OPINION - Capehart and Gerson 6/17/2022

"Capehart and Gerson on the Jan. 6 hearings, gun legislation, the importance of Juneteenth" PBS NewsHour 6/17/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart and Washington Post opinion columnist Michael Gerson join Amna Nawaz to discuss the week in politics, including new revelations after the third public hearing on the Jan. 6 Capitol attack and a framework for gun regulations is beginning to splinter as senators try to turn broad agreements into law.

Amna Nawaz (NewsHour):  As new revelations are reverberating across the political landscape after the third public hearing on the January 6 Capitol attack, meanwhile, a framework for new gun regulations is beginning to splinter, as senators try to turn their broad agreement into a detailed plan.

That brings us to the analysis of Capehart and Gerson.  That is Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post, and his colleague at The Post opinion columnist Michael Gerson.  David Brooks is away.

Welcome to you both.  Nice to see you.

Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post:  Hi, Amna.

Michael Gerson, Washington Post:  Thank you.

Jonathan Capehart:  Great to see you.

Amna Nawaz:  So let's start with those talks in the Senate.

A bipartisan group of senators, we know, have been close.  They say they have a framework when it comes to gun violence prevention.  Those are led by Chris Murphy of Connecticut, of course, John Cornyn of Texas.

But, just yesterday, just yesterday, John Cornyn walked out of those talks saying this as he walked out.  He said: "It's fish or cut bait.  I don't know what they," meaning Democrats, "have in mind.  But I'm through talking."

So, Jonathan, could the talks fall apart once again?

Jonathan Capehart:  Yes.  Yes, they can.

How many weeks have I sat here on Friday saying I'm happy they're talking, it's great that they're talking, but I will believe it when I see it, when we get — when we go from talks to press conference to passage of the bill to signing?

The fact that Senator Cornyn has walked away from the table is the least surprising thing.  The announcement of the framework on Sunday was really hopeful.  And, in fact, there were a lot of things on there that Democrats thought, wow, we didn't think that they — we could get this as part of the framework.

But the fact that Senator Cornyn is saying he's done talking and it's time to fish or cut bait, well, what's the issue?  I mean, does he have a problem with the boyfriend loophole, which is what a lot of the reporting is?  Well, what's your proposal?

We have to keep in mind that it's not like Democrats haven't compromised.  If Democrats put forth all the stuff they wanted, an assault weapons ban would be in it.  So many other things would be in the framework.  But Democrats have made it clear, we need to do something.  The fact that Senator Cornyn is walking away from the table, quite sadly, more of the same.

Amna Nawaz:  So, Michael, this — Jonathan's right.  The reporting is that it's this boyfriend — closing the boyfriend loophole, keeping guns away from abusive partners, that's the sticking point for Republicans and John Cornyn.

There's a lot of stuff in here.  There's funding for school safety and mental health, background checks for states to pass and bolster red flag laws.  So what does Cornyn walking away do?

Michael Gerson:  Well, I agree with Jonathan.  This is an incremental bill.  That's the way it was designed.

And, in fact, what's in there, my fear is that it would not do enough to kind of address these issues, and then you would still have some difficult problems.

But it does matter that Mitch McConnell has at least provisionally endorsed an approach like this.  And that gives kind of permission to a group of senators, I think, who are in more purple states, and some of them running for reelection, that they may want to have something to say about, a problem, a huge moral problem.

We need to remember the context here, which is just the murder of children.

Amna Nawaz:  Right.

Michael Gerson:  And I think that Cornyn looks bad, because he's ignoring essentially the moral imperatives of our moment.

Amna Nawaz:  But Cornyn also got booed, we should say.

Today, he was speaking at a Republican convention in Texas.  He brought this up, that this deal is in the works, and he got booed.  What does that tell you?

Michael Gerson:  Well, this was a pretty hardcore audience, I assume, of Texas Republicans.

But it's — there is some risk in any deal.  My concern, though, is that we were — we were moving towards a deal on criminal justice reform, for example, and it fell apart.  And I'm afraid that may happen in this case, although I think there are some — not yet.

Amna Nawaz:  All right, I want to move on to the January 6 Committee hearings, of course, because it was another big week with two more hearings, public hearings, on the books.  They now have three hearings behind them, three more, we believe, to go.

