OPINION - Shields and Ponnuru 10/4/2019

"Mark Shields and Ramesh Ponnuru on Trump, Ukraine and ‘quid pro quo’" PBS NewsHour 10/4/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Ramesh Ponnuru of The National Review join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s political news, including President Trump’s insistence that foreign leaders should investigate the Biden family, how the White House is responding to the subsequent House investigation and the newest fundraising and poll numbers among 2020 Democrats.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And an update.

Late today, the House of Representatives' Oversight Committee formally notified the White House that it is issuing a subpoena for documents related to the impeachment investigation.

Now to the political analysis of Shields and Ponnuru.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Ramesh Ponnuru of The National Review.  David Brooks is away.

Hello to both of you.

So, the news just keeps coming.  It's been a week of cascading information about what the President said in a phone call.  And then the President himself, Mark, reinforces this with announcing to the world that he's urging China to look into Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

My bottom-line question for both of you is, is there fire here?  Is there evidence, in your mind, of either a law that's been broken or a violation of the President's oath?  Or is this just smoke?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  I think there's more than smoke, Judy.  I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, but there's certainly a strong case to be made that the President openly solicited and sought the intervention and involvement of a foreign government on behalf of his own candidacy, an American Presidential campaign.

And I think, usually, it's the law that's in dispute in these cases of a big argument, rather, about facts.  There's no real argument about facts here.  They're pretty much out in the open.  And the President really opened it up on the driveway on Thursday, when he bid China to come in and come up with information, unflattering, libelous or criminal information, on Joe Biden and his family.

Judy Woodruff:  Ramesh, do you see this as either a law broken or a violation of his oath?

Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review:  We have this tendency to see scandals in terms of hidden events that have to be uncovered.

And so we can't always process when the President says something in public, the way he did with respect to China, when he openly, publicly, with the world watching, said that he wanted China to investigate political opponents, and that his treatment of China in trade negotiations would depend on that.

All of his defenders have been saying, no quid pro quo.  We saw a quid pro quo on national television.

Judy Woodruff:  And, of course, the President said today — made a point of coming out today and saying to the press, no, there's no quid pro quo.  I'm not tying what China does with regard to these investigations to the trade negotiations.

But he did say that yesterday.

Ramesh Ponnuru:  Right.  He said it.

And he — I think he realized that he made a mistake, and he is trying to un-say it.  But it also shows you that he will undercut the defenses that his allies make, which is one reason why a lot of Republicans have been heading for the tall grass.

They don't want to be out there defending the administration with a line that the administration itself might abandon.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, Mark — Mark…

Mark Shields:  No, I think Ramesh's point is salient and right.

There's been a little bit of the old Sherlock Holmes story about the dog that didn't bark, the story of the dog that, when the race horse was stolen, the dog didn't bark in the night, which suggested that maybe it was somebody inside the household who was responsible for the crime.

The dog didn't bark.  There's no Republicans — usually, Republicans — there's a number of Republicans you can count on to be on television.  There's no such term as indecent exposure to them.  If there's a microphone and a camera, they're there.

All of a sudden as Ramesh puts it, they're in the tall grass.  They don't want to.  And the reason is, Judy, that there is no White House strategy.  I mean, it's pretty obvious.

I mean, the difference between this and Bill Clinton in 1998, when Clinton effectively compartmentalized, I'm going about my business, Donald Trump, as one leading Republican said to me this week, ought to be working on prescription drugs.  He ought to be doing that and holding meetings on it, and this and that and the other thing.

And he's totally obsessed with this.  And he — so if you're going to defend him, you don't know what you're going to be defending an hour from now or certainly tomorrow morning.

Judy Woodruff:  Do you see a — did you see a — do you discern a White House strategy in all of this?

Ramesh Ponnuru:  Well, I think, as often is the case with this administration, there is a strategy for holding the President's base supporters.

And that may well be enough, because you need a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate to convict and remove a President from office.  So if you're looking forward to the endgame, just maintaining your base is enough.

I don't see a strategy right now that is trying to change the minds to of people in the middle.

Judy Woodruff:  Meanwhile, Mark, the congressional Democrats, the House Democrats — and we just mentioned another one — they're asking the White House now for documents.

I was told just a moment ago it's White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, among others.  They're asking for documents as they pursue these investigations.

But they have asked Secretary of State Pompeo.  They have asked Vice President Pence.  This is not — they seem to be moving briskly with this.  What does that tell you?  Is that the smart course?  Should they be taking their time?  What do you make of this?

Mark Shields:  Well, I think events are very much in the saddle.  And I think it's moved a lot faster than anybody anticipated.

If a week ago, you had suggested that the President was going to call for the arrest and trial on treason for the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee this week, and go on at a pace, as Ramesh described, as his negotiation on trade with China on the basis of information on the Bidens, you know, it — so I don't think there's any master plan here, Judy.

And the White House's decision to say, we want a vote on the impeachment in the House, that puts a lot of House Republicans in a bad position.  I mean, do you want to vote against an impeachment inquiry and then get overcome by events, I mean, to put you in a position November of 2020 when you wanted — it looks like you wanted the dust everything under the rug, because, given the velocity with which disclosures are being made, that's a very risky vote for a lot of House Republicans?

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

Do you want to give the Democrats, the House Democrats, a grade on how they're pursuing this?

Ramesh Ponnuru:  Well, I think there have been some errors.

I think that Chairman Schiff's dissembling really about his contacts or his staff's contacts with the whistle-blower was an unforced error.

But I think the key thing going forward, the Democrats have to internalize that the politically smart thing to do is not to constantly be trying to figure out the politically smart thing to do at each step of the process.

They have got to handle this like a serious inquiry for adults and not be distracted by every moment's polls.

Judy Woodruff:  Do you think they're doing that right now?

Ramesh Ponnuru:  I think that they are trying.

I think that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made a very concerted effort to get Democrats to take a step back a little bit, not be gleeful about condemning this administration, but to rather have a posture of seeing where the facts go.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, you have been watching this city for a long time.

