SUMMARY:The New York Times columnist David Brooks and The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart join Amna Nawaz to discuss the week's political news, including special counsel Robert Mueller’s public statement, what Democrats should do about impeachment, why President Trump is so bothered by the late Sen. John McCain and new details about Republican strategy for redrawing congressional districts.
Amna Nawaz (NewsHour): Robert Mueller breaks his silence, John McCain's name is hidden from the President and newly discovered hard drives reveal a Republican plan to change the census. It was a busy week.
Thankfully, we have the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post opinion writer Jonathan Capehart.
And welcome to both.
David, Robert Mueller broke his silence. We have finally heard from him.
I want to ask you, though, because the conversation about impeachment continued on the Democratic side.
NBC's been updating their list, right, of how many Democrats, how many members of the House are actually supporting an impeachment inquiry. It's at 53 last time I checked.
Last week, you said Speaker Pelosi was right to slow-walk the process. Do you still believe that, based on what we heard this week?
David Brooks, New York Times: A whole week later, I still believe that.
Amna Nawaz: OK.
David Brooks:Mostly because I think Democrats have a reasonably attractive Presidential field.
And if they spend their entire early election season fighting impeachment, they will detract away from that and give Donald Trump the fight he wants with Congress. And Nancy Pelosi said she's waiting to build an intractable case, so even Republicans will have to come over.
Republican support for Donald Trump is now at its high. And the more they go to impeachment, the more solid that support will be. And so there's no there . There's no way to get Republican votes in the Senate.
And so you can have the impeachment hearings, and maybe it'd be a good idea for — just for rule of law, but it's not going to go anywhere.
Amna Nawaz: Let me play a couple quick sound bites, because, for anyone who missed it, there were a couple of key moments from both Robert Mueller and Attorney General Barr that we heard.
Just take a quick listen to what they had to say this week.
Robert Mueller: If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.
William Barr: He could have reached a conclusion.
The opinion says you can't indict a President while he's in office, but he could have reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity.
Amna Nawaz:Jonathan, you wrote in your column this week, "Mueller just made life more difficult for Trump and Democrats."
Why?
Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post:Well, more difficult for President Trump because, if, say, special counsel Mueller does go to the Hill and does testify and only says what's in the report, just that quote that you had there from the special counsel, Mueller, alone is damaging.
And if he reads what is further down in the report, page two of volume two of the Mueller report, if you have it at home, it goes on to say that we have a lot of stuff here, but because of the OLC memo, we didn't even broach the subject of whether the President committed a crime. We're not even going to go there, because, if we — if we charge him, and yet we can't bring him to trial, we can't indict a sitting President, well, it's unfair to the President, because you charge him with a crime, but then he doesn't have an avenue, a venue to defend himself, to clear his name.
And so that's why the OLC memo says you can't indict him while he's a sitting President, but you can do it once he's out of office, because then he has the possibility to defend himself.
Amna Nawaz: And yet we have heard Speaker Pelosi say she wants an ironclad case before moving forward. Is that an unreasonable goal?
Jonathan Capehart: I don't think it's unreasonable. And I think I'm with David on this.
Most people have not read the Mueller report. Most people will never read the Mueller report. In order for them to know what is actually in it, the Democrats, whether through the committee process or through the beginning of an impeachment inquiry, they will have to learn it by having witnesses come up and testify, having special counsel Mueller come up and testify.
And, again, if he only reads what's in the report, it will be news to the American people. And the American people have to be brought along in this process, so that they're not blindsided and think that Congress is just doing something to hammer at the President, instead of, to David's point, standing up for the rule of law in this country.
Amna Nawaz: David, do you think hearing from Mueller and Barr this week changed anything?
David Brooks:I think it did, in that, as Jonathan said, a lot of people have erroneous views of what's in the report. And a lot of Republicans do too.
And I'm reminded of that old phrase, I can tell it to you, but I can't listen it for you.
(LAUGHTER)
And so we have been talking about what's in the report, but a lot of people just don't know. And, frankly, not all of America watches the "NewsHour" and not all of America reads newspapers.
Amna Nawaz: That's shocking to me. [sarcasm]
David Brooks: It is shocking and sad. [sarcasm]
Amna Nawaz: That's shocking to me. [sarcasm]
David Brooks:And so, when he gets up on TV, and he actually gives a voice, it reaches a broader audience. Whether any minds are going to be changed if they go through the process that Jonathan describes, well, it would go against the last couple years of political history, where no minds have been changed by anything.
