, with House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler calling the decision "grave and momentous." Lisa Desjardins reports and joins Judy Woodruff and Yamiche Alcindor to discuss.
SUMMARY: Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) blasted President Donald Trump on Thursday for refusing to cooperate with various Democratic-led congressional inquiries into his administration. “You cannot have a democratic government … if the executive denies all information,” he told PBS NewsHour anchor and managing editor Judy Woodruff, suggesting that backing down from a fight would be giving in to a “tyrannical administration.”
“We are in a constitutional crisis because of the administration’s contempt for law, and their refusal to obey the law,” Nadler said, mentioning the Trump administration’s refusal to deliver the President’s tax returns to a House committee, as well as the decision “to defy all subpoenas from the House.”
Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said the Trump administration has “turned the Justice Department, who is supposed to enforce the law, into an agency for defying the law, as the personal property of the president.”
On Wednesday, the committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress, in reaction to a Justice Department decision to withhold the full, unredacted Mueller report from lawmakers. The White House also announced it is invoking executive privilege over the report. Any ensuing legal fight between Trump and House Democrats could drag out for months or years.
But Nadler on Thursday expressed confidence that the courts would not favor Trump in the anticipated standoff over the balance of power in government, and predicted that Congress’ authority to compel information would be upheld, saying “the law is quite clear.”
Nadler said he hoped the outcome would be “a swift court order with compulsion behind it.”
“There’s no question legally we’ll win,” he told Woodruff. “The question is how long it will take.”
SUMMARY: The Mueller report continues to generate legal debate. Several hundred former federal prosecutors published a statement this week asserting that President Trump would have been charged with obstruction of justice, were he not the sitting President. William Brangham talks to Paul Rosenzweig, who worked with independent counsel Kenneth Starr on the Whitewater investigation of President Bill Clinton.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s political news, including Attorney General William Barr’s Senate testimony and absence from a scheduled House Judiciary Committee hearing, deteriorating relations between Congress and the White House, the President’s phone call with Vladimir Putin and 2020 Democratic candidates.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): From the attorney general's testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary, his refusal to appear before the House committee, and a growing 2020 field, it's been another busy week in Washington.
Here to assess it all are Shields and Brooks. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks, who's joining us tonight from San Francisco.
Hello to both of you, David and Mark.
Let's start by talking about that phone call that we learned about this afternoon, Mark, the President on the phone, over an hour, with Russia's President Vladimir Putin. We are told the President himself said they talked about Russian interference or alleged interference in the 2016 election, but completely dismissed it.
He said the two of them agreed that the Mueller report was a waste of time, in so many words, and that the whole Russian — belief that the Russians did anything wrong was a hoax.
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: Well, the President has ended the discussion. That's it, Judy. I mean, it's over.
I mean, ignoring the findings of the CIA, of the NSA, of the intelligence agency the Center for National Intelligence, Senator, former Ambassador Dan Coats, all of the American agencies, including General Jim Mattis, the secretary of defense, and Secretary — now Secretary Pompeo, Mike Pompeo, when he was CIA director.
All concluded that Russia had interfered. But when asked by Kristen Welker today, did you talk about meddling on the part of Russia, he accused — the President accused the NBC correspondent of being rude by asking such a question.
So that's where we are.
Judy Woodruff: David, are we — does it undermine what Robert Mueller did that the President continues to say this whole thing was a hoax?
David Brooks, New York Times: Well, it really undermines American democracy. It's like having a conversation with the Japanese emperor in 1942 and not mentioning Pearl Harbor.
It was an invasion of this country, an invasion of our democratic process. And every American in our country, except one, understands that. And so Trump wonders why people investigate the idea of Russian collusion and the idea that he's somehow tied to Russia in some nefarious way.
Well, this is why they do it, because, in public and in the way he conducts himself, he acts like someone who is in collusion with Russia . And there was probably no collusion, but he certainly acts that way.
And you just wonder a few things. You wonder what Putin is thinking when he doesn't get challenged when he does something like this. And then you wonder, what exactly is the motivation here? Does Trump just like Putin personally? Is there an actual strategic thought behind these decisions? It's kind of baffling.
Judy Woodruff: And we are told that it doesn't appear the President brought up any concerns about the Russians interfering in 2020, which, Mark, as you said, other officials have said.