Do you think this is something the Democrats can get done?  They have said they want to get it done as quickly as possible.  Can they get something like this, the inquiry finished, move on potentially to an actual impeachment vote in a matter of a few weeks or month?

Mark Shields:  I think probably months, Judy.

But, I mean, just take somebody like Mike Pompeo, secretary of state.  They were talking seriously a week ago about him running for the United States Senate from Kansas.  He was the logical inevitable candidate of the Republicans.  I think he's a lot less so today.

I mean, this is reaching out and touching more and more people.  I do disagree with Ramesh on Nick Schifrin and the Intelligence Committee.  I think it's absolutely natural that the whistle-blower, a professional public employee, would go to the staff.

I mean, he has been surrounded by people who have been hostile.  And I think it's very — it's very frank, and we ought to take notice of the fact that the only reason we're aware of what's happened is because of career public employees.

This is not — these weren't political appointees.  These are people who are nameless, faceless, who get attacked by every cheap shot in a political campaign.

But at Foreign Service and at CIA and the Department of Justice — the I.G. was a Department of Justice 15-year attorney.  So, I mean, I think it's time to give some credit to the people who did put their vow of service above their own self-interest.

THE INVESTIGATIONS - Lewandowski Refusal to Answer

"Lewandowski frustrates Democrats with short responses in House Judiciary Committee hearing" PBS NewsHour 9/17/2019

More of Trump's attitude of being above the law.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.  Ahead of his appearance, the White House had instructed Lewandowski to discuss only matters covered in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report -- and indeed, Lewandowski refused to answer numerous questions from members of the committee.  Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.

DOMESTIC TERRORISM - NRA Scrutiny

#StandAgainstNRA

"Why the NRA is facing new scrutiny of its financial affairs" PBS NewsHour 6/10/2019

Because they're crooks.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The NRA, a powerful voice in the U.S. political battle over guns, is facing scrutiny of its financial affairs.  Amid reports of lavish personal spending by CEO Wayne LaPierre, a new investigation finds significant payments and favors granted to members of the NRA's board of directors.  John Yang talks to The Washington Post's Carol Leonnig about potential legal implications and member fallout.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 2/8/2019

"Shields and Brooks on Virginia turmoil, Supreme Court abortion ruling" PBS NewsHour 2/8/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks analyze the week in politics, including chaos at the highest levels of Virginia government, the effectiveness of congressional investigations, the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling and the legacy of Rep.  John Dingell (D-Mich).

Amna Nawaz (NewsHour):  Virginia and the country weigh the transgressions of the state's top leaders in a moment of reckoning.  And, in Washington, Democrats flex their new power in the House, starting with investigating the President, bringing us to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.

That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Welcome to you both.  Happy Friday.

So, let's start in Virginia.

I want to bring up a couple of tweets real quick, because we have had late-breaking news on this.  There has been a second allegation of assault against Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax, leading to former Governor Terry McAuliffe to now call for Fairfax's resignation.

He says the allegations are serious and credible and he doesn't believe Fairfax can effectively serve the people of Virginia.

I should note other lawmakers have now joined that call for him to resign.

And Fairfax has also issued a statement in response, calling the allegations an obvious — sorry — "vicious and coordinated smear campaign" orchestrated against him, and he says he will not resign.

So, Mark, start us off here.  There's a lot happening in Virginia, still.  It's still evolving.  What do you make of how it's been handled by leader there so far?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Terribly.

The late Mo Udall wisely said that, when the Democrats organize a firing squad, they first form a circle.  And I would say that's gone on.

I think each of the cases has to be treated separately.  I do think that Governor Northam — politics, to begin with, is not brain surgery.  It's about addition, and not subtraction.  It's about a party that welcomes people to its ranks, that warmly embraces newcomers and accepts converts happily and finds common ground.

A losing political party is one that spends time, energy and effort hunting down heretics and banishing them to the outer darkness because they don't subscribe totally to the received wisdom.

The Democrats in Virginia have played that second role.  They had, in Ralph Northam, a popular governor who had secured passage of Medicaid for 400,000 Virginians, something long promised, who had run against the NRA, gave them an 'F' rating, he took them on, on universal background charges, who, in the most segregated day in America, which is Sunday morning, when people go to church with people of their own race, belongs to a church with 60 percent African-Americans, with an African-American pastor.

And all of that is forgotten, all of that is tossed aside blithely because of one yearbook page which was hateful, hurtful and absolutely indefensible.

But I just — I thought the stampede on the part of national Democrats, and including Democrats as honorable as Tim Kaine, the former Governor and Senator of Virginia, to toss him out, to demand his resignation was really unacceptable.  I really did.

Amna Nawaz:  What did you make of this, David?  Did you think it was a stampede?

David Brooks, New York Times:  A bit.

Men turn out to be a problem.  There's a lot of male bad behavior.  Maybe we should have only women leading our states.  That might solve these problems.

I think there are two different cases here.  The Fairfax case, the Justin Fairfax case, is suddenly looking to be the much more serious of the two to me, that there's multiple — two women making allegations, with some suggestion that there is contemporaneous evidence, that he assaulted them.

And so that, to me, it turns out, is the most serious one to me.  I would say he's in the post peril.  He might have done an actual crime.  So, there, I think — I'm always very slow to call for resignations.  It makes everybody feel good.  But I really believe in investigating.  And so somebody should be investigating that one.

On the Northam case, you know, what he does — we spoke about it briefly, because the news had just broken last week — that what he did was appalling and hateful.

And yet I do think, in a lot of these cases, that there should be some path to redemption.  And that path should involve an apology.  It should involve a lifetime or decades or years of service in the cause.

And Northam, frankly, his record on civil rights is quite good.  And so whatever hateful thing he may or may not have done as a med student, it's not evident in his adult behavior.  And I do think that mitigates toward some sense of leniency.  Then maybe he can spend the rest of his governorship continuing good work, heightened because of what he did as a young man.