Amna Nawaz: I want to ask you about something else that happened this week. It was — President Trump was overseas.
There was a report, right? Navy officials confirmed that the White House staff had actually requested military officials keep hidden the USS McCain while President Trump was there visiting troops in the Japanese port.
The President said, look, he knew nothing about it, but he also said it was well-meaning if someone had put forward that request. That there is a picture of the McCain, and there is President Trump visiting with those troops.
David, there are a lot of concerns being voiced by a lot of people about the politicization of the military. Do you see those concerns?
David Brooks:Well, would it really give Donald Trump — like, trigger him if he saw the name John McCain on the back? I have trouble believing this.
But it says something about the White House culture. I believe Donald Trump probably didn't know. But the staffers, it shows how they behave. In most White Houses, the White House staff are in love with the President. Imagine the best crush you ever had in high school. That's how they feel about the President.
And they react, and they want to get his — right now his love. But, here, it's fear. It's, I don't want to do anything that will upset this volatile man at the top.
And so some staffer said, oh, I don't want to create a negative, so we will just sweep the McCain thing out of the way.
And so it's — it's a description of what the White House culture is like, which is driven by fear of his tweets and his angry reactions, more than the desire to actually serve anything positive.
Amna Nawaz: You think they're acting preemptively to stop something from happening?
David Brooks: Yes, I don't want to get on the bad side of the boss.
Amna Nawaz: What did you think about that, Jonathan?
Jonathan Capehart:I thought it was small, petty, and shameful, and utterly predictable.
But what we have here is a well — the President, in his own words, said — well, it was, whoever did this was well-meaning.
And what you have here is an administration and a President who is triggered by a war hero, a former prisoner of war, the 2008 nominee of the Republican Party for President, an elder statesman up until his dying day.
And even after his passing, the President still cannot resist taking a dig at Senator McCain. Whether he knew about the covering up of the name on the ship and stuff is beside the point. When he was asked the question before getting on Marine One, even then, he couldn't resist hammering the late Senator McCain for casting the deciding vote that maintained Obamacare.
This speaks to — speaks to the culture of the White House, but speaks to a larger issue about the man sitting in the Oval Office.
Amna Nawaz: David, it's worth mentioning that used to be sacred space, right? You wouldn't impugn the memory of a former senator, former POW.
And yet, as Jonathan mentioned, he said, I'm not a fan of McCain, he killed health care for Republicans, when he was asked about this.
Is that sacred space now gone?
David Brooks:Well, we have had a lot of sacred spaces. It's a very small little island of sacredity, if that's a word.
He's — McCain has always gotten under his skin, for apparent reasons. We could imagine what are they are, the manliness, the guy who actually did serve.
And Trump has sort of machismo vs. machismo. And John McCain, who I knew pretty well, was definitely a macho man, and a genuine macho man who lived it out in pursuit of honor. And so that — it would be natural that he would get under Trump's skin.
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.
NOTE:The issue that a sitting President can not be indited is a DoJ Policy NOT law.
Excerpt
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: Former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort was sentenced Wednesday to three-and-a-half more years in prison for federal crimes related to foreign lobbying and witness tampering. After the hearing, a New York prosecutor revealed new state-level charges for Manafort, too. William Brangham, who was in the courthouse, reports, and Amna Nawaz talks to former Federal Prosecutor Jessica Roth for analysis.
SUMMARY:Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker insisted Friday he hasn’t “interfered in any way” in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. His much-anticipated testimony came before a contentious hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, now led by Democrats. Lisa Desjardins reports.
SUMMARY:Former Trump adviser Roger Stone has been indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller on seven counts, including obstructing an investigation, making false statements and tampering with a witness. The indictment focuses on the relationship with WikiLeaks head Julian Assange and damaging emails released by WikiLeaks. Nick Schifrin reports and discusses with former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to analyze the week’s political news, including the latest court filings on Michael Cohen, President Trump’s new nominees, and the legacy of George H.W. Bush.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): This week, our nation mourned a President, and got a better glimpse of the investigation into the current commander in chief and his ties to Russia.
There is a lot to unpack tonight with Shields and Brooks. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Hello to both of you. So, there's a lot of news tonight. It's Friday, as we have seen on a lot of Fridays, David.
The special counsel, Robert Mueller, and not only he, but the Southern District of New York, the prosecutors there, have made public what they call filings that detail activities by people who are close to the President, specifically Michael Cohen, who's his former lawyer. And later on, we had another filing about Paul Manafort.
