OPINION - Shields and Brooks 12/13/2019

"Shields and Brooks on articles of impeachment, FBI’s Russia mistakes" PBS NewsHour 12/13/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s political news, including the House Judiciary Committee’s passage of articles of impeachment along party lines, Republicans’ defense of President Trump, how impeachment affects Trump politically, what the Horowitz report says about the FBI and a bombshell report on the Afghan war.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, as of today, those are the Judiciary Committee-approved charges against President Trump.  Now it is on the full House of Representatives to decide whether or not to impeach him.

To help us analyze this important week, as always, are Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you.

So these two articles of impeachment, David, how strong a case have the Democrats made with this?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Well, two things.  One, I think they have made a strong case.

I think there was clearly a campaign to have a quid pro quo with Ukraine, and it's clearly an impeachable offense.

As for the articles of impeachment, I don't like them.  Abuse of power, what is that?  Like, that's not a criminal thing.  Like, it's a vague construct.  And same with obstruction of Congress.  Like, these are both extremely vague constructs.

And I think they lead away from what actually happened, what crime was committed, and what should the punishment be.  And they will lead to a debate over these vague concepts.

The concepts should hug closely to some sort of criminal concept that's in our court system, so we all have a history about it, so we know the structure of it, and these sort of waft away from it.  So, I think they make the case.  I just don't like the way they framed it.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, too vague and not on the point?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  David, too vague?  No, never.

Judy, I think the best case was made by a unique person, in the sense of Zoe Lofgren, who was a staffer for Don Edwards on the House Judiciary Committee at the time of the Nixon impeachment, was a member at the time of Bill Clinton's impeachment, is now in the House Judiciary Committee.

And she — I thought she drew the distinction quite compellingly.  And that was that Richard Nixon, no comporting with a foreign power, no attempt to bring the foreign influence into our elections, that he had tried to influence the election improperly, and tried to cover it up with the FBI and the CIA, and paid for it.

That Bill Clinton, no foreign influence, no rigging of an election, he had, totally improperly and indefensibly, had sexual relations with a 21-year-old intern and lied about it.

But this was a President [Trump] trying to rig an election coming up in 2020, using a country, an ally under duress, facing an external threat to its survival from Moscow and — from Russia, and in need of our assistance that had already been voted for, and asking for exchange to get that, to meet — or meeting even with the President to validate the new leader of our ally there, that they spy on an upcoming election in the President's principal opponent.

Judy Woodruff:  And you're saying these articles capture that?  Or they…

Mark Shields:  I think they capture — I mean, I think it's pretty — I just think it's quite straightforward and clearly understandable, and clearly understandable to anybody.

And I think, Judy, quite honestly, no Republican I know will be able to explain to his or her grandchildren why he or she voted against this, I mean, that this was defensible, that this was acceptable behavior on the part of a President of the United States.

David Brooks:  I think it will say, oh, I might have voted for censure.  This doesn't rise to the level of impeachment.

I still think that's their strongest argument, aside from just throwing up smoke.

Judy Woodruff:  But are you saying, David, that there's another — there's a different article that they could have, should have come up?

David Brooks:  Well, I should have gone to law school because I would know.

(LAUGHTER)

I didn't go to law school.  So I don't have the exact phrase.  I just think the phrase abuse of power just doesn't — it just means nothing and everything to me.

Judy Woodruff:  And obstruction of Congress?

David Brooks:  Well, that's a little closer.  But, frankly, so many people have been accused and sometimes removed for office from that, that do we really undo an election over that one?

And I think something serious happened here.  But it was that — what Mark just described.  But, somehow, the way we're about to debate this doesn't seem to get the seriousness of it.

Mark Shields:  Well, just one side has engaged in the debate.  I mean, the Republicans have not.

I mean, there was an acknowledgment on the part of Clinton's defenders that he had done something wrong, even with Nixon, that there had been a break-in.  I mean, the Republicans are just in a state of denial.  They're sailing blithely on the river denial, I mean, that there was nothing, nothing was done.

This is — Mick Mulvaney tells us, wake up and grow up and accept it.

Judy Woodruff:  The Republicans are calling it a sham, a waste of time.

The President himself is doing the same thing.  He's tweeting a lot.  He was out on the campaign trail this week.  He was in Hershey, Pennsylvania, talking about the impeachment process, also singling out the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff.

And here's what the President said:

President Donald Trump:  The president of Ukraine repeatedly declared that there was no pressure, but he didn't want to say that.

We said, say it.  Say it, you crooked bastard.  Say it.