So, to me, to throw — to destroy a reasonably good career, whether you — for — over this thing is probably not — we do not have a surplus of good people in public life.

Amna Nawaz:  I wonder, though, Mark, because the Democrats rely on votes from minority voters, African-Americans in particular, in Virginia.

When you have Herring and Northam both admitting to wearing blackface, and Northam not handling it particularly well, showing very awkward conversation afterwards and admitting that, doesn't that lose them some moral high ground down the line?

Mark Shields:  Oh, sure.

I mean, and you're being excessively charitable by saying not handle it well.  I mean, he handled it terribly.

But, I mean, the attorney general turns out to be the real ace of the week by — he demanded that the governor resign for his yearbook picture, and then remembered photographic evidence of his doing something quite similar, if not identical, when he was at the University of Virginia.

And he's been far more fulsome, articulate, almost eloquent in his apology.  And so now it comes down to not the act itself.  And I agree with David.  What the lieutenant governor — the allegations against the lieutenant governor, I mean, are potentially criminal.  I mean, we're not talking about bad taste or insensitivity or racial insensitivity.

So I do think that they are very different charges.

David Brooks:  Yes.

And it should be said, when I mentioned the road to redemption…

Amna Nawaz:  Yes.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

David Brooks:  … frankly, to be honest, it's not white people who have the — who are in the position to offer forgiveness.

The African-American community is the one that was wronged by this.  And so it's trying to work with them and sort of humble oneself before them that I think is the ultimate court here.

And that would be a good role for any governor in any state to do something like that.

Mark Shields:  He had the endorsement, Northam had the endorsement of every African-American lawmaker in the state when he ran.  So it's not like he's unfamiliar with that constituency.

Amna Nawaz:  Yes.  Let's move on now to Democrats in the House.

Mark Shields:  Sure.

Amna Nawaz:  Speaking of investigations there, it's been a busy week for them, David, launching oversight investigations into the Trump Organization, threatening subpoenas.

They came out at a quite a pace.  Is it sustainable?  Are they sending a message?  What's going on here?

David Brooks:  Yes, I wonder about the word investigation.

Are we investigating, or are we having just television shows?  And Matthew Whitaker was on — was in the hearings today.  The guy is going to be out of office probably in a few days, because Bill Barr is going to be — become the actual attorney general.

So, what exactly was the purpose of that show?  And these days, when you get one of these televised hearings, they're not investigations.  They are shows.  And I'm struck by how Congress has shifted that way.

I was reading Kamala Harris' memoir last week.  And she describes her Senate career not as a series of legislations, but as a series of confrontational moments at a hearing that were televised.

And I think, for a lot of members now, that is what being in Congress is.  And so sometimes you get real investigations, but I'm dubious that we're going to see a lot of actual investigating.

Amna Nawaz:  What do you make of that, Mark?  Are they looking for answers, or are they just putting on a show?

Mark Shields:  Well, both, obviously.

I will — I will say this.  I mean, I think the Democrats won last fall because of health care, because the Republicans tried to repeal health care.  I think the Democrats ought to spend time, effort, energy trying to guarantee that coverage be available, and especially preexisting condition, which Republicans were ready to repeal.

I think they ought to be raising the minimum wage.  And they — changing people's lives for the better, but guaranteeing that Robert Mueller continues unimpeded in his investigation, and is given the resources and authority necessary to do it.

But David's right.  They can't resist the camera and the lights, and just like us.

(LAUGHTER)

Amna Nawaz:  I want to ask you about some news yesterday.

A couple of Supreme Court decisions came down, one in particular that caught a lot of people's attention.

Mark, I will start with you on it.  This was the Supreme Court basically blocking a Louisiana law that would have closed a lot of the abortion providers in that state.

And I mention it in the context of Republicans having weathered that whole storm around Brett Kavanaugh, thinking that he would make the difference in decisions like this.  John Roberts in this case was the swing vote.

Mark Shields:  John Roberts, yes.

Amna Nawaz:  What do you make of that?

Mark Shields:  Well, I mean, the Chief Justice has been time and again sort of the ballast on the court.

I don't think there's any question — and we saw it at the State of the Union address as well, Amna — that the President is going to make a abortion, and particularly late-term abortion, an issue in 2020.  He was a convert.  He was Saul on the road to Damascus in 2015 and became an ardent pro-life candidate.

He won 80 percent of the vote of white evangelicals along the way.  And, quite bluntly, late-term abortion, 1.3 percent of all abortions, is unpopular with Americans.  It is not — it's not unlike immigration.

If you think of immigration as grabbing children out of their mother's arms, then everybody in the world is on the side of the immigrant.  But if you see it as a caravan marauding toward the border, then, all of a sudden, there's a skepticism about immigration.

I think the same thing is true, quite frankly, on abortion.  And the idea of a child full-term being plucked from the womb, and then not being given life, I think it's an issue that Donald Trump, quite bluntly, wants to run on in 2020.

And he can point that he's — Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were on his side, on the side of the angels, I guess you would call them, in the decision.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 1/11/2019

"Shields and Brooks on border wall negotiations, Mueller updates" PBS NewsHour 1/11/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks analyze the week in politics, including whether Republicans are on the defensive, normal negotiations vs “towers of ego,” Michael Cohen’s upcoming congressional testimony and the news that Paul Manafort may have shared polling data with a Russian associate.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And to the analysis now of Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you.

Twenty-first day, Mark, of the shutdown, it is.  You could say we're right where we were a week or two ago, but the difference is that the President went to the border, the President had an Oval Office address, where he made his case.  He was — the Democrats responded to him.

Are we hearing arguments from either side that would give them the upper hand, or are we just stuck in this stalemate forever?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Well, I hope we're not stuck here forever, Judy.

But I would say that there's not an upper hand, but the lower hand is held by the President, I mean, not that the Democrats are celebrating or spiking the ball in the end zone, or they have any reason to, but the President — you mentioned the speech he gave, in which he acknowledged to press people on a background check basis before the speech that he was doing it reluctantly, under duress from his communications director and Kellyanne Conway, going to the border reluctantly.