Each of you actually shared with us moments that stood out to you.  And there was a lot of information in those hearings.  I want to play for you those moments and get you to react.

Jonathan, you remembered this moment from former federal appellate Judge Michael Luttig.  He'd been advising Vice President Mike Pence that Pence couldn't do what Trump wanted him to do, which was throw out the election results.

Here's just part of what Luttig said.

J. Michael Luttig, Former Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge:  I would have laid my body across the road before I would have let the Vice President overturn the 2020 election on the basis of that historical precedent.

Amna Nawaz:  That is Judge Michael Luttig.  I apologized.  I mispronounced his name.

Why did that moment stand out to you?

Jonathan Capehart:  Judge Luttig is a giant.  He is a giant among conservative lawyers.

His reputation is sort of — I'm trying to think of the liberal equivalent.  You don't get more senior and more revered than that.  The fact that he said he would have thrown himself in the — in Vice President Pence's way to stop him from doing that was pretty incredible.

But the other thing he says that we did not show was that he had a warning, that Donald Trump and the folks who follow him present a quote, clear and present danger to our American democracy.  This is no liberal Democrat who's talking.  This is no just rank-and-file Democrat talking.

This is a tried-and-true, dyed-in-the-wool conservative jurist who is saying — ringing the alarm about this scheme that Eastman had come up with that they were trying to get Vice President Pence to go along with, and who is also saying, they're not done.  This scheme is not done.

January 6 — and he didn't say this part, but I'm saying this part.  January 6 was a rehearsal for what we could see in 2024.

Amna Nawaz:  Michael, I found it interesting.  Most of the folks who testified, most of the people we heard from more Republicans.

And you recalled this one moment that stood out to you where we heard from chief counsel to the vice president Greg Jacob.  We learned a lot about what Mike Pence was doing on January 6, how he was down in a secure location continuing to work, even as rioters outside were chanting, "Hang Mike Pence."

Here's a moment in which Greg Jacob was talking about what happened then.

Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA):  Does it surprise you to see how close the mob was to the evacuation route that you took?  Forty feet is a distance from me to you, roughly.

Greg Jacob, Former Counsel to Vice President Mike Pence:  I could hear the din of the rioters in the building while we moved.  But I don't think I was aware that they were as close as that.

Rep. Pete Aguilar:  Make no mistake about the fact that the vice president's life was in danger.

Amna Nawaz:  Why did that moment stick with you?

Michael Gerson:  Because it's something we shouldn't get used to.

I mean, we had a moment with a mob intent on harm, fed and pushed by the sitting President of the United States against his most loyal lieutenant, and it was a near-run thing.  This could have been the murder of the Vice President.  I mean, how would that — how would American politics have responded to such a thing?

And one thing that came out in the hearing is that, during this, as it was happening, President Trump was tweeting pressure tweets attacking the Vice President for lacking courage, as this was happening.  And that indicates to me a reckless regard for not just his political future, but his life.

This is a President — I think we learned again, but it's the most dramatic example.  This is not just a corrupt politician.  This is an evil man, an amoral man.  And that, I think, is important as we come around to the next election, where he's the Republican front-runner.  That is a dire situation for the republic.

Amna Nawaz:  Jonathan, there was another moment that stood out to me, when we heard from communications between Trump's lawyer John Eastman sending messages — he's the one who's recommending sort of a plan for how to do this, to overturn the election results.

And the committee basically shared that he e-mailed, saying:  "I have decided I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works."

What was your reaction when you heard that?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, I mean, my mouth was agape.

You only ask for a pardon if you know or feel that you have done something wrong.  I would never ask for a pardon, right?  Why?

Amna Nawaz:  You can say that…

(CROSSTALK)

Jonathan Capehart:  What have I done?

But Eastman knew.  He knew.  The committee showed that he knew from the beginning that what he was proposing was — this is public television.  I almost went there — was not right, was not right.

And so he pushed it, pushed it, pushed it.  And then, after January 6, he sees what happened and then says:  I want to have — give me a pardon?

It's…

Amna Nawaz:  We still have — we still have three more hearings to go, I should say.  And there's already been so much evidence laid out by the committee.

But, Michael, do you see — do you see a world in which they end the hearings, they wrap all this up, and there's no action from the Department of Justice?  Is that a possibility?

