SUMMARY: The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing Wednesday on whether the federal agency tasked with enforcing the law is in fact breaking it. Two current Justice Department attorneys charged that department leaders -- including Attorney General William Barr -- ordered certain investigations and undermined others due to political motivations. Lisa Desjardins reports and talks to NPR’s Carrie Johnson.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including Sen. Bernie Sanders’ victory in the New Hampshire primary and how it shapes the race for the 2020 Democratic Presidential nomination, President Trump's strategy for reelection and the political conflict surrounding the Justice Department.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): And that brings us to the analysis of Shields and Gerson. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson. David Brooks is away.
Hello to both of you.
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: Judy.
Michael Gerson, Washington Post: Good to be here.
Judy Woodruff: So, we have had a primary, New Hampshire. We now know what happened in the first-in-the-nation contest, after Iowa, where there was some confusion about the results.
Mark, what do we make of it?
Mark Shields: Judy, here's the bright side for the Democrats. It broke the turnout record, after a disappointing turnout in Iowa the week before. Among Democrats, there was a new turnout record. So, enthusiasm was up.
Bernie Sanders got half as many votes as he got four years ago against Hillary Clinton. He beat Hillary Clinton by 57,000 votes. He beat Pete Buttigieg by 3,900 votes. And yet winning is coming in first. And Bernie won. So, Bernie coming, out of a popular vote, if not a delegate vote, win in Iowa, and a popular vote win in New Hampshire, has to be considered the front-runner at this point.
Judy Woodruff: Has to be considered the front-runner. Any doubt about that?
Michael Gerson: No.
I think the biggest results of New Hampshire were results of exclusion. I think that Warren is now not competing very effectively for the left lane of the Democratic Party. Sanders really solidified that. And I think Biden took a real blow in the results, coming in fifth, it was.
Judy Woodruff: Fifth.
Michael Gerson: That — for the former vice President to do that.
So you have clarity on the left in the Democratic Party, but you do not have Bernie Sanders proving yet that he can go beyond his traditional coalition of young people and very — and liberals. These results didn't prove he can move beyond that. And if he's going to unit the party, he's going to need to do that.
Judy Woodruff: And can he do that? That's the big — that's the question.
Mark Shields: Well, I'm not sure he can, but I think it's also — we ought to at least mention the other candidates quickly.
Judy Woodruff: For sure.
Mark Shields: Amy Klobuchar, after really having a disappointing showing in Iowa in her next to home state of New Hampshire with a fifth, had a strong third, a surprising third, and did it on those who disparaged debates as being important events.
I mean, it was her Friday night debate and her performance there that probably saved Bernie Sanders, if you think about it, because Joe Biden was collapsing, as Michael pointed out, and the Biden votes were up for grabs. They either have to probably go to Buttigieg or to Amy Klobuchar.
Amy Klobuchar got the lion's share, based upon, in my judgment, her performance that night, and Buttigieg's less-than-spectacular performance in the debate. He did very well. He had a strong second. He's been exceeding expectations more than anybody else in this rate, has Pete Buttigieg.
But now we go from what's called retail to wholesale. In retail, in Iowa, New Hampshire, by effort and energy, you can meet enough voters. You can talk with them. You can…
(CROSSTALK)
Judy Woodruff: Coffee shops, door to door.
Mark Shields: Coffee shops, exactly.
Judy Woodruff: Right.
Mark Shields: And you do it. And you have the time to do it.
Judy Woodruff: Right.
Mark Shields: And that's what the premium is upon.
Now, Judy, it's landing on tarmacs, it's going to TV studios, 14 states on one day, on Super Tuesday. It changes. And the premium becomes money and resources, a lot more than it does time and effort and human energy.
Michael Gerson: I agree with that, except for one thing.
Mark Shields: OK.
Michael Gerson: I think Buttigieg and Klobuchar need to prove they can go to minority communities and get a significant amount of support.
If I were Buttigieg, I would have his supporters from Indiana down in South Carolina right now spreading the word that this guy is acceptable.
Mark Shields: Yes. Yes.
Michael Gerson: So, I…
Judy Woodruff: You think that's his main challenge, Buttigieg's main challenge?
Michael Gerson: Well, his main challenge is that he's the mayor of a small town and — was the mayor of a small town — and has to keep proving that he can play in that league. So he has to keep winning in order to do that.
But I think, in order to do that, he's going to have to show that he can appeal to Hispanic and black voters. And I think that's a requirement.
Judy Woodruff: And Nevada coming up a week from tomorrow, the 22nd of February, Mark.
Mark Shields: Yes.
Judy Woodruff: There's a powerful culinary workers union there which said it's not endorsing in the race.
Mark Shields: Not endorsing. Did take a shot at Bernie Sanders.
Judy Woodruff: Did take a shot.
Mark Shields: Yes.
Judy Woodruff: They put out a flyer saying they don't like his single-payer…
Mark Shields: They have got a Cadillac health plan.
Judy Woodruff: I interviewed him on the program yesterday, and he said he does protect their workers.
But the point is, he didn't get that boost that he would have liked.
Mark Shields: No, nor did Joe Biden.
Judy Woodruff: Nor did Joe Biden.
Mark Shields: No. And they are important.
But you're right. And that is a Latino, Hispanic constituency, largely. And…
Judy Woodruff: But coming back to Klobuchar quickly, though, Mark.
Mark Shields: Sure.
Judy Woodruff: I mean, Pete Buttigieg has a lot to prove. She [Klobuchar] has something to prove, doesn't she?
Mark Shields: Oh, absolutely. Yes.
No, I mean, Michael spoke of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders for the liberal wing. For the woman alley, she seems to have prevailed over Elizabeth Warren at this point.
What she has to do, Judy, is put together a national campaign on the fly. You don't have — time is your enemy.
Judy Woodruff: Klobuchar.