And the speech came across as somebody who was just going through the motions.  It was done with no conviction, no passion, no intensity, and I think very little persuasiveness to it.

The difference in the relationship right now is that Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is no longer speaker.  Nancy Pelosi of California is.  And the difference, I think, is that he's being called out on facts, which didn't happen in the first two years of his presidency.

When he says there's a flood of people coming across, it's the lowest it's been in 46 years.  She calls him out on that.  And I think that's a changed relationship.

But I don't think this is the greatest tiff for the Democrats, and especially the rebuttal of Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.  I mean, it was staged by somebody from runaway road edition of the American Gothic.  And they looked uncomfortably close together.  And I didn't think it particularly worked.

But I would say that the Republicans and Donald Trump are very much on the defensive and remaining there.

Judy Woodruff:  David, do you see either side making a better argument?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes, I hear like the strange two-track phenomenon that's going on.

Apparently, at the under level, they're actually having normal negotiations.  The Republicans are asking for $5.7 billion for the wall.  They know they're not going to get that.  They're like thinking maybe, we can get three.  The Democrats are thinking 1.3, and may wish go up to two — the Republicans are hoping they get up to two.

And so it's a normal negotiation, like you're buying a house.  And that sounds like a normal negotiation.  And if it was that, they could get two, and Trump could walk away with money for the wall, it wouldn't be that much, and that would — we would just be done with this.

And it's crazy that they're arguing — that they're shutting the government over several hundred million dollars.

At the ego level, which is the Pelosi-Trump level, you have an entirely different set of situations, where it's not a normal negotiation over money.  It's an absolutist ego position, my way or zero.

And one sees the under-level negotiations happening, but then constantly being crushed by the ego level.  So, for example, this week, a bunch of Republican senators, with Lindsey Graham's involvement, tried to propose another solution that Trump could accept, that we talked about last week, which would be DACA, a path to citizenship for some money for the wall.

Judy Woodruff:  Children of…

David Brooks:  And White House apparently signaled to them, no, we're not going for that deal.

So the Republicans didn't want to get in front of their own White House, so they never proposed the deal.  Similarly, a lot of moderate Democrats would love a deal, but they don't want to get out in front of Nancy Pelosi.

So we have right now got two towers of ego who can't give, and a lot of other people trying to do something in the middle, with not much effect.

Mark Shields:  I take exception to the two towers of ego.

I mean, let's get very blunt.  I mean, if the Republicans cared about the wall, they had total control of the federal government for two years.  And what did they do in those two years?  They repealed, but didn't replace preexisting condition for health care.  They repealed the Affordable Care Act, tried mightily to do so.  They passed a tax cut, which will — that has actually reduced federal revenues, we just learned this week, in spite of the fact that the economy has grown by 3 percent.

The last time the economy grew by almost 3 percent, tax revenues were up 7 percent.  But because of the structuring of it by this administration and what it cares about — and for some reason Donald Trump and his advisers thought, well, it'll be easier to deal with Nancy Pelosi than it would — the Democratic majority in the Congress than it was with Paul Ryan.

Now, where did this come from?  Where did they ever get that idea?  So I — mean, to me, the fault is on the Republican side.  What they cared about was the tax cut.  What they cared about was repealing the Affordable Care Act.

I mean, that was — those were their priorities.

Judy Woodruff:  What about…

David Brooks:  Well, don't ask me to give a linear description of Donald Trump's brain, what it's thinking at any moment.

But he should have fought this fight, obviously, when the Republicans were there.  If he really cared about the wall, he should have cared about the wall.  I think he was prompted by what he sees as a crisis on the border by all the families, which we saw earlier in the show, coming across the border.  And so suddenly he got hyped up about all this.

But, given where we are, you know, he won an election running on the wall.  And Nancy Pelosi won an election running on DACA.  So this, to me, is not that complicated.  You come — both those sides come together and offer that proposal.  And Nancy Pelosi doesn't give him $5 billion on the wall, but she gives him $2 billion.  And we can have an actual government.

And, to me, that's a deal that just seems so obvious.  But Trump is not going there.  And whatever one thinks of the merits of Pelosi's position — and I'm not a fan of the wall — but let's get this done with, and you have got two parties.  Come to an agreement.

Judy Woodruff:  And you have got 800,000 federal employees who are not getting paid and an increasing ripple effect on the American people.

Mark Shields:  No, you do.

And let's be very blunt.  The late Bob Teeter, who was a Republican pollster and a strategist and a very admirable human being, once said, the American people are philosophically conservative, but they're operationally liberal.

And by that, he simply meant, you ask people how they feel about the federal government, it's a pain in the neck, too much red tape, get them off my back, out of my life.

However, when told a single can of tuna fish has been discovered in Pocatello, Idaho, with a trace of botulism in it, there's a universal American reaction, is, where the hell was the federal government?  And I want to know.  I want a report in my office in 24 hours.

We want this energetic, small, efficient federal government working on our side 24 hours a day, cheap.  And the fact is that, right now, I mean, we're looking at 40 million Americans who depend on food stamps to put food on the table for their family.

We're talking about children who go to school who need the expanded health care and school lunch program.  And we're talking about women's and infant care.  I mean, we're heading toward, and, quite conceivably — the Food and Drug administration being undefended — we could have some sort of a breakout of disease or infection.

I mean, so…

Judy Woodruff:  And airline safety, which we were talking about tonight.

Mark Shields:  And airline safety as well.

So, I mean, I just — I really think that this is pretty serious stuff, and which I don't think has been accepted and acknowledged by the President.

Judy Woodruff:  But, if that's the case, David, why — where are rational minds in all this?  I mean, it's just — it's a spectacle.

David Brooks:  Well, I think the leaders are both seeing all the people who are upset by this, and they know they're paying a price, but they're more afraid of…

(CROSSTALK)

Judy Woodruff:  On both sides?