Michael Gerson:  It's a definite possibility, although the Department of Justice made some noise this week, essentially, saying, we'd like those transcripts, the ones that you have of these witnesses, because there is a parallel investigation going on with the committee and the Justice Department, and they have started stepping on another's feet a little bit.

But that does show that the DOJ is looking closely at what's happening in these hearings, which I regard as a good sign.  There's going to be tremendous pressure on Garland to do this.  But I think it's going to be a very tough choice for them, because it would set a precedent of pursuing criminal charges against former presidents that we have never really had before.

We will see.

Amna Nawaz:  Do you also think Mike Pence should testify?  We haven't heard from him.

Michael Gerson:  I would have loved to have heard him about all this.

Amna Nawaz:  Yes.

Michael Gerson:  And — but he has tried to get as far away from his actions, his own actions, as he possibly could, because he still sees a path to the presidency that doesn't exist.

Amna Nawaz:  We will see.  Three more hearings, as I say, to go.

Before we let you go, Jonathan, I do want to get your thoughts on this, because ahead this weekend, Sunday is Juneteenth.

Jonathan Capehart:  Right.

Amna Nawaz:  It is just the second time in our country's history we are marking this day as a federal holiday.

And I just wanted to ask, as the country notes this day, as we mark it together, how are you reflecting on what it means this year?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, I'm reflecting on the fact that there are school districts and states that would make it difficult to even teach what Juneteenth is about, simply because some parents offended that the word slavery is used, that people were enslaved and worked for free and were tortured and all sorts of other things in the creation and the building of this country.

We just saw in Buffalo African-Americans targeted by someone who was a believer in the Great Replacement conspiracy.  Juneteenth gives us an opportunity to talk about this nation's foundational wound that we still refuse to talk about, that we still refuse to confront.

And so we're in a moment in this country where Juneteenth, if a lot of these folks get their way, very well just might be a marker on the calendar with no explanation about what it means and why it's important that we commemorate that holiday.

Amna Nawaz:  Let's hope we don't waste that opportunity.

Thank you for that.

Jonathan Capehart.  Michael Gerson, thank you so much for being here.  Good to see you.

Jonathan Capehart:  Thanks, Amna.

OPINION - Brooks and Capehart 6/11/2021

"Brooks and Capehart on Biden at the G-7 summit, the Justice Department under Trump" PBS NewsHour 6/11/2021

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including President Biden at the G-7 summit, the Justice Department under the Trump administration, and how redistricting will impact the nation's political makeup.

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

And they are in person here with me.

David Brooks, New York Times:  We're here.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  I can touch you.  Actually, you're in the studio.  This is exciting.  I have got to figure out how I'm going to get through this conversation.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  It's so weird to be doing it while wearing shoes.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  Unusual.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  Exactly, instead of our house slippers.

So much to talk about.

And, Jonathan, let's just quickly pick up with where Dan Bush left off.

Texas, really important decision for them to make about these new districts.  They have got to figure out how to draw those lines.  What is at stake?  With the Congress so evenly divided, what's at stake here?

Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post:  What's at stake is the majority for the Congress, whether the — excuse me — whether the Democrats will maintain their very slim majority or, as a result of redistricting, not just in Texas, but around the country, whether the lines will be drawn in such a way that gives an advantage to Republicans going into the 2022 midterms before a vote has even been cast.

And, you know, with Texas, the influx of people, the population growing, a lot of them in the urban centers that went for Democratic candidates, and yet the way the districts can be drawn, that voting power very well might end up resulting in districts that would be drawn for Republicans to do better in.

Judy Woodruff:  So, what — how can Democrats counter this, David?  How do you see this shaking out, given what's going on in…

David Brooks:  Yes, I think prayer would help.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  You know, I think the Democrats I talk to want to maintain the House.  They don't expect to.

Jonathan Capehart:  Yes.

David Brooks:  As I would — they would — somebody said, it would take a miracle.

Miracles could happen.  And it could happen.  But in midterm elections, when one party controls both houses of Congress and the White House, then their records in these first midterms tends to be terrible.

And then there's the population shift, which we have been hearing about.  That, by itself, is probably enough to get the Republicans four or five, six, seven seats.  And then there's the redrawing of the lines.  And Republicans just control a lot more state legislatures.