But somebody who was before the Congress this week because of the Mueller report was the Attorney General, William Barr. Mark, he spent hours answering questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was very contentious when Democrats were asking questions.
But he held his ground. He said he — he defended the way he handled Robert Mueller's report. And this came just hours after we learned that Mueller had stepped in to tell the attorney general he didn't like the way the report had been characterized.
Mark Shields: That's right.
Judy, I have to say that the Attorney General — finally, the President got an attorney general he wanted. This is what he's been asking for, that Jeff Sessions failed the test of the loyal counselor, the apologist, the defender, and all-out defender.
I mean, he even ascribed the President's interventions or attempts to get people to do things, to make calls to fire people as just the innocent act of somebody frustrated, not in any way nefarious or double-dealing.
So that's what he did. And now he's not going to appear before the House. And I would say, as long as this feud goes on, as it's Bill Barr against Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, it's exactly where the White House wants it to be.
Judy Woodruff: David, what did you make of the attorney general this week before the Senate?
David Brooks: Yes, I thought it was best expressed by a piece by Benjamin Wittes, who's a legal expert in "The Atlantic."
He said he didn't see any sign of perjury, that he didn't lie, as Nancy Pelosi claims, but he spun. And so everything he said was shaded in the direction to make Trump look good.
And if there was one thing we needed right now, and one thing we need, it's people being honest, people who you can actually trust, who are not just spinners. And the job of Attorney General is to — is not like the other administration jobs. It's supposed to have its own independent loyalty to the law and to the agency.
And when you become just another spinner for the President, then you're undermining your relationship to the American people. You're undermining your defense of the agency, and you're subtly undermining law.
And so I just would have loved for him to just get out there and say, here's the facts, you can trust me, I'm telling you straight.
But he didn't tell it straight. He withheld when he wanted to. He was — he sort of sidestepped things. He was just another press spokesman.
Judy Woodruff: And this all seemed to play in, Mark, to what appears to be a seriously deteriorating relationship between Democrats in the Congress and the administration.
As the Democrats seek more information, they want to investigate what comes out of the Mueller report, the administration, the Trump White House is saying, no, we're not going to turn over documents. We're not going to let you interview people.
What are we headed for? I mean, as David just mentioned, the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was comparing — today was comparing what the President is doing to Richard Nixon.
Mark Shields: Yes.
I mean, that the Attorney General was deliberately misleading, deliberately unclear, nobody can argue. I don't think there's any question about that.
As far as deteriorating relations, Judy, I mean, the Democrats have the House, the Republicans have the Senate. And the election is some 14, 15 months, 16 months away. And it's a — it's politically fraught, make no mistake about it.
If — the Democrats have to make the case against Donald Trump. And the case to be made is on health care, that this administration, led by this Attorney General, this week moved again for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
That would lead, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 32 million Americans losing health insurance. All right? That's where you ought to be fighting politically.
But I understand the Democrats' dilemma. It's, quite frankly, this, Judy, that they are facing what is a constitutional challenge and test with this President and what he has done. And to leave it be and move away from it completely is to somehow establish the precedent that a President can do just about anything.
Judy Woodruff: David, are the Democrats making a mistake? Are they going overboard by the demands that they're making?
David Brooks: I think, in some ways, they are.
The focus — I think Nadler's focus is — seems just as partisan as anything that's coming from the Republican side. I think there's one more step here. That's a Mueller testimony. But it's hard to see too many other steps after that.
If I were a Republican, I would think, if they want to talk about the minutia of the Mueller report, and we want to talk about 3.2 percent growth and 4.4 percent increase in wages for the poorest workers, that's a conversation I would like to have as a Republican.
And so I do — I think the Democrats would be wiser politically to let the voters settle this argument and take it to the voters on the issues the voters actually care about.
Judy Woodruff: So, Mark, just to wrap this up, so are you saying Democrats should just drop this?
Mark Shields: No, I don't think — I don't think they drop it.
I think, quite bluntly, Judy, that Chairman Nadler has come across as almost on a personal vendetta against Donald Trump. I think there's hearings to be held. I think the Bob Mueller hearings — I mean, I don't know, for example, why they just didn't have Attorney General Barr in.