David Brooks:  I think on both sides.  Donald Trump probably has more conviction, but…

Mark Shields:  More conviction than…

David Brooks:  Well he, has more — he believes in his own propaganda, probably, a little more than Nancy…

Mark Shields:  Do you really…

David Brooks:  Yes.

Mark Shields:  Wow.  OK.  All right.

(CROSSTALK)

Mark Shields:  No, I accept your sincerity on it.  I just — it's your perception.

(CROSSTALK)

David Brooks:  I think he fervently thinks he's serving — he thinks there is some threat and he believes in the position.

But I think they're also afraid — they have walked themselves up to a spot where it's hard for them to actually make a deal, because they have both been so absolutist.  Nancy Pelosi said the wall was immoral.  Trump says we're under threat from the whole world coming to get us.

And so they have built these barriers of absolutism around their position.  I look at this whole thing, and I think we're the country that defeated fascism.  Like, we fought in World War II.  That was sort of a complicated thing we had to pull off.

You go back to the '60s, all the Great Society legislation.  I was even looking.  In the '70s today, Ted Kennedy and the Republicans got together to deregulate airlines.

Judy Woodruff:  That's right.

David Brooks:  We just have a history of taking for granted a level of professional craftsmanship in our legislators.  And we don't have anything like that now.

And that's been a long process over many decades that just the level of skill of crafting legislation has been in slow, gradual decline.  And now we're at a nadir.

Mark Shields:  Well, Donald Trump may believe it, but he's wrong.

And I just — I don't fault the Democrats for correcting him.  When he says that there's — drugs are flooding across the southern border, 90 percent of illegal drugs that come into this country come in through legal…

Judy Woodruff:  Legal.

Mark Shields:  … legal ports, according to the Drug Enforcement Agency of the United States.

Judy Woodruff:  But that hasn't stopped the administration from making that argument.

Mark Shields:  That's what I mean.

So, sincerity is one thing.  Stupidity is another, or woeful ignorance.

David Brooks:  Let me just say, like, I agree with you.  But this is not a debating society.  This is politics.  In politics, they win an election on a position, you got to have — and they have some power.  You have some power.  You reach agreement.

You can't just say, you're wrong.  That's not a real good negotiation strategy.

Mark Shields:  No.

I mean, he just lost an election, 40 House seats, on the caravan, all right?  The caravan turned out to be not the great threat, not the marauding invasion there was.  There is no caravan now, and he's still trying to sell the same bill of goods.

At some point, you got to say, hey, pal, maybe we could work it out.

They did have a compromise, David, as you know, before Christmas, until Ann and Rush intervened and said, Donny, you're not being tough enough.

Judy Woodruff:  The conservative talk show — talk show hosts.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

TRUMP MOB - The Grift

"How Trump may have used his charitable foundation for personal and political gain" PBS NewsHour 12/18/2018

"Grift" (US, slang) A confidence game or swindle. [from 1906] - Wiktionary

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  As the New York Attorney General investigates allegations of criminal misconduct by the Trump Foundation, the President announced he is shutting it down.  The Washington Post’s David Fahrenthold has been reporting on scrutiny of the organization since before the 2016 election, and he joins William Brangham to discuss how the President may have leveraged his charity for personal and political gain.

OPINION - Brooks and Klein 8/24/2018

"Brooks and Klein on Trump’s ‘moral affront’ and the rule of law" PBS NewsHour 8/24/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  It’s been a dramatic week for President Trump and some of his former associates.  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Ezra Klein from Vox join Judy Woodruff to discuss the President's legal and moral standing, emerging patterns among the circle of Trump intimates, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the rule of law, and the final episodes of 'great man' John McCain.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  But first to the analysis of Brooks and Klein.

That is New York Times columnist David Brooks and Ezra Klein of Vox.com.  Mark Shields is away.

Hello to both of you.

It’s Friday.  And I say this every week.  What a week.  But it really is what a week.

David, this week, we saw the President’s former campaign chairman, manager being found guilty of some very serious charges, a number of felonies.  We saw the President’s personal lawyer, former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleading guilty to a number of serious crimes.

Where does this leave the President?

David Brooks, New York Times:  I think hurt.

But the debate a lot of my friends are having, is this the unraveling moment?  And I personally do not think it is.  It may lead to the unraveling moment.

But the Manafort conviction is on matters that were scarcely related to Donald Trump.  The Cohen conviction is about a campaign finance law.  I mean, to me, one of the things — weird things about our culture is, the President of the United States paid off two porn stars to keep them silent from an affair, and we’re talking about campaign finance.

To me, the moral affront is so gigantic.  The legal affront seems to me less.  And so I don’t think that’s the kind of — whether the — whether Michael Cohen fronted him some money to pay off the hush money, that doesn’t strike me as the sort of thing that really alters a presidency.

It does open up a lot of legal avenues.  And as the prosecution grants people immunity, the thing about these special prosecutors is, you don’t know where they’re going.  And so they may start out with Russia collusions, they may wind up with Stormy Daniels, and then they’re off to the races.

And so, assuming Donald Trump did something else in his life, it seems to me a lot more likely they’re going to find that.

Judy Woodruff:  So, Ezra, I mean, just the fact, though, that these two people who are — had such a prominent role for — working for the President in his campaign for presidency, the campaign, and then the person who was his personal — they called him fixer, lawyer, whatever you want to call it, somebody close to him, Michael Cohen.

Ezra Klein, Vox.com:  Yes, it does seem like a tremendous coincidence that there was so much criminality and thuggish behavior all around Trump.

I think the thing that is important here is twofold.  Number one is what we’re actually seeing is tolerated around Donald Trump.  David’s right that I don’t think we know where any of this ends.  And I’m not sure that the things we have found out so far are going to lead to the unraveling or lead to impeachment.

But we only know what we know.  And what we also know is, there’s a huge amount we don’t know about the Donald Trump Organization, about the connections with Russia.  We know that Bob Mueller knows a lot more than we know.

