[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Happy Monday. Happy Lunar New Year for those of you who celebrate the Lunar New Year. Later in the hour, we'll talk to the first Chinese American Council member ever from Brooklyn in the New York City Council. We'll talk about Lunar New Year and a lot of New York City policy things. This week begins in national politics with some things you probably have heard about regarding President Biden, and at least one thing you may not have heard about regarding former President Trump.

At a campaign rally in South Carolina on Saturday, Trump actually encouraged Russia to attack NATO nations, our NATO allies, even France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. What? The context was Trump's insistence that NATO countries meet the goal in the NATO obligation agreement to spend 2% of their annual budgets on defense. That's a legitimate issue. Countries not meeting it include Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Trump said if they don't increase the defense spending to that threshold, the US would not help defend them if Russia attacks.

The even more astonishing part, the part that would have made much more news if we weren't becoming numb to Trump's making common cause with authoritarians who support him, was when he actually encouraged, he used the word encourage, any country, presumably Russia, you'll hear the context, to do so with no US response. Here it is.

Donald Trump: They asked me that question. One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, "Well, sir, if we don't pay and we're attacked by Russia, will you protect us?" I said, "You didn't pay, you delinquent?" He said, "Yes." Let's say that happened. No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.

Brian Lehrer: It was actually that. It was actually that start. Trump encouraging Russia, actually by name, not even by implication, to attack our NATO allies if they're not spending a certain amount of money on defense. Trump at a campaign rally in South Carolina on Saturday. As for Biden, he continues to try to limit fallout from the classified documents special counsel report that questioned his mental acuity and keep the focus on his accomplishments in office, and he is more openly criticizing Israel's devastating military campaign in Gaza now, but with the urgency of a coming assault in Rafa with respect to civilians, will Biden do anything about it?

Then there's what USA Today calls the meltdown in the House of Representatives last week with Speaker Mike Johnson losing back-to-back votes to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Johnson's version of an aid to Israel bill. With us now, the person who wrote that article, USA Today Washington bureau chief, Susan Page. Her latest article published yesterday that includes that reference to the meltdown in the house is also about Biden and Trump election campaign developments. She is the author of a new book coming out in April. We'll have her back for a book interview about TV journalist Barbara Walters. Susan, always good to have you. Welcome back to WNYC.

Susan Page: Hey, Brian. It's always good to be with you.

Brian Lehrer: Your article yesterday did reference that Trump line, encouraging attacks by Russia on NATO allies that don't spend their full 2% on defense. Is anyone in Washington reacting to the implications of that for the United States or democracy anywhere in the world or does everybody just shrug when Trump says things like this now?

Susan Page: I think there's a partisan divide. I think Democrats are reacting, calling it dangerous and perilous, an example of why Donald Trump should not be elected to another term in office, but from Republicans here, including some Republicans who are very much in the more establishment wing of the party when it comes to foreign policy, there was mostly just a big drug. We heard Marco Rubio, the Florida senator who is the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee say he had zero concern about what Trump said because he said this is just Trump talking, this is just how he talks.

Brian Lehrer: I saw that that quote of Rubio and it was in your article. Rubio said he has zero concern because that's just how Trump talks, but he also said there has to be an alliance. Those two things are inconsistent. If he supports an alliance, NATO alliance, he can't support Trump's cavalier threat to end the alliance. Trump increasingly is being seen as somebody who means what he says when he says these outrageous things or things that many people receive as outrageous.

Before he was president, people would say, "Well, he'll be a normal president when in office." I think we can say that was not consistently the case, but coming from Marco Rubio, who comes from the Florida Cuban community that so values the US standing up to dictators for human rights, can't Rubio say what he really thinks of Trump as a threat if he runs US foreign policy? Unless he really doesn't think Trump means what he says.

Susan Page: I think it's an example not that people don't think Trump means what he says, I think we've all come to the conclusion that Trump means what he says. I think it's more an example of the takeover of the Republican Party because those who have in the past spoken up against Trump on this and other issues are mostly no longer in office. If you look at the Republicans who are in Washington now, they have, I think, mostly concluded that it is a dangerous thing to speak up against Trump on these issues, even if your beliefs are different, and even if you're working behind the scenes to implement some other policies.