(LAUGHTER)

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

President Donald Trump:  But he doesn't want to say it.  We said, say it.

I'd like to force him to say it.

(LAUGHTER)

President Donald Trump:  He will walk up to the mic.  "Ladies and gentlemen."

(LAUGHTER)

President Donald Trump:  The guy total corrupt guy.

Judy Woodruff:  So that plays well with Trump supporters, doesn't it?

David Brooks:  He's a showman.  And that's showbiz.

And I have to say, I had a friend come from — he'd been away in Israel and came back to the United States.  And he came to me, he said, Trump's really funny.

And I don't always see the humor.  But, in Hershey, Pennsylvania, tens of thousand of people saw the humor, and hundreds of thousands of million — hundreds of millions — or tens of millions of people around the country see the humor.

And they just think the guy's funny, and I like that.

Judy Woodruff:  It seems — it's working?  I mean, he's using coarse, tough language.

Mark Shields:  It's not working.  He's running behind Joe Biden and every other leading Democrat.

Judy, just think of politicians, political leaders in your lifetime, whether it's the city — shining city on a hill, or the hope, and that's — or what we can do together, you know, what we owe each other.

This is the antithesis of that.  This is the politics of grievance.  This is not that we are surrounded by those with whom we can work, we can reach across, we can — that my opponent is — my adversary is not mistaken or ill-informed.  My opponent is my enemy and is evil and hates this country and hates you.

And, boy, that didn't echo through Jim Jordan's words.  I mean, Donald Trump has spawned protégées and knockoff versions: They hate us.  They're out to get us.

It really is — it's a terribly bleak and dismal and dark America that this President portrays and those who support him.

David Brooks:  You know, we have all based our careers on the notion that we can have a conversation.

And so I would stand up for those values as much as anybody.  But in a time when people hate the political establishment so much, one of Trump's secrets is to find there has to be a stylistic way of talking that seems different.

And even for those of us on our side have to find the stylistic way of talking that feels authentic to people.  And some of the old communication styles that we used to do or that candidates used to do, I think that just is not resonating with people right now.

And that's been true around the world.  And you can get somebody who's conservative or progressive who doesn't exhaust everybody all the time and who actually talks in a normal tone and actually listens.

Mark Shields:  Yes.  No.

David Brooks:  But, somehow, something has to change.  And that's one of the things we have learned, not only from Trump, but the world politics.

Judy Woodruff:  Some people are pointing to Boris Johnson winning in Britain.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

I guess just — and I agree with David, but just one point, Judy, and that is, at no point is there any celebration of what we have achieved in this country, I mean, the fact that we have cut the poverty rate among people over the age of 65 by two-thirds, that we have removed 85 percent of lead from the air, I mean, all of the things we have done and are doing.

We have got a long way to go.  But we have achieved, and there are good things that America does.

Judy Woodruff:  Two — well, in a completely different direction, two investigations I want to ask you both about.

One, David, is the inspector general at the Department of Justice went back and looked at the origins of the Trump campaign Russia investigation.  Republicans had been saying it would show political bias.  The inspector general said — didn't find political bias, but he did find a lot of mistakes.

What do we take away from this?

David Brooks:  Yes.

Well, with Fiona Hill and a lot of people who testified, we saw the federal government at its best.  And now we're seeing another side, which is incompetence.

And I take them at their word there was no political bias.  But there was certainly a lot of incompetence, and they were certainly spinning the game.  And the investigation into Carter Page, just for one [actually the only] example, he was meeting with the Russians.  And he was telling the CIA, I just want you to know I'm meeting with them.

And the FBI did not disclose that fact that he told the CIA, which certainly makes it look a lot less suspicious than it otherwise would be.  And, frankly, this vindicates a lot of the — not everything, but a lot of the stuff Devin Nunes was saying, House Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, saying they weren't playing fair.

And so this is a case where I don't like — maybe there wasn't bias, but there was certainly a lot of incompetence and there were certainly people getting over their skis in trying to pursue an investigation, maybe without as much cause as they pretended.

Judy Woodruff:  What do you take away from that.

Mark Shields:  That there wasn't — I agree with David.  There were serious mistakes made.

And I think that FISA process is open, not only to scrutiny, but to severe criticism.  But I — when Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI, appointed by President Trump, says investigations were opened in 2016 for an authorized purpose and with the adequate federal predication — predication the recent word that is now in vogue — but he gets lambasted by the President.