Now, I should say, I'm more focused on population shifts than on gerrymandering, because, while I think these lines, these — the legislatures draw our gross and unwieldy, and it's the politicians selecting the voters, I don't think the effect is that big.

In the middle of the 20th century, you had a big effect where Democrats had a natural advantage, because of the way they drew the lines.  Then, in the early 20th century, the Republicans had a pretty big effect, maybe 20 more seats than you would think from their vote totals.

But, recently, it's been a pretty small effect.  It's been in the single digits.  So — and that's in part because half the states, it's not partisanly drawn.  And so…

Judy Woodruff:  For different reasons.

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, what we have happening here is, it's not just redistricting.  We have what I call a perfect storm brewing.

You have got redistricting, on top of voter laws that have been voted into Georgia, Florida.  Texas, Democrats did a dramatic move to keep their law from going into effect, but a special session will be called, and those laws might well go through.  Iowa.  Arizona.

And so those laws being put in place.  Democrats call them voter suppression laws.  They will keep people, primarily Black and brown people, the young, from getting out to vote.  Not every — not every eligible voter will be able to vote and not — every legally cast vote might not be counted.  And that's what's at danger — in danger as well.

Judy Woodruff:  And all this getting more attention.  Usually, we're waiting for census data, waiting to see what each state does, certainly in the spotlight.

Let's turn, David, to our lead tonight.  And that is President Biden in Europe meeting with the British prime minister, meeting with his counterparts in the so-called G7.

What is — why does this trip matter for him?  What does he need to do?

David Brooks:  Well, he needs to show that America is back.  And he — and back and cooperating with people.  And I have traveled on delegations he's made to Munich to the Security Conference they have there.  And what you see is, he's on first-name basis with everybody, like, with the world leaders, with the doormen in the hotel.  He's been doing it for so long.  And so I think there's a little of that personal diplomacy.

And I think they're proud of the fact they got this vaccine thing done.  I spoke to a White House official today.  And they said the last four weeks have really been a sprint to get this, so we could offer half-a-billion vaccines and get our allies to another…

Judy Woodruff:  Huge number.

David Brooks:  ....  another half-a-billion.

And that will all be done by the middle of the next year.  And so they are surprised they could get to this.  They thought we would not be in a state where we had so many vaccines, we would have enough to buy and then share with the world.  And I think they want to show that we're in the generosity business again, and that America can be a generous nation in the world, a little Marshall Plan.

And I think they'd love to get to a spot where it's not a nation-by-nation fight against COVID.  It's a little more of an interdependent global fight against COVID.  And so they're pleased with that.

They are under no illusions that American-European relations are going to go back to the way they used to be in the Cold War.  That's not going to happen.  But they're very pleased, and I think legitimately so.

Judy Woodruff:  How do you see the way — what is at stake for Biden and his agenda here and globally?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, I think, to your point, the President knows all of these people.  He was a senator for 36 years, Vice President for eight years.

Yes, he is on a first-name basis.  His mantra is, America is back.  But there's a piece in, I think it was The Times of London asking the question, OK, but do the words match the deeds?

And I do think that there's some skepticism in Europe about whether the President's focus on China, whether that's taking attention away from them, whether the President, President Biden, is continuing former President Trump's policies vis-a-vis China.  Think of tariffs.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.

Jonathan Capehart:  And then other things that Vice President Biden is doing that former President Trump talked about, withdrawing from Afghanistan.

So I think what we're seeing, yes, it's not going to go back to the way it was.  And I do think that the world now is, like, they're happy the United States is back in the fold, but I think they have figured out over the last four years, we can't really depend on the United States, especially when it comes to — President Biden's mantra is also democracy.  We have to show that democracy works.

But those world leaders are watching what we're doing here, the last conversation we had about voting rights.  How can you have a democracy if voting rights are at risk?

Judy Woodruff:  So, it's — David, it's the pandemic that has shifted the landscape, of course, but it's also the Trump — the four years of Donald Trump.

David Brooks:  Yes, PTSD, they have got, whatever, post-traumatic Trump is.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  They wonder if this four years is an interregnum, and that Trump will be back.  They wonder if a Trump-like figure will be back.