And then, if they wanted to turn it over to a staff attorney to ask questions at some point, let the Attorney General get up and barge out. I mean, why get into this back and forth, if you really want to hear what he has to say?
And that's what it's — that's what it's become. Yes, no witness should be able to determine exactly what the conditions are under which that witness will appear.
But, listen, I just don't — I think Bill Barr, Jerry Nadler, with the best unemployment record in 50 years, is a plus for the White House. And that's not exactly where you want the Democrats to be right now.
Judy Woodruff: David, just quickly, any middle ground here?
David Brooks: I don't think so. I haven't seen much middle ground in Washington in a few years.
Judy Woodruff: That's true.
David Brooks: So I don't think so.
SUMMARY: Attorney General William Barr testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday to explain his handling of the Mueller report. While Barr defended his actions, Democrats zeroed in on a newly discovered letter from Mueller criticizing Barr's summary of the report's “principal conclusions.” Meanwhile, Barr said he would not attend a planned House hearing Thursday. Judy Woodruff reports.
SUMMARY: It was a contentious day on Capitol Hill as Attorney General William Barr appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss his handling of the Mueller report. Yamiche Alcindor and Lisa Desjardins join Judy Woodruff to analyze Barr’s testimony, including his explanation of why he determined President Trump hadn’t committed obstruction of justice.
SUMMARY: Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia is ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, which planned to question Attorney General William Barr on Thursday. Judy Woodruff talks to Collins about Barr’s late-breaking decision not to attend the hearing, why Collins believes that Democrats are engaging in a partisan “stunt” over the Mueller report and what questions he would ask of the attorney general.
SUMMARY: When reports emerged Tuesday that special counsel Robert Mueller had sent Attorney General William Barr a letter expressing concern over Barr’s characterization of the Mueller report’s conclusions, several Democrats called for Barr to resign. Among them was California Rep. Ted Lieu, who joins Judy Woodruff to discuss that and his reaction to Barr's decision not to attend a House hearing Thursday.
SUMMARY: After Attorney General William Barr failed to appear before the House Judiciary Committee for a scheduled hearing on the Mueller report, House Democrats threatened to hold him in contempt. Meanwhile, Republicans argue Mueller’s investigation was biased against President Trump. Amna Nawaz talks to former Justice Department official David Rivkin and Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general.
SUMMARY: On the eve of the House Judiciary Committee’s deadline for the Justice Department to turn over special counsel Mueller's full report, questions remain over whether the time limit can be enforced. The deadline comes as Democrats threaten Attorney General Barr with contempt over his refusal to testify before the committee. Wall Street Journal reporter Sadie Gurman joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss.
SUMMARY: Although the Mueller report concluded Russia intervened in the 2016 election in a “sweeping and systematic fashion," the Trump administration has at times downplayed the interference, as well as 2020 election security. Judy Woodruff asks former Homeland Security official Juliette Kayyem, and Thomas Rid author of a forthcoming book on influence campaigns, about what has and hasn't been done.
SUMMARY: The Mueller report continues to make headlines in Washington, as some Democrats talk impeachment and battle the Trump administration over additional investigations and subpoenas, but how prominent is the subject among voters outside D.C.? Judy Woodruff talks to Chris Buskirk of American Greatness and Kent State University’s Connie Schultz, about reactions to the report and election security fears.
SUMMARY: Nearly half of the Mueller report focuses on whether President Trump obstructed justice. Though it does not reach a definitive conclusion, it makes clear that Trump was sometimes protected by his advisers’ unwillingness to yield to his demands. Yamiche Alcindor talks to The Washington Post's Carol Leonnig about who in the President’s orbit pushed back and the pressure they felt when they did.
SUMMARY: Although Congress is currently on spring break, there continues to be plenty of political activity in the wake of the release of a redacted version of the Mueller report. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi circled Democrats in a conference call Monday, to survey their opinions about how to react and potentially head off momentum around impeachment. Judy Woodruff talks to Lisa Desjardins.
SUMMARY: The 2020 Democrats were on the campaign trail over the weekend, unveiling new policies and positions. Though Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts was the only contender to call for impeaching President Trump, Pete Buttigieg agreed that Trump “deserves to be impeached." Meanwhile, Rep. Seth Moulton entered the race, and former Vice President Joe Biden is expected to. Yamiche Alcindor reports.