Mark Shields: Klobuchar.
She doesn't have the resources. She's got to raise money, hire people, and campaign in places all at the same time. What she's got to do is figure out, picking one or two states on Super Tuesday and figuring, I'm going to make my fight here, challenging Bernie.
And Buttigieg, to the same degree, has to do the same thing, and making those — we can't cover 14 states at once. OK? There's going to be two or three that are going to emerge as the battleground. And it's going to be strategic convincing the press and public that these are the two or three states. And that's where I think Buttigieg and Klobuchar's chances lie.
Judy Woodruff: So, Michael, we have got — we have a week from tomorrow is Nevada, and then the Saturday after that is South Carolina…
Michael Gerson: That's right.
Judy Woodruff: … where you do have a different electorate. Something — more than 50 percent of the Democratic vote there is African-American.
So Buttigieg has his work cut out for him. So does Sanders, for that matter, and Klobuchar. But let's not forget — I do want to come back to Biden, and Elizabeth Warren, who faded. She came in ahead of Joe Biden, but far back, I think, from where some thought she might be.
Michael Gerson: Yes, I agree with that.
South Carolina is Joe Biden's last stand.
Mark Shields: Absolutely.
Michael Gerson: I think that Warren has invested some time and attention in Nevada. And I think she's going to need to show some strength there in order to feel like that she can move along.
But there is going to be a fight for that moderate, liberal lane right now. Biden seems out of the running. Buttigieg and Klobuchar seem in the running. But then you have Bloomberg in the wings, essentially betting that all of them will fail, and that he will be the ultimate alternative to Bernie Sanders.
And I don't know if that strategy works or not, but, so far, it's coming — some of the steps have taken place.
Judy Woodruff: But, before we get to Bloomberg — and I want to ask you about that, Mark — Joe Biden.
He has come in a distant, what, fourth in Iowa, fifth in New Hampshire. He argues he can come back. That's only two states out of 50.
Mark Shields: It is only two states out of 50.
Judy Woodruff: I mean, has that been done before?
Mark Shields: They're the two that gets the most attention every four years.
I agree with Michael. South Carolina is it. There are no moral victories in South Carolina. Joe Biden has to win. And he was basing his confidence on his strong support in the African-American community.
We saw the African-American community turn on a dime in 2008, when they were overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton until Barack Obama won in Iowa. And once he won in Iowa, the African-American community in South Carolina said, my goodness, this fellow really does have a chance, and they switched.
I think Joe Biden now, who is running on electability, a no longer relevant thesis, has to bank on the loyalty of the African-American community and his long service and identity there and his service with Barack Obama.
But that's it. I mean, that's it for him.
Judy, when he said at the beginning of the debate, we took a gut punch in Iowa and I'm probably going to lose here, anybody who was going to go door to door for him that weekend just said, wait a minute.
Judy Woodruff: And then left New Hampshire before…
(CROSSTALK)
Mark Shields: And left New Hampshire and said, well, maybe I ought to look at Klobuchar and Buttigieg.
Judy Woodruff: So, now — so, let's come back to Michael Bloomberg, because you're right, Michael, he does seem to be out there waiting, spending, what, $300 million on advertising.
Mark Shields: Three-fifty.
Judy Woodruff: A modest amount.
Is he in a position to benefit if this race remains muddled coming out of these next…
Michael Gerson: Well, as the focus comes to him, he has baggage, stop and frisk baggage, baggage as the mayor.
He has — if you watch commercials, at least where I am, in Virginia, you see him with Barack Obama all the time. He's trying to establish that he cooperated with him.
(CROSSTALK)
Mark Shields: … his running mate.
(LAUGHTER)
Michael Gerson: Yes, exactly. Yes.
And, so, I think he's trying to, you know, take care of that. And he's going to have a unique advantage, completely untested, with those 15 or 16 states on Super Tuesday. He's going to be able to spend a lot in each one of them.
Judy Woodruff: And he suggests, Mark, that he's in his — whenever you see him making a speech, every time he's out there, he's prepared to go toe to toe with President Trump.
Mark Shields: Yes.
In a strange way, I think that's a mistake and one of the few mistakes he's made. Americans do not want a Trump vs. Trump race. They don't want an insult race. I think one of the great appeals, sleeper appeals, of Pete Buttigieg in this entire campaign is that he lowers the emotional thermostat in the room, that he speaks reasonably.
Coming back to Michael Bloomberg, Judy, you're absolutely right. I have never seen anybody spend like this before. But his campaign has been totally controlled. He's never mixed it up. Now there's even some mention that he might not even go to the debates, where you get a sense of people and how you feel about them.
And Americans, in the final analysis, Michael worked with George W. Bush, of the last seven Republican nominees, the only one to win a popular majority of the vote in a Presidential election in 2004.
Why did they vote for George W. Bush over John Kerry, who, I think, by most testaments, won the three debates between the two men? Because they prefer, I-like over I.Q. They were more comfortable with George W.
There's no comfort level with Michael Bloomberg at this point. Nobody knows him. We don't know if he's got a temper, if he's got a sense of humor, if he's self-deprecating. Can he mix it up?
He's never mixed it up in a debate or in Iowa or New Hampshire. I think that's what we're going to have to find out. And if in a month from now, we're talking about his spending, rather than his ideas and how he's different and what he's going to do differently, we know where he is on climate change and gun control, then I think his campaign will be in trouble.
SUMMARY: Roger Stone, the sixth former associate of President Trump to be convicted on charges stemming from the Mueller probe, is again at the center of controversy. Federal prosecutors recommended Stone be sentenced to seven to nine years in prison, but senior Justice Department officials intervened. Now, all four line prosecutors quit the case. John Yang talks to The Washington Post’s Matt Zapotosky.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Four lawyers who prosecuted Roger Stone quit the case Tuesday after the Justice Department said it would take the extraordinary step of lowering the amount of prison time it would seek for President Donald Trump’s longtime ally and confidant.