And so, as we see different things come out, as you see what kind of behavior was tolerated, and even encouraged, right — the Michael Cohen behavior appears to have been directed by Donald Trump within the Trump Organization — that should change our estimation of what is going on in the things we don’t know.

The second thing that I just think is interesting and telling this week is Donald Trump coming out and saying that he thinks it ought to be illegal or potentially ought to be illegal, for low-level criminals to flip on their bosses, coming out and saying that what he really hates is rats.

We have a sort of President now saying that what he doesn’t like is snitches.  And people who don’t think they have a lot to hide don’t come out with principled objections to that kind of prosecutorial pressure.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, I don’t know whether we’re calling them flip — people who flip or not, David, but you have got the man we have been talking about tonight, Allen Weisselberg, who’s the man with the knowledge of the money inside the Trump business organization, on top of his good friend, a man named David Pecker, who runs the company that runs The National Enquirer.

They’re both cooperating.  They have been given immunity.

David Brooks:  And Cohen and, before that, Omarosa.

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

David Brooks:  I mean, one thing we have learned about Donald Trump is that he does't inspire a lot of lifelong personal loyalty, that, if you’re working with Trump, it’s not personal, it’s business.

And he turns on people like a dime.  And, as a result, people turn on him like a dime.  And so you have a lot of people who are loyal for pragmatic reasons right now in the White House and in the Republican Party, but it’s not because of any affection.

And so the lesson is, if things turn, they will probably turn all at once.  If it’s no longer useful to pretend you like Donald Trump, people are going to stop liking Donald Trump.  And so when something — if there is something big out there — and I want to caution us, we don’t know.

Judy Woodruff:  That’s true.

(CROSSTALK)

David Brooks:  But if there is something big out there, you will see a turn all at once, because there’s just not a lot of love there holding people to loyalty.

Judy Woodruff:  But is the President already weakened by this, Ezra, or do we just wait and watch and withhold judgment?

Ezra Klein:  I mean, I do think he’s weakened.  The question is weakened in what and in what way.

Long term, I think people underestimate how important Donald Trump’s drain the swamp, anti-corruption plank was to his 2016 victory.  It was a very close election.  And if you look at the final polls — there was a Washington Post/ABC News poll from just a couple days before the election.

The single category on which Trump led Hillary Clinton was corruption.  He was tied on the economy.  He was behind on immigration and national security and other things.  But people believed in him to clean up Washington, or at least believed in him more than they believed in her to do that.

Donald Trump has now had multiple Cabinet secretaries resign for corruption.  He’s had key people around him go to jail.  He’s under constant investigation.  Things around his family are very strange.

To give up that is going to be rough for the Republicans in 2018.  That’s already becoming an issue for the Democrats.  But, in 2020, I do think people underestimate how much more difficult it is going to be for him to run as the person who is now a paragon of Washington corruption, as opposed to its key enemy.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, how do you see that, David?

David Brooks:  It could be.

I mean, if you look at the polling — Ezra would know this better than me, but I saw in AP today where he was down to 38, so maybe there is some slippage.

I would just say, from my personal experience — I was with a lot of — some Trump people this week in North and South Carolina.  First of all, we didn’t talk about it.  We talked about politics and life in general.  But these scandals were just off the radar screen.

I certainly didn’t detect anybody who was a Trump supporter not being a Trump supporter.  So, as long as he has a death grip on the Republican Party, and as long as that death grip — or the loyalty is to Trump himself and not to the party, not to any position, which I think it is, he’s where he has been, with a very solid party really wrapped around his finger right now.

Judy Woodruff:  But, Ezra, this does seem to be giving pause to at least some of the Republicans.  They’re not abandoning him yet, but, in their language, in the way they’re talking about this, you sense a — I don’t know, a discomfort, at the very least.

Ezra Klein:  I think has been — I think there’s a lot of discomfort lurking very, very close to the surface.

(LAUGHTER)

Ezra Klein:  But, in general, I think this something that we always need to be careful with.

I think the media has a tendency to think about Trump’s support as this one kind of thing.  And so we will go and talk to very die-hard Trump supporters and say, OK, do you still support Donald Trump?  And they will say, of course I do.

Donald Trump clearly has a base of support, and it’s big.  It looks to be around 30-ish percentage points in the polls.  There’s a Morning Consult that — this is way too early to do, but matched Donald Trump up against every Democrat they could think of.

And what was surprising was that the support for Democrats varied a lot, from people like Joe Biden, who people knew, to Montana Governor Bullock, who they didn’t.  But what didn’t change was Trump supporters, always right around 30 percent.

The key for Trump is not strong Republicans who support him.  The question is that sort of 5, 10 percentage points that pushed them over the edge.  That’s the people who he can’t lose.  And while they’re probably not paying a huge amount of in-and-out attention — a lot of these folks might be less attached to politics than, say, the people in this room — they’re also not die-hard Trump supporters.

And if they begin to think he is part of the problem, that’s where things get very dangerous for him, because his margins have been small.  And, also, the coming election is 2018.  And Republicans, they don’t have his personal charisma.

TRUMP - In Legal Cross-Hairs

"What we know about Don McGahn’s cooperation with the Mueller probe" PBS NewsHour 8/20/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Another member of President Trump's team has been working with special counsel Robert Mueller, according to the New York Times.  White House Counsel Don McGahn has reportedly shared detailed accounts about events at the heart of the investigation.  Amna Nawaz reports, and Judy Woodruff talks with former deputy independent counsel Solomon Wisenberg, and former White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler.

"What does Michael Cohen’s guilty plea mean for Trump?" PBS NewsHour 8/21/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty on Tuesday to charges including campaign finance violations for paying off women at Trump's direction, bank fraud and more than $4 million in tax evasion.  The deal could result in prison time.  Judy Woodruff learns more from Jessica Roth of Yeshiva University Cardozo School of Law, [and] Andrea Bernstein of WNYC.