And so they — there's some sense America's fundamentally less stable.  And then we are more America first.  I mean, Biden is not as America first as Trump was, but you look at our purchasing decisions as a government, it's America first.  And we're just living in a world where multilateral cooperation is less emphasized, frankly, from a lot of countries all at once.

And that has just been a trend of the last 25 years, as nationalism has become a stronger force in the world and across the West and in Asia.  And, somehow, there's just been a deterioration in our willingness to cooperate on a whole range of fronts.

Judy Woodruff:  Harder, in other words.

Jonathan, I hear you saying this is harder than one might have expected coming out of Trump and — President Trump and assuming everything's going to be easier for President Biden globally.

Jonathan Capehart:  Right, harder.

But I think, from President Biden's perspective, for someone who knows all of these people, I think he's counting on and banking on the fact that those relationships will help smooth over some of the harder things that they have to deal with.

And you know what?  If I were President Biden, I would think that my chances, my odds were good, not great, but good.

David Brooks:  We have been on a lot of calls with Biden administration officials, and they're weirdly normal.  It's like democracy is in crisis, the world's falling apart.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  But they're like as if it's like 1955.  It's like, no, no, no, everything — we will cooperate, we will compromise, we will have these civil discussions.

And I don't know if they're just putting that face on that we live in a normal world anymore, but they're very normal.

Jonathan Capehart:  I think they would probably say — yes, they are very normal.

But I what I take from that is, you know what?  These are people who are competent.  They have been in these jobs before.  They know what the pitfalls are.  And they also know that everything is on fire, but at least they know the terrain.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, speaking of everything being on fire, David, in the last few days, we have learned that the Trump administration was trying in a number of ways that we find now surprising to seize data from not just journalists — and that's been in the news — but Democratic members of Congress, going after their cell phone records, the data, and their family members, even children.

We have now got an investigation under way.  What does this tell us about what was going on under President Trump?

David Brooks:  Yes, the Trump Justice Department keeps looking worse and worse, even more — worse than it was when it was in office.

When there's a leak of confidential information, there's going to be an investigation.  We understand that.  But they tried an investigation.  They didn't dig up anything on the people they wanted to get, Adam Schiff and people like that.

And so they relaunched another investigation using extremely aggressive means.  And prosecutors or investigators have some discretion over how aggressive they're going to be.  And I would say they got so aggressive, not only so aggressive, that it's super invasive to those of us in the media and people in Congress.

But it just looks like a political witch-hunt.  And Donald Trump is out there in public saying Adam Schiff should be investigated.  And, lo and behold, the people in the Justice Department take political orders.  And that's not what they're supposed to do.  The Justice Department, it's never pure, but it's always supposed to be a step removed from politics, so we have some sense of justice.

Judy Woodruff:  Is this something, Jonathan, that President Trump can be held accountable for, ultimately?  I mean…

Jonathan Capehart:  I mean, that, I don't know.  I mean, I really don't know.  I can't see — as much as everyone — and I shouldn't say everyone — a lot of Democrats and people who had a lot of problems with Donald Trump, they would love to be able to say, oh, this is what's going to take them down, meaning send him to jail, hold him accountable.

I'm not sure.  But, again, I'm not surprised.  It's sort of like you're shocked, but you're not shocked, because we watched this in real time.  The one thing about Donald Trump, he allowed our imaginations to go wild, because, if you let them go wild, you actually kind of know what's happening.

And this story, to my mind, is that situation of, when you're imagining — when reality catches up with your imagination.

Judy Woodruff:  He was publicly going after Adam Schiff.

Jonathan Capehart:  Right.

Judy Woodruff:  He was speaking about him, tweeting about him.  Eric Swalwell.  Well, I mean, these are — but to be using your Justice Department, the Justice Department that belongs to the American people, this way…

Jonathan Capehart:  Look, I would hope, I would hope, if proof is found that he directly ordered the Attorney General to do these things, then, absolutely, he should be held accountable.

But I don't see — I just don't see it happening at this point right now, given what we know.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, one thing's for sure.  We are thrilled that the two of you are here in the studio.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  And I know everybody watching is too.

Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, thank you.

(CROSSTALK)

David Brooks:  It's good to be with you, Judy.