The decision by the Justice Department came just hours after Trump complained that the recommended sentence for Stone was “very horrible and unfair.” The Justice Department said the sentencing recommendation was made Monday night — before Trump’s tweet — and prosecutors had not spoken to the White House about it.
The four attorneys, including two who were early members of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia team, had made up the Justice Department’s trial team and had signed onto a Monday court filing that recommended up to nine years in prison for Stone.
The department’s decision to back off the sentencing recommendation raised questions about political interference and whether Trump’s views hold unusual sway over the Justice Department, which is meant to operate independently of the White House in criminal investigations and prosecutions.
Attorney General William Barr has been a steady ally of Trump’s, clearing the President of obstruction of justice even when special counsel Robert Mueller had pointedly declined to do so and declaring that the FBI’s Russia investigation — which resulted in charges against Stone — had been based on a “bogus narrative.”
On Monday night, prosecutors had recommended Stone serve seven to nine years behind bars after being convicted of charges including lying to Congress, witness tampering and obstructing the House investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to tip the 2016 election. The recommendation raised the prospect that Stone could receive the harshest sentence of any of the half-dozen Trump aides charged in Mueller’s probe.
In a tweet early Tuesday, Trump said the case against Stone was a “miscarriage of justice.” A Justice Department official said authorities decided to step in and seek a shorter sentence because they had been taken by surprise by the initial recommendation. The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said prosecutors had told the department to expect a shorter recommendation.
It is extremely rare for Justice Department leaders to reverse the decision of its own prosecutors on a sentencing recommendation, particularly after that recommendation has been submitted to the court. Normally, United States attorneys have wide latitude to recommend sentences on cases that they prosecuted.
The departures came abruptly after the decision by Justice. Jonathan Kravis resigned his position as an assistant U.S. attorney. He had been a veteran prosecutor in Washington [DC], and though not part of Robert Mueller’s original team, was nonetheless involved in multiple cases brought by the special counsel’s office. Besides the Stone prosecution, Kravis had also signed onto the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, which resolved with a guilty plea, and against a Russian troll farm accused of sponsoring a cover social media campaign aimed at dividing public opinion during the 2016 presidential election.
Aaron Zelinsky quit the case and his job in Washington [DC], and would go back to his job as a federal prosecutor in Baltimore. He was working there when he was selected in 2017 for the Mueller team. He was involved in cases aimed at determining what knowledge the Trump campaign had about Democratic emails that were hacked by Russia and what efforts Trump aides made to get information about them. He was also involved in the prosecution of George Papadopoulos, the former Trump campaign aide who played a critical role in the FBI launching its investigation in the summer of 2016.
A third prosecutor, Adam Jed, who was an original member of Mueller’s team, also withdrew from the case. His status at the Justice Department was not clear. Before joining Mueller’s team, he worked on civil cases at the Justice Department.
After the attorneys quit the case, Justice Department officials filed a revised sentencing memorandum with the judge, arguing its initial recommendation could be “considered excessive and unwarranted under the circumstances,” but that it would defer to the court. None of the original prosecutors in Stone’s case signed onto the revised memo.
Sentencing decisions are ultimately up to the judge, who in this case may side with the original recommendation. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson has repeatedly scolded Stone for his out-of-court behavior, which included a social media post he made of the judge with what appeared to be crosshairs of a gun.
The judge barred Stone from social media last July after concluding that she repeatedly flouted his gag order.
Meanwhile, Democrats decried the decision, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer calling for an investigation by the DOJ’s Inspector General.
“The rule of law and this grand, grand tradition of this wonderful Justice Department is being totally perverted to Donald Trumps’ own personal desires and needs,” the New York Democrat said. “And it’s a disgrace.’’
House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff said it would be a blatant abuse of power if the Justice Department intervened on behalf of Trump.
“Doing so would send an unmistakable message that President Trump will protect those who lie to Congress to cover up his own misconduct, and that the Attorney General will join him in that effort,” the California Democrat said.
Trump later told reporters that he didn’t speak to Justice officials. “I would be able to do it if I wanted,” he said. “I have the absolute right to do it. I stay out of things to a degree that people wouldn’t believe, but I didn’t speak to them.”
Federal prosecutors also recently softened their sentencing position on former national security adviser Michael Flynn, saying that they would not oppose a probation of punishment after initially saying that he deserved up to six months in prison for lying to the FBI. The Flynn prosecution is also being handled by the U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington.
In the initial memorandum Monday evening, prosecutors asked for Stone to serve between 87 and 108 months in federal prison — the sentence they said was in line with federal guidelines. Such a sentence would send a message to deter others who might consider lying or obstructing a congressional probe or tampering with witnesses, they said.
The prosecutors wrote in the court papers that “Stone’s actions were not a one-off mistake in judgment” and that he “decided to double – and triple – down on his criminal conduct by tampering with a witness for months in order to make sure his obstruction would be successful.”
Stone has denied wrongdoing and consistently criticized the case against him as politically motivated. He did not take the stand during his trial and his lawyers did not call any witnesses in his defense.
Witnesses in the case testified that Trump’s campaign viewed Stone as an “access point” to the anti-secrecy site WikiLeaks, which was in possession of more than 19,000 emails hacked from the servers of the Democratic National Committee and tried to use him to get advance word about hacked emails damaging to Hillary Clinton.
Prosecutors charged that Stone lied to Congress about his conversations about WikiLeaks with New York radio host Randy Credico — who had scored an interview with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in 2016 — and conservative writer and conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi.
SUMMARY: Outrage over the Justice Department's new, shorter sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone, an ally of President Trump, bubbled over on Wednesday on Capitol Hill, where congressional critics of the president say he unfairly interfered to help a friend. Are the Justice Department's moves justified? Yamiche Alcindor talks with two former Justice Department officials, Mary McCord and James Trusty.