"How Paul Manafort’s conviction could affect the Russia probe" PBS NewsHour 8/21/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A jury found President Trump's 2016 campaign chairman Paul Manafort guilty on eight counts of bank and tax fraud, and failing to disclose foreign bank accounts.  A mistrial was declared on 10 other counts.  Judy Woodruff learns more from William Brangham and Jessica Roth of Yeshiva University Cardozo School of Law.

"How are Republicans and Democrats reacting to Cohen and Manafort charges?" PBS NewsHour 8/22/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Fallout continued today after a guilty plea and a guilty verdict for two men with close ties to President Trump in federal court on a combined 16 counts, ranging from tax fraud to campaign finance violations.  Yamiche Alcindor, Lisa Desjardins, and Larry Noble a campaign finance expert and former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission, join Judy Woodruff to discuss the latest developments.

"Does Cohen plea have legal implications for the President?" PBS NewsHour 8/22/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Lanny Davis is one of two attorneys representing Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal lawyer.  Davis joins Judy Woodruff to discuss the legal implications of Cohen’s guilty plea, whether he plans to share information with the Mueller investigation and his desire to go forward with truth in his new life.

"Former AG Mukasey: there’s ‘not really’ an election law problem with Cohen" PBS NewsHour 8/22/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  For another perspective on Michael Cohen’s guilty plea, Judy Woodruff is joined by a former attorney general under President George W. Bush, Michael Mukasey.  According to Mukasey, the payment in question would have violated campaign finance law only if its sole purpose was to influence the outcome of an election, which Mukasey says was not the case.

"Cohen crimes ‘totally unrelated to the campaign,’ says Trump" PBS NewsHour 8/23/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump today reiterated his belief that he is not implicated by the guilty pleas of his former lawyer, Michael Cohen.  The President expressed frustration that he should be associated with Cohen’s crimes, saying they were “totally unrelated to the campaign.”  Also, another longtime Trump friend is reportedly preparing to share additional information about the hush money payments Cohen made.

"A second top Trump associate receives legal immunity" PBS NewsHour 8/24/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In exchange for immunity, the Trump Organization's chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, will reportedly talk to investigators about the reimbursements he helped arrange to Michael Cohen.  Judy Woodruff gets analysis from Renato Mariotti a former federal prosecutor experienced in trying white-collar crime, and Caleb Melby who covers business and the Trump Organization for Bloomberg News.

TRUMP - On Tape

"What does Trump on tape reveal about the plan to pay off a former Playboy model?" PBS NewsHour 7/25/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The President’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen released a recording of then-candidate Trump in which they seem to discuss a possible payment to the chief of a media company that reportedly agreed to pay a former Playboy model for her story alleging an affair with Trump.  Yamiche Alcindor reports, then Judy Woodruff gets analysis from former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti.

TRUMP - The Investigations

"Schiff: ‘Disturbing number’ of Trump campaign members met with Russians and lied about it" PBS NewsHour 7/23/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The release of previously classified FISA warrants by the Justice Department set off a new round of political fighting over the FBI's monitoring of the Trump campaign's former adviser Carter Page.  Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) says President Trump is counting on people not to read the documents.  Schiff joins Judy Woodruff to discuss Page, a White House threat over security clearances, and more.

MUELLER PROBE - Who, What, and Fallout

"Where is Mueller's probe headed?  Indictments and surprise plea agreement offer clues" PBS NewsHour 10/30/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Russia investigation entered a new phase Monday with indictments for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy Rick Gates, and news of a guilty plea from a former Trump advisor for lying to the FBI about his connections to Russia.  Lisa Desjardins reports and Judy Woodruff gets a breakdown of today's indictments from Carrie Johnson of NPR.

"The charges against Manafort, Gates and Papadopoulos, explained by veteran prosecutors" PBS NewsHour 10/30/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Money laundering, tax fraud and lying to the FBI are some of the charges revealed Monday as part of Robert Mueller's probe.  Two former federal prosecutors experienced in handling high-stakes investigations -- Peter Zeidenberg and former Justice Department official John Carlin -- join Judy Woodruff to offer a deeper look at the legal details and what they mean going forward.

"What it was like to be in the White House when the first Mueller indictments came down" PBS NewsHour 10/31/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Since the unsealing of criminal charges and pleas as part of the Russia investigation, the White House has distanced itself from Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and George Papadopoulos.  But how did President Trump and White House officials react behind the scenes?  Judy Woodruff learns more from Ashley Parker of the Washington Post.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 6/16/2017

"Shields and Brooks on Trump's response to Russia probe, Scalise shooting" PBS NewsHour 6/16/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week's news, including the latest developments in the Russia probe and how President Trump has been reacting to reports that he is being investigated for possible obstruction of justice, plus the state of political polarization in light of a shooting targeting GOP lawmakers.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

So, gentlemen, it's been another tumultuous week, on top of several others.  We have had the attorney general of the United States testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee.  And then we learned, I guess in the last 48 hours, Mark, that the investigation by the Special Counsel into the Russia meddling in the election has been expanded to include whether or not the President committed obstruction of justice.

Is this a one-alarm crisis, two-alarm?  Are we making too big a deal of this?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist:  Well, based on what the President — how the President's reacting, Judy, I don't think we're making too big a deal of it.

I mean, the President, having acted briefly Presidential after the tragedy of the shooting of Steve Scalise and the others at the baseball field, has reverted to form and gone back to, as you reported at the outset, now the man who told me to fire the FBI director is after me because — is investigating me because of firing of the FBI director, which is totally contradictory to what the President said to Lester Holt on NBC, that the recommendation of Rod Rosenstein had nothing to do with his decision to fire James Comey as FBI director, that it was based solely on Donald Trump's desire, as he expressed to the Russians the next day in the Oval Office, to get the Russian investigation behind him.

And so I just think that he is behaving like a man who really wants to fire Robert Mueller and, you know, who didn't live through October 20, 1973, when President Nixon ordered Elliot Richardson to fire Archibald Cox and the independent counsel, and he refused and resigned.  And William Rucklehaus, his deputy, resigned.

And we had a constitutional crisis.  And it led to impeachment hearings.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  The President is calling it a witch-hunt, David.