SUMMARY: Democrats in the House and on the 2020 campaign trail are divided on whether to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Trump. While many feel his actions warrant impeachment, there is concern that public sentiment wouldn't support it. But Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) thinks refraining from impeachment would violate a fundamental responsibility of Congress, as he tells Judy Woodruff.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to analyze the week’s news, including what the Mueller report's details mean for the Trump Presidency and American politics, whether House Democrats should pursue impeachment, and how Attorney General William Barr’s handling of the report reflects on him.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): And now to help us understand the broader implications of the Mueller report, we turn to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks, who joins us tonight from Vancouver.
And hello to both of you.
So, the Mueller report is out, still generating a lot of controversy, as we heard a few minutes ago on the show.
But, Mark, I want to ask the two of you, what do you — what is your main takeaway from this? What is most important here?
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: I guess sadness, more than anything else, Judy, sadness about the state of the leadership of the country.
I mean, every White House is inevitably a mirror reflection of the President at the top of it, whether it's in terms of optimism of a Reagan or sort of the paranoia of a Nixon.
But this White House, it may be good at some level to have worked in Donald Trump's White House for somebody, but it's terrible for one's self-respect. I mean, at no point in the entire narrative does any sense of the President's unselfishness or patriotism or larger national interest ever emerge in any way.
And I'm grateful that people who are there who didn't come with a heroic reputation did heroic things by resisting his orders to do corrupting acts.
Judy Woodruff: David, your main reaction?
David Brooks, New York Times: That we have a lot of threats to the infrastructure of our society.
Donald Trump is a threat to the systems of government we have, and a threat to the basic honesty of our system. There are all the — every time he appears in the Mueller report, he's running roughshod over what he's supposed to be doing. He's interfering with an investigation. He's ordering somebody to fire somebody else.
He just takes all the procedures and all the systems we have in place in our government and he just runs right through them.
And then the second character in the report are the Russians, and they're undermining the informational infrastructure of our society, the fact that we can have a debate based on solid facts and solid information, and they are systematically, as the report says, aggressively trying to undermine that.
And then the third player in the report is Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. And they're trying to undermine the idea that we can have privacy in our society, the idea that organizations can deliberate with each other.
So what I see are three players who in either a tight alliance or a loose alliance that are all engaged in the same project which is disrupting the basic infrastructures of our society.
SUMMARY: The redacted Mueller report on possible collaboration between the Russian government and members of the Trump campaign has been publicly released. Running 448 pages, it is broken into two volumes, one focusing on Russian election interference and the other on whether President Trump obstructed justice in that investigation. As Judy Woodruff reports, reaction to its findings varies widely.
SUMMARY: Special counsel Robert Mueller’s extensive report covers not only his investigation’s findings, but also how he believed U.S. criminal law applied to them. Three legal experts are here to offer analysis: Mary McCord former acting head of the Justice Department’s national security division, George Terwilliger former deputy attorney general, and Bob Bauer White House counsel under President Obama.
SUMMARY: President Trump’s reaction to the release of a redacted version of the Mueller report was to again claim exoneration. But according to the House Judiciary Committee's Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) that claim is not at all supported by the facts. Rep. Jeffries tells Judy Woodruff that the President is “lying to the American people” and says Congress needs to hear from Robert Mueller directly.
SUMMARY: With a redacted version of the special counsel’s report public, President Trump is again claiming vindication. In fact, Robert Mueller's findings document extensive contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, as well as attempts to interfere with the investigation. Judy Woodruff sits down with Yamiche Alcindor, Lisa Desjardins, Nick Schifrin, and NPR’s Carrie Johnson for analysis.
SUMMARY: The Mueller report reveals new details about successful Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and establish communication with the Trump campaign. Special correspondent Ryan Chilcote, who lived in Russia for 20 years, tells Judy Woodruff about the “extraordinary lengths” the Kremlin went to in support of this goal and how Russian businessmen acted as policy intermediaries.
SUMMARY: After the release of the Mueller report, what does the Kremlin think about the special counsel's evidence of a sweeping Russian campaign to disrupt the 2016 U.S. Presidential election? Special correspondent Ryan Chilcote, who has lived in and reported extensively on Russia, talks to Judy Woodruff about Moscow's dismissive reaction and why Russian business operatives fear additional U.S. sanctions.