It's like everybody got something out of this investigation, except the President, who wanted it to be a coup.  And there was no coup.  That's it.  I mean, I think a lot of people have to answer what they did as far as the visa [FISA?], but there was no coup.

COMMENT:  What David Brooks is failing to realize is that impeachment does NOT have to relate to a crime like in normal courts.  The definition of "High crimes and Misdemeanors" are totally up to the House and can be political.

THE INVESTIGATIONS - Horowitz Report

"2 law enforcement experts on what Horowitz report and testimony mean for the FBI" PBS NewsHour 12/11/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In 434 written pages and more than five hours of live testimony, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz shared his perspective on how the FBI conducted itself in the early stages of its Russia investigation.  How serious are his findings, and what happens now for the FBI?  Former FBI official Frank Montoya and former federal prosecutor James Trusty join Judy Woodruff to discuss.

RUSSIA PROBE - DOJ Inspector General Findings

Of course Trump's 'Personal' attorney AG Barr disagrees.  Again Barr forgets he works for the American people not Trump.

"DOJ inspector general finds Russia probe was appropriately opened — but Barr disagrees" PBS NewsHour 12/9/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A long-awaited report into the origins of the Russia probe found no evidence of a political conspiracy against President Trump.  But the Justice Department’s Inspector General criticized the FBI’s handling of wiretap applications used in the early stages of the investigation.  William Brangham reports and Judy Woodruff talks to John Carlin, former assistant attorney general for national security.

THE INVESTIGATIONS - Mueller Testimony

My answer, not much.

NOTE:  On Obstruction of Justice Mueller wrote, “Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct.”

He could have wrote, “Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct.  Therefore it is up to Congress to make this decision," and we would not be in this mess.

"With Mueller testimony, can Democrats expect a ‘breakthrough moment’?" PBS NewsHour 6/26/2019

Excerpt

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.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 5/3/2019

"Shields and Brooks on Barr testimony, Democrats’ dilemma" PBS NewsHour 5/3/2019

Excerpt

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.

THE INVESTIGATIONS - Trump 2016 Campaign Start

"How the FBI began investigating a Trump campaign adviser in 2016" PBS NewsHour 5/3/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump has long claimed U.S. intelligence agencies spied on his 2016 campaign.  This week, he considered himself vindicated by a story in The New York Times detailing an FBI effort to covertly gather information from a Trump campaign adviser.  Judy Woodruff talks to reporter Adam Goldman about what sparked the investigation and whether it appears to have followed standard processes.

Judy Woodruff:  (NewsHour):  We're joined now by one of the article's reporters.  He is Adam Goldman.  He covers the FBI and national security for The Times.

Adam Goldman, welcome again to the "NewsHour."

So tell us on what basis it was.  The story is about an FBI investigator meeting covertly with a Trump campaign adviser.  Tell us, how did this come about?  How unusual was it?

Adam Goldman (New York Times):  Well, I don't think it's particularly unusual, if the FBI believes there's wrongdoing and they need to get to the bottom of this.

They typically might send an investigator like this woman in alongside an informant to figure out what happened.  And that's exactly what they were trying to do.  The FBI was trying to understand, you know, was George Papadopoulos, this foreign policy, this campaign adviser for Trump, in some way working with the Russians?

And they thought that because they had received an allegation that, in fact, he was.  So they moved quickly and aggressively to try to figure out, before the election ended, was he, in fact, working with the Russians?

Judy Woodruff:  So, what was the basis they were using?  What evidence did they have that there was a reason to try to get in and know more about what he was up to?

Adam Goldman:  I think, at its core, the Australian government provided information that George — that the Russians had essentially made George Papadopoulos an offer, saying they had hacked e-mails, Democratic e-mails, and they could help him release them and coordinate the timing of that.

And Papadopoulos had told that to the Australian ambassador at the time in London, and that information was relayed to the FBI, months later, in fact.  And that was the genesis of the FBI's Russia investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane.

VOTE 2020 - Protecting Our Elections

"After Mueller revelations, how to protect election integrity in 2020" PBS NewsHour 4/24/2019

Excerpt

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.

"Here’s what voters are saying about 2020 election integrity" PBS NewsHour 4/24/2019

Excerpt

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.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 4/19/2019

"Shields and Brooks on the Mueller report" PBS NewsHour 4/19/2019

Excerpt

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.

RUSSIA - The Russia Investigation

"Who was behind Russia’s ‘information warfare’ campaign" PBS NewsHour 3/25/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  There is no doubt that Russia’s government attempted to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.  As William Brangham reports, once the U.S. intelligence community reached that consensus, as well as high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered the cyber and social media “disinformation” campaigns, a major investigation and dozens of indictments followed.