We have been listening, trying to — rapidly reading through this. What do we think it adds up to? What does it tell us?
David Brooks, New York Times:First, these guys are not very good cooperators. If you're going to cooperate, cooperate.
But Manafort is going to jail probably for the rest of his life, and Cohen is getting a healthy sentence, because he sort of semi-cooperated, something like that.
But I think what we're seeing is the pace ramp up on a lot of fronts. They are clearly interested, and they're more contacts than we knew with Russia in 2015 with the campaign, the so-called synergy they apparently found, and then especially the business dealings, Trump's dealings in Moscow.
And my instinct is that there's going to be a lot more investigation into business than there is into Russia collusion. There's just a lot more there.
And the other sense you get is a lot of Republicans are looking at this White House, and they are seeing an administration under a lot of judicial and legal threat and a lot under political threat, and they see a White House Counsel's Office that is denuded of authority and people.
And then what they call the membrane around Trump is failing. And the membrane is the group of people they put around Trump to protect him from themselves. And over the years, the Hope Hicks of the world and maybe in the next few days the John Kellys of the world are going and gone.
And so you see a Trump unprotected from himself. And you're beginning to see a lot of Republicans who are looking seriously at 2019, with a lot of Fridays like this one, and Trump really hurting himself and maybe not serving out the term.
Judy Woodruff: It's a lot, Mark.
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: It is.
Judy Woodruff: What do you — I mean, start with the filings, though. What do you see here? Are we — what are we learning?
Mark Shields: Well, I mean, I don't know, Judy.
I look at Michael Cohen. And he turned over computers. He turned over tapes. He turned over everything. He turned over his life. He had a public conversion to virtue. And it saved him a year, it looks like. I mean, that's what it looks like anyway to the layman from the outside. It certainly doesn't look like he's skating by any means.
So, I'm not sure if he gave what he thought he was giving or what they thought he was giving or whether there was a miscommunication. I don't know. But it did not seem like a major reduction to me.
Judy Woodruff: It's not clear.
Mark Shields: No, it's not clear. It's not clear. And I don't pretend to be an authority on it.
I would say that Manafort is looking at a difficult choice. I mean, it looks like he was trying to keep channels open to the White House, where the ultimate executive pardon lies, and with a mercurial President, and got caught at it. That's what it appears to be.
Judy Woodruff: And David's reporting on what he's hearing from Republicans expressing concern about the kind of pressure the President is — not that he hasn't been under pressure, but that it now seems to be coming together in a way that he — that is serious.
Mark Shields: Yah, I'm not......
I have yet to see that kind of independence on the part of Republicans. I have seen the concern there, but it's Donald Trump's party. It really is. I mean, there's no question. It's the Mark Sanford experience of 2018 that has burnt into the mind and the consciousness of every Republican who is looking at 2020.
That is the idea that Donald Trump, with just the snap of a finger or an unfortunate or unflattering comment, can cost you renomination in your own Republican primary. Sanford had been a governor, been a member of the House, and just by Trump's kind of dismissive lost the primary.
And it made no difference that his party ended up losing the general. That's where the concern is. I do not see that streak of independence, other than by those who are leaving. I have yet to see it among those who are looking to 2020.
David Brooks:I didn't say in public. Yet they're still afraid. They know how it's Trump's party.
Mark Shields: Yes.
David Brooks:But in private, it took them a while to really digest the election results and what it meant that Democrats control the House.
And then — and so what you see is that there's going to ramp up the political pressure. The Southern District may be more important than Mueller. You just got a legal — and then there's more fear, worry, almost mania, in the White House, as they feel all the safety guardrails coming out.
And so they really don't know what's going to happen. And to me, the including thing — the crucial thing over the next year — or a crucial thing — is how the base Republicans react if there are indictments, if there is a political catastrophe, if people start leaving the White House in droves.
The Republican base is still very pro-Trump. On the talk radio circuit, they're getting rid of anyone like Mike Medved, who is a radio — right-wing conservative radio jockey who is not pro-Trump. They're replacing him with pro-Trump.
"The Weekly Standard," a magazine I used to work at, it may be closed because it's not sufficiently pro-Trump.
So what you see is the Republican base going so pro-Trump, at the exact moment when it's possible the wheels are coming off the whole thing.
Judy Woodruff: And Mark?
Mark Shields:I mean, they're really slow learners, Judy, Republicans are.
I mean, they lost the midterms by more votes than any midterm election in the history of the country, all right? The Republicans got fewer. Democrats got more votes.