The White House is saying he didn't — isn't going to fire the Special Counsel.  But it isn't clear.  There have been reports out about that.

DAVID BROOKS, The New York Times:  Yes, it may be a witch-hunt, but he's acting like a witch.

(LAUGHTER)

DAVID BROOKS:  To me, we have had this — the idea that there has been collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign has been investigated for a long time.  And so far, we have had no really serious evidence that they did collude, and everything else seems to be leaking out.

So, I begin to be a little suspicious — and maybe I'm wrong — we will see over the long term — whether there was any actual act of collusion.  There were certainly conversations maybe about some building and some investment, but so far, no evidence of an underlying crime.

But this, to me, is not a criminal story.  It is a psychological story.  And it's a story about a President who seems to be under more pressure, under more threat, lashing out in ways that are painfully self-destructive, but also extremely disturbing to anybody around him.

And so whether it's the North Korean Cabinet hearing that he held recently, where they all had to praise him, or the tweets as late as this morning, this is not a President who is projecting mental stability.

And the idea that he will fire somebody, whether it's Mueller or anybody else, seems very plausible.  And so, to me, if there is something really damaging here, it's something that has not yet happened caused by the psychological pressure that he apparently feels.

-----

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Is this coming together at all, Mark?  Do you see any enduring — any endurance of that, or is that just — is it just going to be a blip?

MARK SHIELDS:  You hope, Judy, but to David’s point, both parties — according to Pew Research, in both parties, what drives the most activist wing is not support and energy and advocacy of their own side.  It’s loathing of the other side.

That’s the gauge as to whether you’re going to be politically involved, you’re going to vote, and whether you’re going to contribute, how much do you loathe the other party, how much do you hate them.

And there was a time, I will be very blunt, when I came to Washington, when the legitimacy of your opponent was never questioned.  You questioned their judgment.  You questioned their opinions or their arguments, but you never their legitimacy.

And that changed.  And it changed.  And one of the reasons it changed is that a man was elected from the state of Georgia who ran on the book, and the book was, you use these words.  You use sick.  You refer pathetic, traitor, liar, corrupt, shame, enemy of normal Americans.

This was Newt Gingrich’s bible.  It wasn’t an idea of a policy.  It wasn’t a program.  He used it and he became successful.  He became Speaker of the House.

Donald Trump is a clone of Newt Gingrich.  Donald Trump used, Donald Trump, lying Ted, and lightweight Bobby Jindal, and Mitt Romney choked like a dog, and used that language.

And you’re right.  The left has used similar language and there has been a response and almost a premium on going after Trump in the same sort of language.  But there’s been no punishment.  There’s no political downside for this tactic.

THE RESISTANCE - Shouldn’t Jared Kushner Be Arrested?

The Resistance

with Keith Olbermann

EGYPTAIR MS804 - Scrambling for Answers

"Solving the mystery of vanished EgyptAir Flight 804" PBS NewsHour 5/19/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The mysterious disappearance of EgyptAir Flight 804 and its 66 passengers somewhere over the Mediterranean Sea has left the international community scrambling for answers.  For more on what could have happened to the flight, Hari Sreenivasan talks to former National Transportation Safety Board chair Deborah Hersman and former Deputy National Security Adviser Juan Zarate.

HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour):  We return to EgyptAir Flight 804 and what could have happened to it.

Deborah Hersman served as chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board from 2009 to 2014 and is now president of the National Safety Council, a nonprofit organization devoted to reducing preventable deaths and injuries.  And Juan Zarate was deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism during the President George W. Bush administration.  He's currently the chairman of the Financial Integrity Network, a consulting firm.

Deborah Hersman, I want to start with you.

At this stage, what are investigators thinking about?  What are they looking for?

DEBORAH HERSMAN, Former Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board:  Really, the first 24 hours, they're focused on response, recovery, and search for the aircraft, and so you can see clearly that's something that was a focus in this investigation.

But you want to gather any perishable evidence that might exist.  You want to make sure you know who needs to be interviewed, that you're able to connect all of the dots very early in the investigation and grab any of that information.

Analyzing the radar data is going to be important, because what they need to do now is pinpoint where that aircraft is, so they can identify not just the aircraft, the parts and take care of the humans, but also get those black boxes, which are really important to the investigation.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  Juan Zarate, given what little evidence has come out so far, what are the signs that point to fowl play?

JUAN ZARATE, Former Deputy National Security Adviser:  Well, there aren't many signs.

And part of the reason you want to gather as much data and forensics as possible early on is try to give you clues.  But authorities are indicating there weren't signs in terms of intelligence that a threat was pending or threatening this particular airline or this route.

There has been no claim of responsibility yet, and certainly we don't have any evidence that we have seen physically that would demonstrate this is terrorism.  But we know terrorists have historically targeted aircraft.  It has psychological, human and economic impact.

We know that al-Qaida and ISIS have been perfecting technologies and trying to hit us on aircraft over the years, whether it's the underwear bomb plot out of Yemen, the shoe and liquid bomb plots out of the U.K., or even the downing of the Metrojet, the Russian airliner out of the Sinai by ISIS.

They have been trying to do this.  And they have had expert bomb-makers trying to figure out ways of evading the security technology that we have, Ibrahim al-Asiri, the master bomb-maker in Yemen who has been training individuals for years, as well as the Khorasan group, a senior group of al-Qaida figures in Syria that up to 2014 were trying to perfect non-metallic devices that could get on aircraft.

"Families weep as debris from EgyptAir disaster found in the Mediterranean Sea" PBS NewsHour 5/20/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Authorities on Friday said they found debris from EgyptAir Flight 804, which a day earlier plunged 38,000 feet into the Mediterranean Sea.  Relatives of the 66 people on the plane mourned as harsh reality set in.  Mystery still surrounds the cause — terrorism or catastrophic mechanical failure?  John Yang reports, and science correspondent Miles O'Brien gives his analysis of what we know so far.

Aviation Herald