Declassified ICA Intelligence Report (PDF download)

RUSSIA REPORT - Trump Appointee's 'Summary'

aka 'What is Barr Hiding'

My question, just 48 hours to review a several-hundred page report?  It would have been less suspicious if the review had taking at least a week.

#ReleaseTheFullMuellerReport

"Republicans celebrate Barr’s summary, while Democrats insist on full report’s release" PBS NewsHour 3/25/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Attorney General William Barr’s summary of the Mueller report says the special counsel found no evidence that the President or his campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election.  In response, the White House is claiming victory, while Democrats insist the full report be made public.  Judy Woodruff talks to Yamiche Alcindor, Lisa Desjardins, and NPR’s Carrie Johnson for more.

"How the attorney general arrived at his Mueller report conclusions" PBS NewsHour 3/25/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Republicans say the attorney general's four-page summary of the Mueller report exonerates President Trump on obstruction of justice.  Democrats counter that William Barr’s analysis is not sufficient to answer that question.  Judy Woodruff talks to Neal Katyal former acting solicitor general under President Obama, and Paul McNulty former deputy attorney general under the first President Bush.

"Of Mueller report, Rep. Raskin says ‘the country is still waiting’" PBS NewsHour 3/25/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In his summary of the Mueller report, Attorney General William Barr concluded there was no evidence that President Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 Presidential campaign.  But what does the report itself say?  Judy Woodruff speaks to Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md) about why it should be made public and how Barr’s pre-existing views might have come into play.

"In Washington, perspectives on Mueller report diverge across party lines" PBS NewsHour 3/26/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Mueller report remains the top story in Washington, but Republicans and Democrats are viewing it from two very different perspectives.  Democrats are pressing for full disclosure of the special counsel's findings so they can make their own judgments of the facts, while President Trump and his allies insist the matter is concluded, with the President in the clear.  Lisa Desjardins reports.

"Rep. Collins on ‘politicization’ of the Justice Department" PBS NewsHour 3/26/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A bipartisan effort from the House Judiciary Committee is pushing the Justice Department to explain why it began investigating President Trump for obstruction of justice.  Judy Woodruff talks to the committee’s top Republican, Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, about whether he’s satisfied with the attorney general’s summary of the Mueller report and eradicating “corruption” within the Justice Department.

"Preet Bharara on ‘troublesome language’ in Barr summary of Mueller report" PBS NewsHour 3/26/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Debate continues over the meaning of Attorney General William Barr’s summary of the Mueller report, with Democrats arguing it’s impossible to draw conclusions about President Trump’s culpability without a first-hand examination of the report.  Judy Woodruff talks to former federal prosecutor Preet Bharara about the “troublesome language” in Barr’s letter and investigating for truth vs. retaliation.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 3/22/2019

#ReleaseTheFullMuellerReport

"Shields and Brooks on the Mueller report and what happens next" PBS NewsHour 3/22/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to analyze the impact of the Mueller report, with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, participating by phone.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And joining us now in our studio in Washington, our regular Friday news analysis team, Mark Shields and David Brooks.

Hello, gentlemen.

It looks like we have a little bit of news, although we don't know what the news is in the news.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  We are waiting for more information.  We're going just on the thinnest of threads.

But, Mark, based on what we're hearing — and, of course, we just heard from two individuals who work in — have worked at the Justice Department, have been a federal prosecutor.

If it's the case there are no indictments being recommended, that's going to bring a sigh of relief from this White House, isn't it?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  I would say it is, Judy.

I mean, we know about Robert Mueller, that this has been leak-proof, and that he has a reputation for incredible thoroughness.  And I think the relief — or maybe the question will turn out to have been the indictment or whether they can indict a sitting President or not.

And, you know, I don't know, quite frankly.  But, I mean, let's be frank — 34 people have been indicted, right, six associates of the President.  Five have pleaded guilty.  I mean, we are — this is not for naught.  It's not an empty exercise, by any means.

Judy Woodruff:  David, how do you read what little bit, little bit we know?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes, the news event is, a piece of paper was handed from one office to another office.  That is what happened today.

This takes place in a political context.  And I think a lot of people — we have been talking about the Mueller report.  And some people were treating it as the messiah that was going to come and rid them of Donald Trump.

And there was an expectation that it would shift fundamentally the ball game.  Right now, there are daily allegations about Trump about this or that, bad tweets.  Republicans have stuck with him.  Democrats have opposed.  And we have been in this World War II situation.