(CROSSTALK)

Judy Woodruff:  Thank you both.  Really good to see you both.  Thank you.

JUSTICE IN AMERICA - The "I Can't Breathe" Controversy

"What Eric Garner case says about federal prosecution of police officers on duty" PBS NewsHour 7/16/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Eric Garner’s dying words, “I can’t breathe,” served as a rallying cry for protests against police brutality.  But the Justice Department announced Tuesday it would not file charges against the officer involved in the incident.  The decision closes the door on federal prosecution, as the statute of limitations expires Wednesday.  Yamiche Alcindor talks to Katie Benner of The New York Times.

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.

OPINION - Shields and Salam 7/13/2018

"Shields and Salam on new Russian election meddling charges, Trump’s Putin meeting" PBS NewsHour 7/13/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and the National Review’s Reihan Salam join Judy Woodruff the discuss the week’s news, including the Justice Department indictment of 12 Russian military officers for conspiring to hack the Democratic Party and state election officials, President Trump’s posture toward Russia President Vladimir Putin, tensions with NATO allies and criticism of Theresa May.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  It has been a busy week in politics, here at home and abroad.

For more on that, we turn to the analysis of Shields and Salam.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and National Review Executive Editor Reihan Salam.  And David Brooks is away.

We welcome both of you.

What a week, Mark.

Let’s start with the special counsel returning these indictments today, sweeping indictment, saying that the Russians were behind a conspiracy to not only tap into — hack into the computers of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the Democratic National Committee, but to go into state voting systems.

How significant is this?

MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist:  It’s quite significant, Judy, and traces it right back to the Russian government.

I know we’re talking about 12 intelligence agents from — on Russian espionage associated with the military, with GRU, their official agency.  And I think it’s — any talk about a witch-hunt or anything of the sort, it turns out that Monday in Helsinki will be a campaign reunion of sorts for Donald Trump and his favorite absentee voter [Putin].

I don’t think there is any question that Russian involvement has grown as a real likelihood, just not a possibility.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Reihan, how seriously should the American people take all this?

REIHAN SALAM, National Review:  I think the American people should it very seriously.

One problem, however, is that what we really need to get to the bottom of this is an independent commission.  After the 9/11 terror attacks, after you had a spate of urban rioting in this country, we had serious independent commissions that had bipartisan credibility that tried to get to the bottom of our vulnerabilities, what went wrong, which systems were vulnerable, and then tried to find solutions for those problems.

The problem now is that we are not treating this as a national emergency.  We’re treating this as a partisan investigation.  And I think that’s been a problem from the start.  We really need an independent commission to understand our vulnerabilities.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Mark, is this investigation credible and partisan?

(CROSSTALK)

MARK SHIELDS:  The partisan angle on this is solely on the part of the administration and Republicans in Congress.

There is not a partisan corpuscle in Bob Mueller’s system.  There really isn’t.  This is a man who has been a Republican, appointed by a Republican President, whose appointment was widely lauded from Republicans, including Newt Gingrich, across the board.

Any lack of credibility or erosion of confidence is solely as a part of the concentrated effort from the administration.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  By, Reihan, you’re saying you see it differently?

REIHAN SALAM:  I do, because part of the issue is, there aren’t necessarily prosecutable crimes at work.

What we’re dealing with is a larger systemic failure.  And when that is the case, when you’re seeing this solely through the lens of who can and cannot be prosecuted, you might actually wind up missing some of those vulnerabilities.

And if you treat it purely as a matter of criminal prosecution, you are actually not seeing that this is an attack on our democratic system that necessitates potentially new legislation, new tools that go well beyond a prosecutor’s case.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Well, that may grow from this, but, in the beginning, Robert Mueller, the people he was appointed by, as Mark just said, they’re saying this is somebody who’s independent.  He’s…

(CROSSTALK)

REIHAN SALAM:  Oh, I think that Robert Mueller deserves a great deal of respect.  I think that’s absolutely true.

But that doesn’t change the fact that he’s working in a process that itself may well be a broken process.  I do not question his integrity.  I question whether this was the right approach to dealing with an attack on our national democracy.

MARK SHIELDS:  Just one quick point.