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.
SUMMARY: President Trump acted as his own defender in chief on Monday, criticizing a whistleblower complaint, as some of his allies tried to argue that Democrats are rushing an impeachment inquiry. But not all Republicans are defending the President, including his former Homeland Security adviser Tom Bossert. Lisa Desjardins reports, then joins Yamiche Alcindor and Judy Woodruff for more.
SUMMARY: While Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Tuesday pushed back on demands by House Democrats for testimony and documents related to the Ukraine investigation, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley defended the whistleblower who filed a complaint about President Trump’s actions. Lisa Desjardins and Yamiche Alcindor join Judy Woodruff for more developments.
SUMMARY: According to The Washington Post, Attorney General William Barr has been personally visiting with foreign leaders to encourage them to help out with an investigation that President Trump hopes will discredit special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe. William Brangham talks with Devlin Barrett of The Washington Post to untangle the many threads of the story.
SUMMARY: Top House Democrats sent a warning to the White House on Wednesday: Stonewalling the impeachment inquiry will be treated as grounds for impeachment itself. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledged for the first time that he was on a July call between President Trump and Ukraine’s president. Yamiche Alcindor reports, then joins Lisa Desjardins and Judy Woodruff for more.
SUMMARY: Do Republicans believe President Trump’s conversation with Ukraine’s leader warrants an impeachment inquiry? Judy Woodruff gets two perspectives from former Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Chris Buskirk of American Greatness on the potential political ramifications.
SUMMARY: President Donald Trump is facing an impeachment inquiry because he urged Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son. But Thursday, Trump said he would welcome similar involvement from another foreign power: China. The admission comes as the two countries prepare for trade talks. Judy Woodruff talks to Yamiche Alcindor and The Washington Post's Michael Kranish.
SUMMARY: What are the legal and national security implications of President Donald Trump’s encouraging foreign powers to investigate a potential political rival? Judy Woodruff talks to Michael Mukasey, who was attorney general under former President George W. Bush, and Carrie Cordero, a former Justice Department and intelligence official who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations.
SUMMARY: Ukraine lies at the heart of the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump, who has urged the country’s new President to investigate the Biden family. Special correspondent Simon Ostrovsky, who has reported from the country for years, returns there to speak with officials and activists about what really happened with Joe and Hunter Biden, U.S. aid and Ukraine’s anti-corruption efforts.
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.
SUMMARY: The New York Times columnist David Brooks and The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart join Amna Nawaz to discuss the week's political news, including special counsel Robert Mueller’s public statement, what Democrats should do about impeachment, why President Trump is so bothered by the late Sen. John McCain and new details about Republican strategy for redrawing congressional districts.
Amna Nawaz (NewsHour): Robert Mueller breaks his silence, John McCain's name is hidden from the President and newly discovered hard drives reveal a Republican plan to change the census. It was a busy week.
Thankfully, we have the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post opinion writer Jonathan Capehart.
And welcome to both.
David, Robert Mueller broke his silence. We have finally heard from him.
I want to ask you, though, because the conversation about impeachment continued on the Democratic side.
NBC's been updating their list, right, of how many Democrats, how many members of the House are actually supporting an impeachment inquiry. It's at 53 last time I checked.
Last week, you said Speaker Pelosi was right to slow-walk the process. Do you still believe that, based on what we heard this week?
David Brooks, New York Times: A whole week later, I still believe that.
Amna Nawaz: OK.
David Brooks: Mostly because I think Democrats have a reasonably attractive Presidential field.
And if they spend their entire early election season fighting impeachment, they will detract away from that and give Donald Trump the fight he wants with Congress. And Nancy Pelosi said she's waiting to build an intractable case, so even Republicans will have to come over.
Republican support for Donald Trump is now at its high. And the more they go to impeachment, the more solid that support will be. And so there's no there . There's no way to get Republican votes in the Senate.
And so you can have the impeachment hearings, and maybe it'd be a good idea for — just for rule of law, but it's not going to go anywhere.
Amna Nawaz: Let me play a couple quick sound bites, because, for anyone who missed it, there were a couple of key moments from both Robert Mueller and Attorney General Barr that we heard.
Just take a quick listen to what they had to say this week.
Robert Mueller: If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.
William Barr: He could have reached a conclusion.
The opinion says you can't indict a President while he's in office, but he could have reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity.
Amna Nawaz: Jonathan, you wrote in your column this week, "Mueller just made life more difficult for Trump and Democrats."
Why?
Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post: Well, more difficult for President Trump because, if, say, special counsel Mueller does go to the Hill and does testify and only says what's in the report, just that quote that you had there from the special counsel, Mueller, alone is damaging.
And if he reads what is further down in the report, page two of volume two of the Mueller report, if you have it at home, it goes on to say that we have a lot of stuff here, but because of the OLC memo, we didn't even broach the subject of whether the President committed a crime. We're not even going to go there, because, if we — if we charge him, and yet we can't bring him to trial, we can't indict a sitting President, well, it's unfair to the President, because you charge him with a crime, but then he doesn't have an avenue, a venue to defend himself, to clear his name.
And so that's why the OLC memo says you can't indict him while he's a sitting President, but you can do it once he's out of office, because then he has the possibility to defend himself.
Amna Nawaz: And yet we have heard Speaker Pelosi say she wants an ironclad case before moving forward. Is that an unreasonable goal?
Jonathan Capehart: I don't think it's unreasonable. And I think I'm with David on this.
Most people have not read the Mueller report. Most people will never read the Mueller report. In order for them to know what is actually in it, the Democrats, whether through the committee process or through the beginning of an impeachment inquiry, they will have to learn it by having witnesses come up and testify, having special counsel Mueller come up and testify.