We see now in the Senate, Senate Republicans working toward aid to Ukraine in a bipartisan way even as Trump is speaking out against it. Standing up to Trump is something that very, very few Republicans are now willing to do.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, I see your comments are already starting to come in on this on texts. We're going to open up the phones too. Any Republicans listening right now who value the NATO alliance, who value what you see as America's role in the world, standing up for democracy, for example, however imperfect, and are alarmed by Trump saying that thing in particular that he said on Saturday or do you also believe that Trump doesn't mean what he says? Is there not enough evidence that Trump does mean what he says and will plan to follow through?

Any Republicans out there, Trump supporters or not Trump supporters, how do you take it? Any Cuban Americans listening right now who, like Marco Rubio, may be relatively internationalist, relatively defense hawks, see this as a threat to the values that you think you came to the United States or your ancestors and your family did to uphold for that kind of freedom or anything related? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692.

We're going to get to Biden and Netanyahu in just a minute. You can call on that too or what's been happening in the House of Representatives and elsewhere on the Biden and Trump campaigns. Any of these national politics things this Monday morning for Susan Page, Washington Bureau chief of USA Today. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692 call or text. By the way, Susan-- Oh, look at this, Susan. Someone just texted happy birthday, Susan Page. Is that an accurate reference?

Susan Page: It is. It is my birthday, and there's no one I'd rather celebrate it than with you and your listeners, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: What are you really going to do later? Are you at liberty to say?

Susan Page: We had a combination Mardi Gras, Super Bowl birthday party with my family last night. We celebrated then.

Brian Lehrer: That is really great. I didn't even mention Mardi Gras, I said Lunar New Year, but also Mardi Gras. That's so many things to celebrate all at once, especially if you're a Chiefs fan. Are you a Chiefs fan?

Susan Page: Oh, you bet. I was born and raised in Wichita, so the Chiefs are in the neighborhood.

Brian Lehrer: This is not what I thought we were going to talk about today, but do you think there is any reason to believe that Taylor Swift, especially now that her boyfriend is team won the Super Bowl and so they can be winners and not losers, can have an impact on presidential election? I know there's this weird conspiracy theory going around that-- I don't know. What was it? They were going to get engaged on the field yesterday, and it was all being orchestrated by the NFL in cahoots with the Biden campaign. That's just crazy tunes. If she decides to get politically involved, I think we can be pretty confident it would not be on Trump's side. Can Taylor Swift, as huge as she is, matter in this election at all?

Susan Page: She is pretty amazing, I've got to say. We're all Swifties now. There's one way in which I think it's possible she would do. She's in the past encouraged people to vote, encouraged young people in particular to vote. When she did that, it seemed to have an effect in convincing some of her fans to vote when maybe they wouldn't have otherwise. That could be a really positive and not a particularly partisan way she could help our democracy. I hope she does that.

Brian Lehrer: Back to Trump and the Republican Party, and the Ukraine vote you mentioned a minute ago, does Trump saying that thing about Russia should attack, or encouraging Russia to attack NATO allies if they don't pay enough money for defense line up with increasing Republican reluctance to fund Ukraine as the American GOP is actually becoming more aligned with Putin than with Western Europe, and that will be actionable if Trump wins the election?

Susan Page: Yes. Trump has long praised Putin, admired Putin, been unwilling to challenge Putin. I think that you could see that to absolutely have an effect on US support for Ukraine in its war with Russia. The other way in which Trump could have an impact here is just as general America first foreign policy that envisions a world in which the United States withdraws from being the leader in supporting Ukraine or being even a reliable partner in the NATO alliance.

Although it seems quite stunning to say that as a serious prospect, but I think you would have to conclude that if Trump is elected, that the NATO partnership would no longer view the United States the same way it's viewed it since the alliance was formed.

Brian Lehrer: I want to read some texts that are coming in. Listener writes, "I have family in Europe who grew up in the shadow of the USSR during the Cold War. America's threat was hypothetical compared to theirs given their proximity," meaning the Soviet Union's. "Trump's statements are frightening beyond belief. Haven't we learned that we need to believe him when he says outrageous things? Thank you and happy birthday, Susan," she throws in here.