Those independent commissions that Reihan mentioned, the great urban investigations that occurred after national riots, after — 9/11 was after a national catastrophe, when our country was attacked.  And there wasn’t a consensus, there was unanimity in the country, and it was led by the administration in both cases, the Democrats in the first and the Republicans under George W. Bush in the second.

So, the idea that a President who has denied anything, has refuted the conclusions of the intelligence agencies and the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Republican Richard Burr of North Carolina…

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Right.

MARK SHIELDS:  … is not going to be plausible as someone who would lead such a commission or appoint such a commission.

REIHAN SALAM:  Well, I really do think that the perception that this is about basically hunting down potential perpetrators within the Trump campaign and what have you, that has taken us away from thinking of this as a general attack on our democracy, on our institutions.  And I think that, had we taken a different approach, had we seen it that way from the get-go, then you might have gotten more buy-in from people who are supporters of the President who don’t necessarily think that this is fair and square.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Well, right…

MARK SHIELDS:  Nobody knows what Bob Mueller is doing.  He has been the soul of fastidiousness and secrecy.

REIHAN SALAM:  He deserves a great deal of credit.

MARK SHIELDS:  He does.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  But in terms of what’s going on now right now, this comes just a couple of days before the President is due to be in Helsinki meeting one on one with President Putin, Mark.  What should the President say to Vladimir Putin in this meeting, and is this something — should this meeting go ahead?  Some Democrats are saying it should be canceled now.

MARK SHIELDS:  I think it should go ahead.  I think there should be no one-on-one private meetings with the two off the record.

I think what we have right now is a President who needs to confront the Soviet leader, adversary, and say to him, 12 of your own agents in a government that you control, that you lead have been indicted.  I want them extradited to the United States to stand trial.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Are you — what do you think the President should say, and are you comfortable with the President meeting with President Putin one on one?

REIHAN SALAM:  Look, I’m not comfortable with the fact that we’re having this summit meeting without the months and sometimes years of preparation that you typically have before such a meeting.

But what we do know is that Donald Trump promised diplomatic breakthroughs.  He promised to be a different kind of President.  And that’s why he’s pursuing this very different path.

I’m, frankly, a bit concerned about one thing in particular.  Vladimir Putin is going to want to offer a big diplomatic breakthrough to Donald Trump.  The question is, is it going to be something that is going to be consummate with the long-term interests of the United States, particularly if you look at Syria?

President Trump and President Putin did actually manage to broker deals in Syria that looked promising.  Let’s de-escalate the conflict.  The Russians have not delivered on their end of the bargain.

So if the Russians now make big promises, the President needs to be sure that the Russians are verifiably going to deliver.  He shouldn’t make promises that the Russians are not going to be willing to take up their end of the bargain on.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  And, Mark, are you confident he is going to handle this?

(CROSSTALK)

MARK SHIELDS:  No, I’m not.

We did get, of course, nuclear disarmament of North Korea.  The President told us that had happened, and I guess it just hasn’t been verified yet [sarcasm].

But, no, he does.  He likes the big moment.  He likes the spotlight.  This is a man, I think, Donald Trump, it’s fair to say that, if you remove the first-person singular from his vocabulary (I, me, mine) would be Calvin Coolidge.

It’s all about Donald Trump.  We saw that, Judy, in the NATO meeting, when he goes in and cuts the knees at — off of Prime Minister Theresa May, who’s under assault and siege at home, and lauds her principal competitor, Boris Johnson, and recommends him for Prime Minister by saying what?  He likes me.  He says good things about me.  And that’s the recommendation.

REIHAN SALAM:  Forgive me for just turning to Russia for one moment.

MARK SHIELDS:  Sure.  OK.

REIHAN SALAM:  One thing that we shouldn’t forget is that, for the last 18 months, the United States government and the Trump administration has actually put in place sanctions against Russian oligarchs, has actually hardened NATO’s eastern flank, has taken many steps that are, in fact, very tough on the Russians, when you look at the substance of his agenda.

So we can’t lose sight of the fact that, when it comes to actual policies, the Trump administration has actually been very tough on Russia.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  So you think that is more important than the words which are often praising Vladimir Putin coming from the President?

REIHAN SALAM:  What I think is going on is that Donald Trump believes that you need to be tough with one hand, and, on the other hand, you need to create some opening, some possibility for a diplomatic breakthrough.