SUMMARY: With a redacted version of the special counsel’s report now public, how should we understand the conclusions Robert Mueller arrived at from the evidence he gathered? Judy Woodruff talks to Robert Ray who was independent counsel during the Whitewater Investigation into President Clinton, and Garrett Graff a contributor to Wired magazine and the author of a book on Robert Mueller and the FBI.
As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second , a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel's Office found to be supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons , the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ ed]"-a term that appears in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express - between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
SUMMARY: Attorney General William Barr appeared on Capitol Hill Tuesday to discuss his agency budget. With prompting from House Democrats, he also talked about when Congress and the public will see the Mueller report and how much of it Barr will have redacted. Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff with that update, plus fallout from the departure of DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and immigration policy.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including President Trump’s reversal on closing the U.S.-Mexico border, Attorney General William Barr’s handling of the Mueller report, and controversy over former Vice President Joe Biden’s interactions with women.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): And now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Hello to both of you.
So, let's talk about the border, Mark.
The President this week has been at one point saying he's going to close it. He's angry at Mexico, and has been angry at the Central American countries. Now — then he changed and said, well, you know, maybe we won't do that, but we might do it later.
What do you make of his overall approach to what's going on at this crisis at the border?
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: Well, the fact that the piece demonstrates so well is the total interdependence at, for example, the border in Mexico and Southern California.
That is the pattern throughout. We're talking about the United States' third largest trading partner, Mexico, $1.5 billion a day in goods and services being traded back and forth from each country.
And what the President showed more than anything else was a problem that's nagged his entire administration. He just wasn't informed on this, and his threats were not only unnerving, but they really did the almost impossible, stirred Republicans on the Hill, beginning with Majority Leader McConnell, to say it would be catastrophic to cut off trade.
And following on the heels, Judy, of the President's making the Republicans the health care party, after an election where they suffered their biggest defeat in 100 years, midterm elections, on the health care issue. By a 3-1 margin, Americans thought Democrats were better on health care than Republicans.
And his attacks on John McCain, it really was unsettling in any confidence in the President, particularly within his own party.
Judy Woodruff: How do you size up how he's handled this?
David Brooks, New York Times: Well, I give him a little credit.
He has been saying there's a crisis on the border for the past six months and eight months. And he's right. And I think some of us have downplayed that. But it's clear Jeh Johnson, who was in the Obama administration, is saying there's a crisis. There's 4,000 people getting detained every day. There's a backlog of a million cases.
All of our facilities are completely overrun. And so there is clearly a crisis at the border. The problem with Donald Trump (A) there is no policy process. When he announces a policy, there's nothing behind it. It's just words coming out of his mouth.
But (B) the idea the wall is the appropriate answer to what is happening on the border is completely ridiculous. These are asylum seekers. A wall does nothing. It's completely irrelevant to the situation.
And I go back to what the gentleman in the piece said. The problem is in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and those countries that have become lawless. And El Salvador's the most dangerous, peaceful — peacetime nation in the world right now; 95 percent of the crimes are not being solved, not being prosecuted, hundreds of millions of dollars in extortion.
You have got families living in the middle of all these killings. What are they expected to do? And so as long as you have got that situation, we're going to have this crisis at the border, because we're all one continent or one people — maybe two continents — but we're all one people.
And so the idea is that you have got to fix it at the root. And there's no easy way to do that. But there's no other answer.
Judy Woodruff: No easy way to do that, Mark.
Are you all — are we all now acknowledging that the answers don't come easy, but what do we do? What's to be done?
Mark Shields: No, nobody's ever pretended.
There have been serious efforts. And public officials in both parties deserve credit for making an effort to come up with an immigration policy in this country. There's been no leadership in this administration at all. Democrats have a responsibility as well.
Migration throughout history has been driven by two factors, one, fear, anger, isolation in the place where you are; and a hope, the place you're going, which the United States has more often than not represented the latter.
And David is right. But the answer to Honduras and Guatemala is not to cut off aid, as the President. It's to make an effort, to be creative in trying to bring some sense of justice, order, economic stability to those countries, and political safety. That is — that, to me, is the first step.
(CROSSTALK)
Judy Woodruff: But…
Mark Shields: Go ahead.