Susan Page: [laughs]

Brian Lehrer: Anna in Brooklyn. Then here's a couple of interesting ones on a certain aspect of this. Listener writes, "I find it ironic that Donald Trump insists on NATO allies paying their bills when he is renowned for not paying his." Another one like that, "Funny that Trump talks about allies paying their bills when he's been reputed to be a deadbeat himself, including in stiffing his friend, Giuliani." I don't know if that's just my creative listeners, or if any Democrats in Washington are making that comparison.

Susan Page: No, I haven't heard that, but that is an interesting point to make. There's one Republican who has been criticizing Trump on his NATO comments. That's Nikki Haley, who, of course, is the last person standing between him and the Republican nomination, and she may be history by the South Carolina primary later this month. She has quite forcefully articulated what you think of as the Republican view, the view of, say, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, and the Republicans in recent history, but she is a pretty lonely voice.

Brian Lehrer: Here is, let's see, Maeve in the Bronx, you're on WNYC. Hi, Maeve.

Maeve: Oh, hi. Thanks so much for having me. I think that Trump's comments about encouraging Russia to attack, it's the perfect snapshot of why Democrats can't really nail him down and Republicans still stick with him because he's hitting on an issue of what are the consequences for NATO members that don't comply with the agreement. That's an outstanding open question that remains after his comments. My fear is that Democrats are only going to focus on the outrage of him encouraging Russia to attack, and aren't really going to address the core point, which is, what do we do with our allies that aren't really with us in practice not paying the defense fees?

Brian Lehrer: Susan?

Susan Page: Maeve, it's interesting that what Trump said, which has sparked, as you say, outrage in some quarters, actually resonates, I think, with many of his supporters, just generally with his supporters. The idea that he's calling out allies who have not met their obligation or the expectation of what they're going to contribute to NATO defenses. That's something that Republicans and Democrats have talked about in the past, although not with the threat that Trump gave.

The idea that he's willing to say outrageous things or things that other people might just think, but not think were politically correct or maybe wise to say out loud, that's always been part of Trump's appeal, that willingness to be outrageous and outspoken. I don't doubt that this is not hurting him with his own base, this is helping him with his base.

Brian Lehrer: Maeve, thank you very much. Mike in South Orange may be part of that base or at least point out that Trump is at least right on the issue, perhaps. Mike, you're on WNYC. Thank you for calling in.

Mike: I just wanted to point out that why is it up to the US taxpayer to pay for all these other nations' defense? Why should it be our burden, and not them also contributing an equal amount per their GDP, right?

Brian Lehrer: It's a legitimate question. As you were saying, Susan, Trump has latched onto this issue, and he's taken it beyond the moon, but what about the issue? I'm sure a lot of listeners who are unfamiliar with the underlying issue here think, what is this NATO obligation that all the NATO members have agreed to, and why aren't they living up to it? The US spent so much money on defense, a lot more than Democrats in many cases would like to see it spend on the military. Why can't Italy do their share, Germany do their share, Spain do its share? Canada even is on that list of not meeting the 2%.

Susan Page: Fair point. Trump's hard-line would surely encourage NATO allies to think about meeting that 2% mark that they're supposed to meet, and many of them have not met. I think you do want to then ask-- One reason it's been hard to pressure, I think, some NATO allies to meet that mark is the thought of lack of consequences, the belief that the United States would be there in an emergency in a case of a Russian invasion, whether they do or not. This is surely-- Trump supporters can think of this as the leverage that can force them to deliver, but it is also one that undermines confidence in the United States to live up to its word about what the alliance means and what the United States is willing to do in the case of an attack on a NATO ally. There are consequences to that as well.

Brian Lehrer: Many more issues to talk about with Susan Page, Washington bureau chief of USA Today, with so much going on in DC right now and internationally. Stay with us. Brian Lehrer on WNYC.