And, again, if he only reads what's in the report, it will be news to the American people. And the American people have to be brought along in this process, so that they're not blindsided and think that Congress is just doing something to hammer at the President, instead of, to David's point, standing up for the rule of law in this country.
Amna Nawaz: David, do you think hearing from Mueller and Barr this week changed anything?
David Brooks: I think it did, in that, as Jonathan said, a lot of people have erroneous views of what's in the report. And a lot of Republicans do too.
And I'm reminded of that old phrase, I can tell it to you, but I can't listen it for you.
(LAUGHTER)
And so we have been talking about what's in the report, but a lot of people just don't know. And, frankly, not all of America watches the "NewsHour" and not all of America reads newspapers.
Amna Nawaz: That's shocking to me. [sarcasm]
David Brooks: It is shocking and sad. [sarcasm]
Amna Nawaz: That's shocking to me. [sarcasm]
David Brooks: And so, when he gets up on TV, and he actually gives a voice, it reaches a broader audience. Whether any minds are going to be changed if they go through the process that Jonathan describes, well, it would go against the last couple years of political history, where no minds have been changed by anything.
Amna Nawaz: I want to ask you about something else that happened this week. It was — President Trump was overseas.
There was a report, right? Navy officials confirmed that the White House staff had actually requested military officials keep hidden the USS McCain while President Trump was there visiting troops in the Japanese port.
The President said, look, he knew nothing about it, but he also said it was well-meaning if someone had put forward that request. That there is a picture of the McCain, and there is President Trump visiting with those troops.
David, there are a lot of concerns being voiced by a lot of people about the politicization of the military. Do you see those concerns?
David Brooks: Well, would it really give Donald Trump — like, trigger him if he saw the name John McCain on the back? I have trouble believing this.
But it says something about the White House culture. I believe Donald Trump probably didn't know. But the staffers, it shows how they behave. In most White Houses, the White House staff are in love with the President. Imagine the best crush you ever had in high school. That's how they feel about the President.
And they react, and they want to get his — right now his love. But, here, it's fear. It's, I don't want to do anything that will upset this volatile man at the top.
And so some staffer said, oh, I don't want to create a negative, so we will just sweep the McCain thing out of the way.
And so it's — it's a description of what the White House culture is like, which is driven by fear of his tweets and his angry reactions, more than the desire to actually serve anything positive.
Amna Nawaz: You think they're acting preemptively to stop something from happening?
David Brooks: Yes, I don't want to get on the bad side of the boss.
Amna Nawaz: What did you think about that, Jonathan?
Jonathan Capehart: I thought it was small, petty, and shameful, and utterly predictable.
But what we have here is a well — the President, in his own words, said — well, it was, whoever did this was well-meaning.
And what you have here is an administration and a President who is triggered by a war hero, a former prisoner of war, the 2008 nominee of the Republican Party for President, an elder statesman up until his dying day.
And even after his passing, the President still cannot resist taking a dig at Senator McCain. Whether he knew about the covering up of the name on the ship and stuff is beside the point. When he was asked the question before getting on Marine One, even then, he couldn't resist hammering the late Senator McCain for casting the deciding vote that maintained Obamacare.
This speaks to — speaks to the culture of the White House, but speaks to a larger issue about the man sitting in the Oval Office.
Amna Nawaz: David, it's worth mentioning that used to be sacred space, right? You wouldn't impugn the memory of a former senator, former POW.
And yet, as Jonathan mentioned, he said, I'm not a fan of McCain, he killed health care for Republicans, when he was asked about this.
Is that sacred space now gone?
David Brooks: Well, we have had a lot of sacred spaces. It's a very small little island of sacredity, if that's a word.
He's — McCain has always gotten under his skin, for apparent reasons. We could imagine what are they are, the manliness, the guy who actually did serve.
And Trump has sort of machismo vs. machismo. And John McCain, who I knew pretty well, was definitely a macho man, and a genuine macho man who lived it out in pursuit of honor. And so that — it would be natural that he would get under Trump's skin.
SUMMARY: Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper saw some of the early evidence of Russian meddling in U.S. elections. Now a frequent critic and target of President Trump, Clapper has recently published a book, “Facts and Fears: Hard Truths from a Life in Intelligence.” Judy Woodruff talks to Clapper about Trump’s showdown with Iran, confidence in U.S. intelligence and the Mueller report.
SUMMARY: President Trump last week gave his political appointee, Attorney General William Barr, full authority to declassify information from intelligence agencies related to “surveillance activities” in the Russia probe. The move is being questioned by intelligence officials and has stoked fears it could weaken national security. Special correspondent Jeff Greenfield joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss.
SUMMARY: The showdown between the White House and Congress over the Mueller report is escalating even further. House Democrats took initial steps to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt Wednesday, with House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler calling the decision "grave and momentous." Lisa Desjardins reports and joins Judy Woodruff and Yamiche Alcindor to discuss.
SUMMARY: Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) blasted President Donald Trump on Thursday for refusing to cooperate with various Democratic-led congressional inquiries into his administration. “You cannot have a democratic government … if the executive denies all information,” he told PBS NewsHour anchor and managing editor Judy Woodruff, suggesting that backing down from a fight would be giving in to a “tyrannical administration.”
“We are in a constitutional crisis because of the administration’s contempt for law, and their refusal to obey the law,” Nadler said, mentioning the Trump administration’s refusal to deliver the President’s tax returns to a House committee, as well as the decision “to defy all subpoenas from the House.”
Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said the Trump administration has “turned the Justice Department, who is supposed to enforce the law, into an agency for defying the law, as the personal property of the president.”
On Wednesday, the committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress, in reaction to a Justice Department decision to withhold the full, unredacted Mueller report from lawmakers. The White House also announced it is invoking executive privilege over the report. Any ensuing legal fight between Trump and House Democrats could drag out for months or years.