What I’m suggesting is that, with President Putin, he needs to be a lot more cautious.  But I think the substance of what he’s done over the last 18 months has, in fact, been pretty hawkish.

MARK SHIELDS:  That substance includes saying Crimea is primarily Russian ethnic country, which is exactly the talking points made by Putin and the Russian government after the invasion and occupation of Crimea.

He’s been…

(CROSSTALK)

REIHAN SALAM:  He’s also provided Ukraine with anti-tank weapons.  That’s a very serious deal.

MARK SHIELDS:  But the reality is that Russia is still very much in Eastern Ukraine.  Let’s be very blunt about that.

And the fact is that the bulwark against Russian Soviet imperialism, interventionism has been NATO.  And he has weakened NATO.  He [Trump] has sabotaged his own partners.

RACE AND ADMISSION - Colleges Reaction?

Note that some colleges and admission organizations have already told Trump where he can put his 'rule.'

"How will colleges react to Trump policy on race in admissions?" PBS NewsHour 7/3/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Trump administration is rescinding an Obama-era policy that called for considering race in college admissions.  The Departments of Justice and Education announced that they'll advocate "race-neutral" admissions instead.  Judy Woodruff learns more from Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal and Nick Anderson of The Washington Post.

RUSSIA INVESTIGATION - Trump Attorney at CLASSIFIED Briefings?!

"John Kelly, Trump attorney attendance at Russia probe briefing raises eyebrows" PBS NewsHour 5/24/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle received classified briefings from top Justice Department and intelligence officials on Thursday, following days of tense negotiations.  Did Congress members learn anything new about an FBI source who President Trump claims infiltrated his 2016 presidential campaign?  Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION - Andrew McCabe

"Andrew McCabe, target of Trump's fire, steps down from FBI" PBS NewsHour 1/29/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The FBI's deputy director is stepping down from the agency earlier than his March retirement.  Andrew McCabe, who once oversaw an investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, has been a target of President Trump's anger and tweets in recent months.  The White House insisted the President has nothing to do with the decision.  Judy Woodruff reports.

"Sen. Warner on McCabe shake-up: Getting close to Russia investigation bad for job security" PBS NewsHour 1/29/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) says he is concerned about the news that FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe is stepping down in the wake of the past firing of former director James Comey.  The Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee talks to Judy Woodruff about what he sees as efforts to impugn the FBI, the confidential Nunes memo, and the state of the Russia investigation, one year in.

TRUMP AGENDA - Sessions' Black Government

aka "Anti-Protection, Anti-Obama, Black Government" 😡

"Jeff Sessions is dramatically reshaping Justice Department policy" PBS NewsHour 8/24/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Behind the scenes, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been making a series of significant and controversial changes.  Lisa Desjardins reports on how Sessions has been one of the key forces executing the President's agenda and reversing the Obama legacy.

AMORALITY - Evangelical Christian Hobby Lobby

Ah!  Another so-called Christian that actually worships a false god, money.

"Why Hobby Lobby is in trouble for importing artifacts" PBS NewsHour 7/6/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Hobby Lobby, the national arts-and-crafts supply chain, illegally imported thousands of ancient relics from the Middle East, according to the Justice Department.  The family-owned, Evangelical Christian company must now turn over rare clay tablets and artifacts that likely once came from Iraq.  William Brangham learns more from Deborah Lehr of George Washington University.

TRUMP AGENDA - Transgender School Guidelines

THINK ABOUT IT:  There was a Facebook post on this issue that had a pic of a guy in jeans learning at girls in a school restroom.  Problem, a transgender boy would NOT be dressed as a boy, 'she' would be dressed as a girl.

Now think about how a transgender boy (dressed as a girl) would feel being forced to use a boy's restroom, or a transgender girl (dressed as a boy) would feel being forced to use the girl's restroom.  You can imagine the bulling and harassment the student would suffer.

The real solution is to have all schools have at least one unisex restroom.

"How scrapping transgender bathroom guidelines impacts schools" PBS NewsHour 2/22/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Federal guidelines advising schools to let transgender kids use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity are being withdrawn by the Departments of Justice and Education.  What will the Trump administration's change mean for schools and students?  William Brangham talks to Evie Blad of Education Week.