And so the question is, does the report change that trench warfare, essentially?  And if there are no indictments, I really have trouble seeing how it does that.  No indictments on collusion, but even the ones I expected there might be were on the obstruction piece.

And this started as an obstruction investigation, after the Comey firing.  And so if there's no indictments even on obstruction, then there will be bad stuff, presumably, but we will fundamentally probably be in the same situation.

And so I think the smart money for the past month has always been shifting, as we have been saying, to the Southern District of New York and to his financial crimes.  The collusion, I have always been a skeptic, just because I don't think there was a Trump campaign.  There was no organized thing to actually do the collusion.

Judy Woodruff:  It sounds — David is saying, in essence, Mark, that, yes, there have been referrals to the Southern District of New York, but they don't appear to go to the heart of what this investigation was about.

That's the reason they were referred to the Southern District.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

I mean, remember, Bob Mueller had a pretty narrow mandate, which was Russia and Russia's involvement in this election.  So, in that sense — but, no, I do agree, Judy, that what we have, beyond being astonishingly leak-proof, is the question of what does come out.

I mean, you will recall the Starr Report coming out in all its graphic, specific, embarrassing detail.

Judy Woodruff:  About President Clinton.

Mark Shields:  About President Clinton.

And the policy has been in the past, the Department of Justice, that you do not identify anybody who is targeted, but against whom no legal action was taken.  So, we don't know what the status is of the report on the President or anybody else at this point, I mean, unlike in the Comey investigation, where he felt obliged to make his statements about Hillary Clinton, the Presidential candidate, in 2016.

Judy Woodruff:  I'm going to ask both of you to stand by, sit there and wait with me, because on the phone right now is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, congressman from California.

Congressman Schiff, obviously, we're in the very early moments, hours of having this report transmitted from the special counsel, Robert Mueller, to the office of the attorney general.

The briefings have not yet happened, I gather, at your end.  But what do you know so far?

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif):  Well, I think what we know so far is that this report is going to deal with the decisions to prosecute certain people and the decisions not to prosecute others, why the special counsel felt the evidence was sufficient as to some, but not as to others.

The important point here, though, is, this focuses predominantly on the criminal investigation.  But this investigation began as a counterintelligence investigation.  And that may be the far more significant side of the House, because that goes to the question of whether the President or anyone around him has been acting, either wittingly or unwittingly, as an agent of a foreign power.

And it's going to be very important, number one, that the report is made public, so the public understands what decisions the special counsel made and the criminal evidence.  But it's going to be even more important, potentially, that the Congress understand, if there are counterintelligence risks, that this President or those around him are acting not in the national interest, but because they have some pecuniary interest or because they're beholden or are compromised in any way.

The Congress and our committee in particular has a statutory right to know.  And we expect that the Justice Department is going to share that information with us, because they're going to have to.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, when you remind us that this investigation began as a counterintelligence investigation, what does that say about what we may or may not be seeing right now in this report?

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif):  Well, it means that what we are going to see when the report is made public — and we may have to fight the attorney general to make sure that happens — but in a very bipartisan showing on a very polarized issue, the House quite overwhelmingly said, we expect this to be made public.

That may only tell us about prosecutorial decisions that may shed very little light on the issue of compromise.  And to give you one very graphic illustration, the President during the campaign sought to consummate, which — something that would have been among the most lucrative deals of his life, and that is the building of a tower that would have required Kremlin support, at a time he was publicly espousing a new relationship with Russia and praising Vladimir Putin, whose green light might be necessary for that project.

That is obviously deeply compromising, but that may not be much of the report, because, whether it was criminal or not will go into the report, but what is essential in terms of the public safety and the security of the country is another matter entirely.

Judy Woodruff:  And, Congressman, what do you make of these early reports that this will not include any further indictments than what we have already seen?

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif):  Well, I think a couple of things.

First, that means that this office, the special counsel's office, which is essentially like an outside counsel for the Justice Department, it won't be bringing any future indictments.

That doesn't preclude either the main Justice Department or the Southern District of New York or other elements of the Justice Department from bringing indictments.  And I think it's very possible, given the number of redactions in the Mueller pleadings that suggest other investigations that are still ongoing.

But the last point that I want to make, because it addresses the conversation you were having before I came online, is this issue of, does the department share information about people not indicted?

And it's important for people to know that, during the last Congress, the Justice Department shared over 880,000 pages of discovery with the Congress in an investigation in which no one was indicted about Hillary Clinton, about Bruce Ohr, about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, about Andy McCabe and others.