But Nadler on Thursday expressed confidence that the courts would not favor Trump in the anticipated standoff over the balance of power in government, and predicted that Congress’ authority to compel information would be upheld, saying “the law is quite clear.”
Nadler said he hoped the outcome would be “a swift court order with compulsion behind it.”
“There’s no question legally we’ll win,” he told Woodruff. “The question is how long it will take.”
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s political news, including Attorney General William Barr’s Senate testimony and absence from a scheduled House Judiciary Committee hearing, deteriorating relations between Congress and the White House, the President’s phone call with Vladimir Putin and 2020 Democratic candidates.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): From the attorney general's testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary, his refusal to appear before the House committee, and a growing 2020 field, it's been another busy week in Washington.
Here to assess it all are Shields and Brooks. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks, who's joining us tonight from San Francisco.
Hello to both of you, David and Mark.
Let's start by talking about that phone call that we learned about this afternoon, Mark, the President on the phone, over an hour, with Russia's President Vladimir Putin. We are told the President himself said they talked about Russian interference or alleged interference in the 2016 election, but completely dismissed it.
He said the two of them agreed that the Mueller report was a waste of time, in so many words, and that the whole Russian — belief that the Russians did anything wrong was a hoax.
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: Well, the President has ended the discussion. That's it, Judy. I mean, it's over.
I mean, ignoring the findings of the CIA, of the NSA, of the intelligence agency the Center for National Intelligence, Senator, former Ambassador Dan Coats, all of the American agencies, including General Jim Mattis, the secretary of defense, and Secretary — now Secretary Pompeo, Mike Pompeo, when he was CIA director.
All concluded that Russia had interfered. But when asked by Kristen Welker today, did you talk about meddling on the part of Russia, he accused — the President accused the NBC correspondent of being rude by asking such a question.
So that's where we are.
Judy Woodruff: David, are we — does it undermine what Robert Mueller did that the President continues to say this whole thing was a hoax?
David Brooks, New York Times: Well, it really undermines American democracy. It's like having a conversation with the Japanese emperor in 1942 and not mentioning Pearl Harbor.
It was an invasion of this country, an invasion of our democratic process. And every American in our country, except one, understands that. And so Trump wonders why people investigate the idea of Russian collusion and the idea that he's somehow tied to Russia in some nefarious way.
Well, this is why they do it, because, in public and in the way he conducts himself, he acts like someone who is in collusion with Russia . And there was probably no collusion, but he certainly acts that way.
And you just wonder a few things. You wonder what Putin is thinking when he doesn't get challenged when he does something like this. And then you wonder, what exactly is the motivation here? Does Trump just like Putin personally? Is there an actual strategic thought behind these decisions? It's kind of baffling.
Judy Woodruff: And we are told that it doesn't appear the President brought up any concerns about the Russians interfering in 2020, which, Mark, as you said, other officials have said.
But somebody who was before the Congress this week because of the Mueller report was the Attorney General, William Barr. Mark, he spent hours answering questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was very contentious when Democrats were asking questions.
But he held his ground. He said he — he defended the way he handled Robert Mueller's report. And this came just hours after we learned that Mueller had stepped in to tell the attorney general he didn't like the way the report had been characterized.
Mark Shields: That's right.
Judy, I have to say that the Attorney General — finally, the President got an attorney general he wanted. This is what he's been asking for, that Jeff Sessions failed the test of the loyal counselor, the apologist, the defender, and all-out defender.
I mean, he even ascribed the President's interventions or attempts to get people to do things, to make calls to fire people as just the innocent act of somebody frustrated, not in any way nefarious or double-dealing.
So that's what he did. And now he's not going to appear before the House. And I would say, as long as this feud goes on, as it's Bill Barr against Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, it's exactly where the White House wants it to be.
Judy Woodruff: David, what did you make of the attorney general this week before the Senate?
David Brooks: Yes, I thought it was best expressed by a piece by Benjamin Wittes, who's a legal expert in "The Atlantic."
He said he didn't see any sign of perjury, that he didn't lie, as Nancy Pelosi claims, but he spun. And so everything he said was shaded in the direction to make Trump look good.
And if there was one thing we needed right now, and one thing we need, it's people being honest, people who you can actually trust, who are not just spinners. And the job of Attorney General is to — is not like the other administration jobs. It's supposed to have its own independent loyalty to the law and to the agency.
And when you become just another spinner for the President, then you're undermining your relationship to the American people. You're undermining your defense of the agency, and you're subtly undermining law.
And so I just would have loved for him to just get out there and say, here's the facts, you can trust me, I'm telling you straight.
But he didn't tell it straight. He withheld when he wanted to. He was — he sort of sidestepped things. He was just another press spokesman.
Judy Woodruff: And this all seemed to play in, Mark, to what appears to be a seriously deteriorating relationship between Democrats in the Congress and the administration.
As the Democrats seek more information, they want to investigate what comes out of the Mueller report, the administration, the Trump White House is saying, no, we're not going to turn over documents. We're not going to let you interview people.
What are we headed for? I mean, as David just mentioned, the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was comparing — today was comparing what the President is doing to Richard Nixon.
Mark Shields: Yes.
I mean, that the Attorney General was deliberately misleading, deliberately unclear, nobody can argue. I don't think there's any question about that.
As far as deteriorating relations, Judy, I mean, the Democrats have the House, the Republicans have the Senate. And the election is some 14, 15 months, 16 months away. And it's a — it's politically fraught, make no mistake about it.
If — the Democrats have to make the case against Donald Trump. And the case to be made is on health care, that this administration, led by this Attorney General, this week moved again for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
That would lead, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 32 million Americans losing health insurance. All right? That's where you ought to be fighting politically.
But I understand the Democrats' dilemma. It's, quite frankly, this, Judy, that they are facing what is a constitutional challenge and test with this President and what he has done. And to leave it be and move away from it completely is to somehow establish the precedent that a President can do just about anything.