[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. I'm going to pass along a little breaking news that just came in. With the forecast for five to nine inches of snow in New York City tomorrow, the city has just announced that its schools will be going remote tomorrow for snow. What? They still do remote learning in New York City schools? What? It still snows here? It hasn't really snowed here for years. Heads up, parents. Snow day, remote learning day. There are no snow days, apparently, anymore. We actually get the day off. Instead, it becomes a remote learning day, so that is now being scheduled for tomorrow, at least in the New York City school system.

We'll check on other ones in our area if they're going to do that, too. We'll talk about this, among many other things, with city council member, Susan Chuang from Brooklyn, who's going to be our next guest after Susan Page, Washington bureau chief for USA Today, who is still with us now. Susan, let me turn next to the Middle East. Israel has announced plans for a massive new military push in the southern city of Rafah, which they say is Hamas' last stronghold. They say they rescued two hostages there in the last day, I guess, but Rafah is exactly where Israel had previously told more than a million Palestinians to take refuge. On Thursday, President Biden seemed to go further in his language than at any time before in criticizing Prime Minister Netanyahu's military approach.

Joe Biden: The conduct of the response in the Gaza Strip has been over the top.

Brian Lehrer: That was Thursday, over the top made a lot of news. The president spoke to Netanyahu on the phone yesterday, it's being reported, and issued a statement yesterday saying, "A military operation in Rafah should not proceed without a credible and executable plan," for protecting civilians. Again, that's a direct statement from the White House. A military operation in Rafah should not proceed without a credible and executable plan.

On ABC this week, yesterday morning, their host, Jonathan Karl, put a version of that concern directly to Israeli prime minister, Netanyahu.

Jonathan Karl: They're living in tents. Where are these people supposed to go?

Netanyahu: Rafah is a very small percentage of Gaza, and I think it's about 10% or 15%. [unintelligible 00:21:35] area north of Gaza that has already been cleared.

Jonathan Karl: There's an estimate of 1.4 million people in that area right now. As the German foreign minister said, they can't just disappear. Where are they supposed to go?

Netanyahu: No. The areas that we've cleared, north of Rafah, plenty of areas there. We are working out a detailed plan to do so, and that's what we've done up to now. We're not cavalier about this. This is part of our war effort to get civilians out of harm's way.

Brian Lehrer: Netanyahu on ABC, but Biden obviously, Susan, does not seem to believe there is a credible plan. From what you can tell, does anyone in Washington believe there is?

Susan Page: No. I think the credibility of Prime Minister Netanyahu when it comes to the protection of civilians in Gaza is really low here. Now, some people are quite outraged about that, and some people are more on the side of Israel doing whatever it takes in the wake of the October 7th attack. Just the rescue of the hostages yesterday where two hostages were rescued, that's a good thing, but more than 60 Palestinians were killed in the strikes that were taken to be a diversion during the hostage rescue. That's a terrible thing, too.

This is a situation that has really bedeviled the administration in particular. We see President Biden showing flashes of being increasingly unhappy with Israel and specifically Netanyahu, but really struggling to find a way to effectively pressure Israel to behave in a different manner.

Brian Lehrer: Struggling to find or struggling with his own willingness.

Susan Page: Fair enough. Even if the administration were willing, here's the debate you'd hear from an administration official, what exactly could they do? They could slow down the sale of US weapons to Israel. They could recognize a Palestinian state. They could put conditions on aid. That's something that's come up in Congress. The administration has been unwilling to do any of those things because it wants to continue to show support for Israel, but the deaths of civilians in Gaza has become pretty horrific and something that is both a foreign policy problem, a problem of morality, and an increasingly big political problem for the Biden administration.

Brian Lehrer: Right. Horrific is even to put it mildly, talk about things that many Americans are becoming numb to, although many Americans are not. If we accept the generally accepted death tolls of around 1,200 Israelis killed on October 7th and around 28,000 Gazans killed so far in the response, that's an October 7th every six days since October 7th. When you talk about placing conditions, that's been discussed in Congress, but Biden won't do it.

Let me replay a clip of Senator Bernie Sanders that we first used after he said it on CNN a few weeks ago and ask you why Biden didn't support the bill that Sanders refers to here.