And it did so because of the intense public interest and it did so because Congress insisted on transparency.

And, as I told them at the time, they are not getting away with a double standard.  If the Congress changes hands, as it has, we will insist on the same level of transparency as to this even more important investigation.

So the department may speak in generalities about that, but the reality is, it departs from that policy when the public interest demands it, and, here, clearly, the public interest demands it.

Judy Woodruff:  Congressman Adam Schiff, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, thank you very much.  We appreciate your joining us.

And again I'm joined in our Washington studio by our analysts, Mark Shields and David Brooks.

David, you hear the congressman, Chairman Schiff, making a point about transparency and saying, this is paramount right now.

David Brooks:  Yes.  I think we're all uncomfortable with the idea that prosecutors dump a bunch of information on someone they decide not to charge.

That is generally the rule.  And so I understand their suspicion.  But I think Adam Schiff's argument is essentially the correct one, that there are exceptions to this case.

And when you're investigating the President of the United States over something where he may have compromised national security issues, I do making it public is the — the weight is on that side.

And once they make it public to Congress, we will all know.  And so the idea — Mueller has not leaked, but we're about to have a little fight over how much we release.  But I suspect, by the end of the day, everything will come out.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, I don't know if you want to comment on that.

But I do want to come back to this point that Chairman Schiff made about the distinction between what's the criminal investigation and what is the investigation into counterintelligence, the Russia piece of this, which there have been a number of indictments around that so far.  But we don't know yet how many more shoes, if any, there are to drop on that.

Mark Shields:  No.  No, we don't.

And, I mean, his point, that whether the President willingly or — wittingly or unwittingly is dealing with a foreign power — I was rather struck by Mitch McConnell, who is — if anything else, he's very careful.

He made a statement today saying, when this came out, that, "Many Republicans have long believed that Russia poses a significant threat to American interests," which, is you know, sort of — I mean, he's not someone given to idle chatter.

And I don't know, but I think that's where the focus is going to turn.  And, obviously, his mention — he said main Justice — I mean, the Justice Department or the Southern District of New York as well.

Judy Woodruff:  I want to come back.  Pick up on that, David, if you want to, but I want — I do want to come back to your point earlier about how much energy and time.

And this was — Yamiche and Lisa were speaking about this earlier, how much time and energy and oxygen has been expended in Washington over the last two years-plus reflecting on this, anticipating this, wondering what's going to happen, and a lot of fingers pointed at the President.

David Brooks:  Yes, a fair investigation is worth it, even if it doesn't come with indictments.  You have to investigate things, even if just to find out what happened.

And when the President of the United States' campaign team has a meeting in the Trump Tower with Russians, that merits an investigation.  And if you come up and there's no further indictments, I think we trust Robert Mueller, and we say, well, good job, and thank you for your service.

That doesn't mean it's going to change the politics, but I do think an investigation has been done, and a sign that American institutions can actually work.

Judy Woodruff:  And again picking up on what Chairman Schiff said, Mark, about, yes, we know that — we now know, at least if we believe Michael Cohen, the President's lawyer, there were continuing efforts to try to strike a deal over a Trump Tower in Moscow into — well into the campaign in 2016.

Mark Shields:  Yes.  That's right, well into 2016, is what Michael Cohen has testified.

David Brooks:  There are decisions lawyers make, and there are decisions voters make.

Mark Shields:  That's right.

David Brooks:  And whether Michael Cohen and whether Trump was complicit or bowing down to Vladimir Putin for this reason or another, that's a decision more for voters than for lawyers, I would say.

Judy Woodruff:  At this stage, though, I think both — and both of you have said this — when we don't know any more than we know, we want to be careful about assuming.

Mark Shields:  We do.

And, I mean, whatever Robert Mueller is and has been, I mean, his career has been one of being careful, being thoughtful, of being complete, and not rushing to judgment.

So, whatever he delivers will be taken with gravitas and seriousness but any fair-minded person.  Obviously, partisans on both sides will go to their corners.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.

Mark Shields:  But, I mean, he — I can't think of a public figure who would have been more credible in this situation.

Judy Woodruff:  You haven't seen leaks.

(CROSSTALK)

David Brooks:  And at a moment when Sean Hannity and many others have been going after Robert Mueller day after day after day…

Mark Shields:  Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

David Brooks:  … he must have felt an incredible temptation to strike back in some way, but he just…

(CROSSTALK)

David Brooks:  … and delivered the report.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.