I mean, I don't know what point has to be driven home to them. Donald Trump announced the day after election it was a great victory. That's 40 seats later. And with North Carolina 9 still hanging in the balance, it could be 41 seats later.
So I don't know what they — they lost 324 house seats, state legislative seats. I mean, it was a pretty stinging rebuke of the sitting administration.
SUMMARY:Paul Manafort is in legal hot water once again, as prosecutors for special counsel Robert Mueller have accused him of breaking his plea agreement and lying both to them and to the FBI “on a variety of subject matters.” What does this new accusation mean for Manafort--and for Mueller’s Russia probe? Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti joins Judy Woodruff to interpret the news.
SUMMARY:President Trump offered a new reason for a controversial June 2016 meeting that has become a central question of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the election. The President tweeted on Sunday that the meeting was "to get information on an opponent" and "totally legal" -- the latest justification in a year of shifting stories. Yamiche Alcindor reports.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including the news that President Trump had ordered the dismissal of special counsel Robert Mueller but dropped the request when the White House counsel refused, Republican efforts to undermine the FBI, Trump’s speech at Davos, and the latest immigration plan.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): Well, these reports that we have been discussing with Jack Goldsmith brings us to our weekly analysis of Shields and Brooks. That’s Mark Shields, syndicated columnist, and David Brooks, columnist for The New York Times.
You heard what Jack Goldsmith had to say. And I know you have been following this story all week.
Mark, what do we make of it?
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the previous speaker. I thought he spoke very informed and persuasively on the subject, Judy.
Just from a straight political perspective, you wonder why it took seven months. The idea that several months…
Judy Woodruff: You mean for this to come out.
Mark Shields: To come out. It’s just rather remarkable in Washington.
And so the first question we ask is, why now? And is it because there was a concern that the President was going to try and do something like this again to head him off at the pass, to try to vertebrae transplant for Republicans on the Hill, who have not stood up to the President or stood up for Robert Mueller as the special counsel?
It’s everything that Jack Goldsmith described it.
Judy Woodruff: How do you read all this?
David Brooks, New York Times: Yes.
First, it should be pointed out that White House staff has repeatedly said there was no effort to fire Mueller, when they clearly have been lying for months about that.
Mark Shields: That’s right. Yes.
David Brooks: And that’s…
Mark Shields: And the President.
David Brooks:It’s always kind of shocking when people just straight-up lie.
Mark Shields: That’s right.
David Brooks: It happens to us in our profession all the time, but it’s still kind of shocking.
I have to say, I was in Dayton, Ohio, this morning. And a friend said, in this presidency, I’m just stunned every day. I’m stunned every hour. And at some point, you get out of stunned. There’s no more stun.
And I found this when I saw our story. If I had seen that story seven or eight months ago, I would have been, oh, I can’t believe this is happening. Now I’m inured. I’m used to it. I have been numbed.
And I came to think, even if he fired Mueller, maybe we’re all just — we’re like, we have been numbed to the things that happen and nobody gets upset anymore. I think people would get upset if he actually did try to fire Mueller, but we have defined deviancy down and gotten used to a set of behavior that would have been shocking to us a year ago.
Judy Woodruff: Well, there is a lot of…
Mark Shields:Just to David’s point, deserved to be underlined, imagine any President, imagine George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, or Barack Obama, that The Wall Street Journal reported that his lawyer had paid $130,000 to a porn star not to reveal that they’d had an illicit adulterous sexual encounter.
And, you know, that’s The Wall Street Journal. I mean, that’s not some left-wing publication. And that would have been — it would have kept FOX going 24/7 if it was alleged of Barack Obama. And it does. It’s somewhere on page three.
David Brooks: Yes. That passed without a ripple, yes.
Judy Woodruff: But what we have here, though, David, or — and in addition to that, is an extraordinary situation, where there is just a lot of guessing going on about whether the President has given up on trying to fire Bob Mueller.
Is he going to talk to him or not? Are we just hanging in suspension while we wait for the Mueller investigation?
David Brooks: Yes, with Donald Trump, it’s really hard to distinguish sound from signal. Because he’s so impulsive, things are floating in all directions.
And are things a passing mood, or is it a designed intent to achieve some goal? What struck me about the story was that he didn’t just say, fire that guy Mueller. He had actually done some homework, or somebody had done some homework, and he had three 'legal' arguments about why it was the right thing to do.
That suggests it’s more than just a guy waking up in a bad mood and tweeting out something. It was an actual effort.