Judy Woodruff: I was just going to say, but the President argues that hasn't worked.
He says, we have given them — we have been giving these countries help, and it hasn't worked.
David Brooks: Well, that's not true.
In the first place, it's important to distinguish between two kinds of people who are coming here. One are economically motivated. They want to get jobs here. And, frankly, American efforts across several administrations have done a very excellent job of reducing the number of people who economically come here. We need a certain number.
But the flow of, say, Mexican workers who come to this country was sharply down. So, we were in a situation a few years ago where there were more Latinos leaving than coming. And that's because we helped make the — and not us alone, but we did some role in helping the Mexican economy become a healthy economy.
Mark Shields: That's right.
David Brooks: What we're seeing now is not that.
It's fear-driven. Think of it like people leaving Syria for Lebanon. It's a little more like that than like the economic immobility. These people are leaving in completely disparate straits because they have no other choice. And they're asylum seekers.
And so these are two different things. And the idea that our aid has not done much for that, I would say we haven't even tried.
Mark Shields: Yes.
And the backlog that David speaks of is, in fact, the people seeking asylum. I mean, they are — it's uprooting your entire family. This is not the traditional male leaving to make money to send it home, to return home with that money.
Judy Woodruff: Change of subject, the Mueller report.
David, we — I don't know if you heard, but Congressman Jerry Nadler, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was on the program a few minutes ago. He said outright he expects the Attorney General should give the Congress the full Mueller report, all almost 400 pages of it.
But he went on to say he doesn't think the Attorney General has been a fair broker in all this, for a number of reasons. He expects to get less than that, so we're going to see subpoenas.
Where do you see this process going?
David Brooks: Yes, I think that's an error. I think that's a mistake.
I think one of the things that's been reasonably well-established, with a few bad exceptions, is that when you release a report like this, you don't release the grand jury, some of that information, and you don't release sources and methods.
And Barr has told us he's just cleaning that stuff out and then he will release the rest.
Judy Woodruff: But Nadler says it's just going to the committee. It won't be released to the public.
David Brooks: Right. Well, good luck with that. If it goes to the committee, it will go to the public.
And so, in my view, that's a much more dangerous option. So, to me, maybe he's right about Barr. Maybe Barr is not an honest broker here. We don't know. I think he's handled it reasonably well. But at least let Barr issue what — the next piece of the report that he's going to issue. Let's take a look at it and see what we think then.
But the idea of just basically leaking out the whole report, which I think would be inevitable, seems to me a miscarriage of justice.
Judy Woodruff: What do you think of the Nadler approach, the Democrats' approach?
Mark Shields: Well, I think that — I think two factors.
First of all, I think that Attorney General Barr gave the President a green light claim exoneration. And I think that has obviously set off a sense of frustration and anger on the part of people who worked on the Mueller group, as well as Democrats in particular. I think the President may have gone too far with it.
What I worry about with Chairman Nadler is, for anybody with a sense of history in this town, in 1998, one of the reasons that the effort against Bill Clinton failed was because of the excessive partisanship of Newt Gingrich and people like that in the Republican leadership.
And it became seen as a partisan drive against him. Contrast that, if you would, Judy, with Howard Baker, Sam Ervin, and Peter Rodino, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee during the time of Watergate, when they all rose above any petty partisanship.
And I just — I don't think it ought to be seen as a Democratic hunt on Republicans. I do think it's coming, and I think that…
Judy Woodruff: The full report?
Mark Shields: I think the full report will eventually get out.
But I think Bob Mueller will testify. And I think that the Attorney General has said he's going to testify as well. I would like to see it play out, rather — before we go to DEFCON 1.
Judy Woodruff: But you're saying it's going to take several steps?
Mark Shields: I think it will. I think it will.
But I think there's a lot — the pressure is building on Attorney General Barr, because he knows his précis or summary of the Mueller report doesn't meet with the satisfaction or professional passing on the part of the people who worked on the Mueller — I really think that's a problem.
David Brooks: Yes.
It's possible to believe two things at once, that this investigation conducted by honest brokers found no evidence of collusion and not sufficient evidence of obstruction, but still there's a lot more in the report that will make the Trump administration look really bad.
Mark Shields: That's right.
David Brooks: Both those things are true. And I think, in the fullness of time, we will find both those things to be true.