Judy Woodruff: David, are the Democrats making a mistake? Are they going overboard by the demands that they're making?
David Brooks: I think, in some ways, they are.
The focus — I think Nadler's focus is — seems just as partisan as anything that's coming from the Republican side. I think there's one more step here. That's a Mueller testimony. But it's hard to see too many other steps after that.
If I were a Republican, I would think, if they want to talk about the minutia of the Mueller report, and we want to talk about 3.2 percent growth and 4.4 percent increase in wages for the poorest workers, that's a conversation I would like to have as a Republican.
And so I do — I think the Democrats would be wiser politically to let the voters settle this argument and take it to the voters on the issues the voters actually care about.
Judy Woodruff: So, Mark, just to wrap this up, so are you saying Democrats should just drop this?
Mark Shields: No, I don't think — I don't think they drop it.
I think, quite bluntly, Judy, that Chairman Nadler has come across as almost on a personal vendetta against Donald Trump. I think there's hearings to be held. I think the Bob Mueller hearings — I mean, I don't know, for example, why they just didn't have Attorney General Barr in.
And then, if they wanted to turn it over to a staff attorney to ask questions at some point, let the Attorney General get up and barge out. I mean, why get into this back and forth, if you really want to hear what he has to say?
And that's what it's — that's what it's become. Yes, no witness should be able to determine exactly what the conditions are under which that witness will appear.
But, listen, I just don't — I think Bill Barr, Jerry Nadler, with the best unemployment record in 50 years, is a plus for the White House. And that's not exactly where you want the Democrats to be right now.
Judy Woodruff: David, just quickly, any middle ground here?
David Brooks: I don't think so. I haven't seen much middle ground in Washington in a few years.
Judy Woodruff: That's true.
David Brooks: So I don't think so.
SUMMARY: Attorney General William Barr testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday to explain his handling of the Mueller report. While Barr defended his actions, Democrats zeroed in on a newly discovered letter from Mueller criticizing Barr's summary of the report's “principal conclusions.” Meanwhile, Barr said he would not attend a planned House hearing Thursday. Judy Woodruff reports.
SUMMARY: It was a contentious day on Capitol Hill as Attorney General William Barr appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss his handling of the Mueller report. Yamiche Alcindor and Lisa Desjardins join Judy Woodruff to analyze Barr’s testimony, including his explanation of why he determined President Trump hadn’t committed obstruction of justice.
SUMMARY: Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia is ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, which planned to question Attorney General William Barr on Thursday. Judy Woodruff talks to Collins about Barr’s late-breaking decision not to attend the hearing, why Collins believes that Democrats are engaging in a partisan “stunt” over the Mueller report and what questions he would ask of the attorney general.
SUMMARY: When reports emerged Tuesday that special counsel Robert Mueller had sent Attorney General William Barr a letter expressing concern over Barr’s characterization of the Mueller report’s conclusions, several Democrats called for Barr to resign. Among them was California Rep. Ted Lieu, who joins Judy Woodruff to discuss that and his reaction to Barr's decision not to attend a House hearing Thursday.
SUMMARY: After Attorney General William Barr failed to appear before the House Judiciary Committee for a scheduled hearing on the Mueller report, House Democrats threatened to hold him in contempt. Meanwhile, Republicans argue Mueller’s investigation was biased against President Trump. Amna Nawaz talks to former Justice Department official David Rivkin and Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general.
SUMMARY: On the eve of the House Judiciary Committee’s deadline for the Justice Department to turn over special counsel Mueller's full report, questions remain over whether the time limit can be enforced. The deadline comes as Democrats threaten Attorney General Barr with contempt over his refusal to testify before the committee. Wall Street Journal reporter Sadie Gurman joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss.
SUMMARY: Attorney General William Barr appeared on Capitol Hill Tuesday to discuss his agency budget. With prompting from House Democrats, he also talked about when Congress and the public will see the Mueller report and how much of it Barr will have redacted. Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff with that update, plus fallout from the departure of DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and immigration policy.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including President Trump’s reversal on closing the U.S.-Mexico border, Attorney General William Barr’s handling of the Mueller report, and controversy over former Vice President Joe Biden’s interactions with women.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): And now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Hello to both of you.
So, let's talk about the border, Mark.
The President this week has been at one point saying he's going to close it. He's angry at Mexico, and has been angry at the Central American countries. Now — then he changed and said, well, you know, maybe we won't do that, but we might do it later.
What do you make of his overall approach to what's going on at this crisis at the border?
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: Well, the fact that the piece demonstrates so well is the total interdependence at, for example, the border in Mexico and Southern California.
That is the pattern throughout. We're talking about the United States' third largest trading partner, Mexico, $1.5 billion a day in goods and services being traded back and forth from each country.
And what the President showed more than anything else was a problem that's nagged his entire administration. He just wasn't informed on this, and his threats were not only unnerving, but they really did the almost impossible, stirred Republicans on the Hill, beginning with Majority Leader McConnell, to say it would be catastrophic to cut off trade.
And following on the heels, Judy, of the President's making the Republicans the health care party, after an election where they suffered their biggest defeat in 100 years, midterm elections, on the health care issue. By a 3-1 margin, Americans thought Democrats were better on health care than Republicans.
And his attacks on John McCain, it really was unsettling in any confidence in the President, particularly within his own party.
Judy Woodruff: How do you size up how he's handled this?
David Brooks, New York Times: Well, I give him a little credit.
He has been saying there's a crisis on the border for the past six months and eight months. And he's right. And I think some of us have downplayed that. But it's clear Jeh Johnson, who was in the Obama administration, is saying there's a crisis. There's 4,000 people getting detained every day. There's a backlog of a million cases.
All of our facilities are completely overrun. And so there is clearly a crisis at the border. The problem with Donald Trump (A) there is no policy process. When he announces a policy, there's nothing behind it. It's just words coming out of his mouth.