I'm trying to compare this with other investigations where the leaks have been at a minimum.  This may be — this may hold the record for the fewest bits of information shared with the press, with the public.

Mark Shields:  He ought to be the personnel director for any President's administration.

The people he chose were exactly like him.  They have been just as circumspect, just as discreet, and just as tight-lipped.

Judy Woodruff:  All right.

Well, it is has just literally come out in the last hour or so.  We learned at 5:00 Eastern that the report had been submitted and the Congress was notified.

And now we wait.  We wait.  We see what happens.

Mark Shields, David Brooks, thank you.

Mark Shields:  Thank you.

David Brooks:  Thank you.

AMERICAN POLITICS - The Mueller Report

#ReleaseTheFullMullerReport the American people need to know the details if we are to have any confidence in our federal government.  If ANYTHING remains hidden/redacted there will be suspicion that the Trump Administration is hiding something.  Like why did a Trump appointee decide there was no obstruction of justice?  Also, reminder that this investigation was about Russia, not Trump.

"How Congress could respond to the Mueller report" PBS NewsHour 3/24/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A nearly two-year investigation into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election “does not exonerate” President Trump, Attorney General William Barr said in a summary of the Mueller report on Sunday, as Democrats consider whether there is enough evidence to impeach the President.  NewsHour politics correspondent Lisa Desjardins joins Hari Sreenivasan for a look at what Congress may do next.

"Republicans ‘very excited’ after release of Mueller summary" PBS NewsHour 3/24/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Republican establishment on Sunday felt a sense of vindication following the release of a Justice Department summary on the Mueller report.  NewsHour White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor reports.  She joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss reactions from both sides of the political aisle.

"How much of the Mueller report should be made public?" PBS NewsHour 3/24/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find evidence that President Trump conspired with Russia during the 2016 Presidential campaign, according to a summary released by the Justice Department on Sunday.  Bob Bauer, a professor at NYU's School of Law and former White House counsel to President Obama, joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss how much of the full report should be made public.

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.

McCABE - President Trump is a Threat

I totally agree.

"Why Andrew McCabe sees the President as a threat" PBS NewsHour 2/21/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe has published a new book that includes some stunning allegations about President Trump -- including that he is the "most prolific liar" McCabe has ever encountered, despite decades of dealing with sophisticated criminals.  McCabe sits down with Judy Woodruff to discuss why FBI investigations aren't political and whether he plans to sue over his termination.

AMERICAN POLITICS - Whitaker Testimony

"Frustration erupts on both sides at Whitaker’s House testimony" PBS NewsHour 2/8/2019

Excerpt

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.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION - Nominee for U.S. Attorney General

The question, is William Barr really a Trump stooge?

"William Barr Has a Long History of Abusing Civil Rights and Liberties in the Name of ‘National Security’" by Manar Waheed and Brian Tashman, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 1/14/2019

On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin hearings on William Barr’s nomination to be the next attorney general of the United States, offering senators an opportunity to scrutinize his record and views.

Such scrutiny is especially crucial in the Trump era.  As we’ve seen throughout his time in office, from imposing the Muslim ban to the recent shutdown fight over border wall funding, President Trump has tried to use “national security” as a pretext to justify discriminatory or otherwise illegal policies.

That’s why his nomination of William Barr should concern everyone — because Barr has a long record of doing the same thing during the George H.W. Bush administration.  If confirmed to be Trump’s attorney general, Barr could enable the President to act on many of his worst instincts.

Defending discriminatory profiling

In the lead up to the Persian Gulf War, the FBI questioned hundreds of Arab-Americans.  It claimed these interviews were to solicit information about terrorism.  Barr, who served as deputy attorney general at the time, defended the FBI’s actions, insisting that they were needed “to solicit information about potential terrorist activity and to request the future assistance of these individuals.”

Community activists said that the FBI was singling them out and questioning their loyalty because of their identity.  Many of the people who were questioned said that they were interrogated about their political views and travel plans and if they personally knew terrorists — based not on actual evidence, but on national origin.  As an official charged with upholding the law, Barr should know not only are such practices offensive, ineffective, and a waste of limited resources, but they also undermine the very constitutional rights he swore to protect.

Supporting secret military trials

And Barr’s history doesn’t stop there.

Following the 1988 Lockerbie Bombings, Barr floated the idea of the President convening secret military tribunals to try people accused of involvement with suspected terrorist activities.  Barr revived the idea of secret military trials after the 9/11 attacks and testified in support of President George W. Bush’s decision to order them without congressional authorization.