But as Jack Goldsmith said, it is striking how the White House staff seems to be getting better at sort of managing around him, and is devising strategies to keep him from self-destructing.
Judy Woodruff: It is speculation, Mark, but if the President were to fire or ask others in his administration to fire Robert Mueller, what would the reaction be, you think?
Mark Shields: I think there would be a firestorm at this point.
How long and how intense, I don’t know, because I remain just perplexed at the limit of the finite limits of our outrage, or our sense of outrage, Judy.
And, I mean, the three reasons that David mentioned, one was that Bob Mueller had a quarrel at a Donald Trump country club over the fees charged. Second was that Bob Mueller’s law firm had represented Jared Kushner, totally disassociated items.
And the third was that Donald Trump, the President, had invited Bob Mueller in to be interviewed for FBI director, and therefore there was a — there’s somebody there serving him up stuff, but it’s this kind of stuff.
But I think it really comes down to, who’s going to stand with him? And I look at the Republicans on the Hill and, you know, the lack, the tower of Jell-O that is the speaker of the House. As Jack Goldsmith pointed out, Devin Nunes is out of control.
Judy Woodruff: Well, that’s what I want to ask you both about.
I asked Jack Goldsmith, could this campaign, this effort by some Republicans in the House and with support from the White House to undermine the FBI, could that have a long-lasting effect on the Justice Department in the end?
David Brooks: Yes, I think so.
One of the things that people should know is that there are honest brokers in Washington. There are career people who really do their job, and they try to be good umpires. And some of those people, by the way, have private political opinions, but they leave that at the door when they go to work.
And the FBI is filled with honest brokers, the Congressional Budget Office. There are a lot of agencies that are filled with honest brokers, and the idea that everybody in this city is a politician is just not true. It’s always amazing to me that a lot of people in government, they are not actually that political. They believe in the public service and they try to do their jobs, but they’re not sort of super political people.
They just believe in public service. But there’s been a campaign to say, no, those doesn’t exist, it’s all politics, everybody is partisan.
And the people who are partisan have trouble understanding people who are not. There was an interesting moment on Sean Hannity's show last night. When it came out that this story came out, he said, oh, it didn’t happen, Sean Hannity said. He denied it ever happen.
And then some FOX journalists confirmed that it did happen. And so then he turned around, well, it did happen, but Trump was absolutely right to do it.
So there was one 180. And then Trump turned around and said, oh, it’s fake news, and then so Hannity did another 180, his third 180 — he’s getting — it’s like figure skating — and he said, it never happened.
And so FOX can do a party-line switch and do — are Republicans willing to stand up to that? That’s an open question.
Judy Woodruff: And the question is, what’s the effect on the public servants?
Mark Shields: It’s corrosive. And it’s corrosive.
How long has it been since the President has said, public service is a noble calling, that you’re doing the public’s business, that we’re grateful to you, that you’re a patriot for your public service and the contribution you’re making?
The idea, Judy, that the FBI, made up of professional law enforcement people, is a hornet’s nest of bleeding-heart, knee-jerk liberal lefties, which is what Trey Gowdy and these people are selling, is that somehow there is a great cabal, left-wing.
First of all, they’re not political. And the ones who have run for public office have overwhelmingly runs as conservative Republicans, as sort of law and order candidates. So it’s just — it’s not only harmful.
Donald Trump, to use the fake news — I mean, he is the boy who called wolf now on this. He’s calling fake news the charge today. And I think he’s overusing that term.
I am Retired U.S. Navy (22yrs) and a Vietnam Veteran. After my Navy retirement I was in the computer related industry, now retired. In 2000 I was a registered Republican and voted for George W. Bush. Six months of having Bush in the Whitehouse forced me to re-evaluate my political stance. I had always thought of myself as a Moderate Republican, but was a Republican by "default" NOT because of close examination of the GOP. Due to what has happened in America since 2000, I now consider myself a progressive, and registered as a Non-Affiliated voter.
*Anti-First Amendment policies that attempt to turn America into a theocracy by enshrining ANY religious belief as law.
* Any attempt to suppress human or Constitutional rights.
* Any law or policy that supports discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, race/color, gender, sexual orientation, or any law that does NOT support Equal Treatment under the law.
*Any law or policy that attempts to suppress Freedom of the Press or Free Speech.
LINK DISCLAIMER:
There is no guarantee that any link provided in this blog will always work, especially for older links. The validity of any link is governed by the source-site policies. Some sites will archive articles and require subscription to access. Very small sites, such as a local town newspaper, may not archive at all.