But (B) the idea the wall is the appropriate answer to what is happening on the border is completely ridiculous. These are asylum seekers. A wall does nothing. It's completely irrelevant to the situation.
And I go back to what the gentleman in the piece said. The problem is in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and those countries that have become lawless. And El Salvador's the most dangerous, peaceful — peacetime nation in the world right now; 95 percent of the crimes are not being solved, not being prosecuted, hundreds of millions of dollars in extortion.
You have got families living in the middle of all these killings. What are they expected to do? And so as long as you have got that situation, we're going to have this crisis at the border, because we're all one continent or one people — maybe two continents — but we're all one people.
And so the idea is that you have got to fix it at the root. And there's no easy way to do that. But there's no other answer.
Judy Woodruff: No easy way to do that, Mark.
Are you all — are we all now acknowledging that the answers don't come easy, but what do we do? What's to be done?
Mark Shields: No, nobody's ever pretended.
There have been serious efforts. And public officials in both parties deserve credit for making an effort to come up with an immigration policy in this country. There's been no leadership in this administration at all. Democrats have a responsibility as well.
Migration throughout history has been driven by two factors, one, fear, anger, isolation in the place where you are; and a hope, the place you're going, which the United States has more often than not represented the latter.
And David is right. But the answer to Honduras and Guatemala is not to cut off aid, as the President. It's to make an effort, to be creative in trying to bring some sense of justice, order, economic stability to those countries, and political safety. That is — that, to me, is the first step.
(CROSSTALK)
Judy Woodruff: But…
Mark Shields: Go ahead.
Judy Woodruff: I was just going to say, but the President argues that hasn't worked.
He says, we have given them — we have been giving these countries help, and it hasn't worked.
David Brooks: Well, that's not true.
In the first place, it's important to distinguish between two kinds of people who are coming here. One are economically motivated. They want to get jobs here. And, frankly, American efforts across several administrations have done a very excellent job of reducing the number of people who economically come here. We need a certain number.
But the flow of, say, Mexican workers who come to this country was sharply down. So, we were in a situation a few years ago where there were more Latinos leaving than coming. And that's because we helped make the — and not us alone, but we did some role in helping the Mexican economy become a healthy economy.
Mark Shields: That's right.
David Brooks: What we're seeing now is not that.
It's fear-driven. Think of it like people leaving Syria for Lebanon. It's a little more like that than like the economic immobility. These people are leaving in completely disparate straits because they have no other choice. And they're asylum seekers.
And so these are two different things. And the idea that our aid has not done much for that, I would say we haven't even tried.
Mark Shields: Yes.
And the backlog that David speaks of is, in fact, the people seeking asylum. I mean, they are — it's uprooting your entire family. This is not the traditional male leaving to make money to send it home, to return home with that money.
Judy Woodruff: Change of subject, the Mueller report.
David, we — I don't know if you heard, but Congressman Jerry Nadler, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was on the program a few minutes ago. He said outright he expects the Attorney General should give the Congress the full Mueller report, all almost 400 pages of it.
But he went on to say he doesn't think the Attorney General has been a fair broker in all this, for a number of reasons. He expects to get less than that, so we're going to see subpoenas.
Where do you see this process going?
David Brooks: Yes, I think that's an error. I think that's a mistake.
I think one of the things that's been reasonably well-established, with a few bad exceptions, is that when you release a report like this, you don't release the grand jury, some of that information, and you don't release sources and methods.
And Barr has told us he's just cleaning that stuff out and then he will release the rest.
Judy Woodruff: But Nadler says it's just going to the committee. It won't be released to the public.
David Brooks: Right. Well, good luck with that. If it goes to the committee, it will go to the public.
And so, in my view, that's a much more dangerous option. So, to me, maybe he's right about Barr. Maybe Barr is not an honest broker here. We don't know. I think he's handled it reasonably well. But at least let Barr issue what — the next piece of the report that he's going to issue. Let's take a look at it and see what we think then.
But the idea of just basically leaking out the whole report, which I think would be inevitable, seems to me a miscarriage of justice.
Judy Woodruff: What do you think of the Nadler approach, the Democrats' approach?
Mark Shields: Well, I think that — I think two factors.
First of all, I think that Attorney General Barr gave the President a green light claim exoneration. And I think that has obviously set off a sense of frustration and anger on the part of people who worked on the Mueller group, as well as Democrats in particular. I think the President may have gone too far with it.
What I worry about with Chairman Nadler is, for anybody with a sense of history in this town, in 1998, one of the reasons that the effort against Bill Clinton failed was because of the excessive partisanship of Newt Gingrich and people like that in the Republican leadership.
And it became seen as a partisan drive against him. Contrast that, if you would, Judy, with Howard Baker, Sam Ervin, and Peter Rodino, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee during the time of Watergate, when they all rose above any petty partisanship.
And I just — I don't think it ought to be seen as a Democratic hunt on Republicans. I do think it's coming, and I think that…
Judy Woodruff: The full report?
Mark Shields: I think the full report will eventually get out.
But I think Bob Mueller will testify. And I think that the Attorney General has said he's going to testify as well. I would like to see it play out, rather — before we go to DEFCON 1.
Judy Woodruff: But you're saying it's going to take several steps?
Mark Shields: I think it will. I think it will.
But I think there's a lot — the pressure is building on Attorney General Barr, because he knows his précis or summary of the Mueller report doesn't meet with the satisfaction or professional passing on the part of the people who worked on the Mueller — I really think that's a problem.
David Brooks: Yes.
It's possible to believe two things at once, that this investigation conducted by honest brokers found no evidence of collusion and not sufficient evidence of obstruction, but still there's a lot more in the report that will make the Trump administration look really bad.
Mark Shields: That's right.
David Brooks: Both those things are true. And I think, in the fullness of time, we will find both those things to be true.