Barr told the Senate that the President has the power to order such trials as long as he cites “national defense” interests.  Barr said that “no war need be declared for this power to come into being,” and that there is “no geographical limit” for the President to exercise such powers.  Anyone declared a foreign adversary, he said, “is not entitled to constitutional protections.”

More recently, Barr’s belief that the President has virtually unchecked security powers is also seen in his defense of the first version of Trump’s Muslim ban.

Such beliefs are in keeping with his sweeping views of executive power.  Indeed, Barr has said that “the real threat to domestic liberties is the artificial restriction of our powers of national defense by gratuitously expanding constitutional guarantees beyond their intended office.”

Endorsing detention and denying rights

Barr’s nomination should trouble anyone worried about executive overreach, especially as Trump is trying to go beyond his authority to ban asylum-seekers and expand detention, including the separation of parents from their children.

During the George H.W. Bush-era, Barr endorsed the administration’s use of the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay to detain Haitians seeking asylum in the U.S., denying them access to legal advice during their asylum proceedings.  A federal judge rebuked the government for indefinitely detaining the Haitians and denying them access to legal counsel.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has announced that it will force asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their claims for protection are processed.  And right now, the President is threatening to formally declare a national emergency in order to build his border wall without congressional approval or appropriations.

As Trump leads attacks on civil liberties and the rule of law, often by making false claims about national security, senators must ask Barr about his troubling record and make sure that he will not become a rubber stamp for the President’s unlawful actions.

"Barr pledges to protect Mueller probe from partisanship and ‘personal interests’" PBS NewsHour 1/15/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In his confirmation hearing, William Barr wasted no time declaring independence from the President who nominated him.  President Trump's pick for attorney general vowed not to fire -- without just cause -- special counsel Robert Mueller, nor interfere with the probe into Russian election meddling.  Yamiche Alcindor reports.

"Klobuchar ‘very concerned’ about Barr’s independence in light of Mueller memo" PBS NewsHour 1/15/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn) said she has serious concerns about Attorney General nominee William Barr’s stances on the Mueller investigation, but that it was positive to hear him say he would let the probe run its course.  The senator joins Judy Woodruff to discuss Barr’s answers on obstruction of justice, voting rights, his rhetoric on immigration and more from Tuesday’s hearing.

"Barr’s Mueller probe memo shouldn’t be disqualifying, former deputy says" PBS NewsHour 1/15/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Lots of lawyers have thoughts about the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference, said former Deputy Attorney General George Terwilliger, and the fact that Attorney General nominee William Barr shared his thoughts isn’t “really unusual.”  Terwilliger joins Judy Woodruff to discuss the confirmation hearing, including immigration issues wrapped up in the government shutdown fight.

TRUMP - Russian Agent?

"Denying he ever worked for Russia, Trump calls the question a ‘disgrace’" PBS NewsHour 1/14/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  On Monday, President Trump denied being a Russian agent after The New York Times reported the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into whether he was acting on Russia’s behalf.  He called the FBI officials who launched the inquiry “scoundrels” and “dirty cops.”  But questions remain about his interactions with Russian President Vladimir Putin.  Nick Schifrin reports.

"Sen. Warner [D-Va]: ‘Legitimate questions’ need to be answered about Trump and Russia" PBS NewsHour 1/14/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The New York Times reports that the FBI launched a counterintelligence investigation into whether President Trump was working on behalf of Russia after Trump fired FBI director James Comey.  Today, the President denied being under Russia's influence.  Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va) tells Judy Woodruff whether he believes Trump and what we still don’t know about Trump’s meetings with Vladimir Putin.

"‘Plenty’ is still unknown about Trump’s interactions with Putin, says former NSC staffer" PBS NewsHour 1/14/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Questions remain about President Trump's meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin, as well as about Trump's broader ties to Russia.  To analyze why the corresponding counterintelligence investigations are 'unprecedented,' Judy Woodruff sits down with Andrew Weiss a former National Security Council staffer, and David Kris previously the Justice Department's top national security official.

"‘I really don’t’ believe Trump acts in ways that help Russia, Sen. Risch [R-Idaho] says" PBS NewsHour 1/15/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) the new Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that there is no feeling that he knows of, in Washington, that Russia can be trusted or embraced.  Risch talks with Nick Schifrin about why he sees China as the U.S.’s “largest concern,” the pain for American farmers caused by the President’s trade war, the American commitment to Kurdish forces in Syria and more.