Senator Bernie Sanders: We're talking about 16,000 Palestinians dead, 70% of whom are women and children. You're talking about 1.9 million people displaced from their homes. Half of the buildings, the housing units in Gaza have either been destroyed or damaged. Bottom line is, yes, Israel has a right to defend itself against Hamas terrorism, but the type of military strategy they're using now is inhumane. It's in violation of international law. We should not give a blank check to Netanyahu to continue that policy.

Brian Lehrer: Bernie Sanders on CNN a few weeks ago. Those numbers are a little bit out of gate. Susan, when I listened to Bernie Sanders there, he's not calling for Israel not to exist as a Jewish state. He's not supporting Hamas' attack as some kind of legitimate decolonization strategy, anything that delegitimizes Israel or its right to self-defense, he explicitly said they have a right to defend themselves after October 7th.

He would put US teeth in this country's judgment of the humanity of the response by placing conditions on future aid. As Biden says increasingly critical things about Netanyahu, why did he reject Bernie Sanders's resolution?

Susan Page: I can't speak to that Bernie Sanders's resolution. I would say when you talk to administration officials in private, they would say things very similar to what Bernie Sanders just said in that clip. Here's what they are. You can think they're doing enough or not. Even in the administration, I think many think they are not going far enough to protect the refugees in Gaza. They are sending the CIA director, Bill Burns, to the region tomorrow for talks that are aimed at negotiating a temporary ceasefire and a release of hostages, exchange of prisoners, that the administration's been somewhat-- optimism is not a word you get to use in the Middle East, but an arrangement that the administration thinks might possibly be able to be enacted and provide at least a temporary ceasefire.

No one who can see what's happening there can be happy about the situation. That would include, I think, administration officials, and perhaps-- and I think even the president himself who has said to speak privately with great concern about what's happening and with some heat toward Netanyahu for the policies he's pursuing.

Brian Lehrer: Here's the some heat part. I guess you saw this. NBC News is reporting this morning citing five sources that Biden has in recent weeks used contemptuous references to Netanyahu as "this guy". These sources said, and in at least three recent instances, Biden has called Netanyahu an a blank hole, using the hole word there, according to three of the people directly familiar with his comments, says NBC.

Biden never acts on these statements in policy in any way. I'm just curious. Maybe this is the same question that I asked you three minutes ago, and there's no further answer, but as he continues to say these things and feel these things but do nothing about the killing of so many civilians that he objects to, despite the urgency of this new wave about to begin in Rafah, do we expect anything more from Biden on this in the coming days?

Susan Page: The frustration you're expressing is one that many people feel, and I don't know what he's going to do in the coming days, but you can-- This is cold comfort to people who are concerned about what's happening in Gaza. You have seen a stepping up of criticism of Israel, some of it anonymously as with that NBC story that you were just quoting. That is a bit of a warning sign to Israel.

We'll see what Bill Burns is able to do in his meeting starting tomorrow, and we'll see if the administration is willing to put policy behind their concern and the situation in Rafah, especially if an Israeli assault begins there. The readout from the President's phone call yesterday was a little more-- the White House readout was more candid than usual in saying that Israel must not go forward with this assault until they have an actionable plan to protect refugees. If the administration wanted to use that as a device to take action against Israel if Israel goes ahead with that assault, I think that is possible, but we'll have to wait and see. I have no more insight into what it is the administration might be willing to do.

Brian Lehrer: One thing that a number of people are pointing out on text messages, which is fair, listener writes, "Palestinian fighters, 15,000 reported dead, included in Hamas' count of 28,000 Palestinian casualties." Another listener just writes, "Gaza numbers include the Hamas army." Another listener writes, "The truth is that no one knows how many civilian resident non-combatants of Gaza have been killed." I think that's all true. When we talk about the numbers, yes, some number of thousand of them are no doubt Hamas fighters.

Does the administration, which I think accepts the general number of 28,000 deaths so far, say-- I don't imagine Israel does, or maybe they do. Does the administration or other supposedly neutral sources say how many of those deaths really are civilians and how many deaths are Hamas fighters?

Susan Page: I haven't heard any detailed discussion of that, but I would say one way we could get more reliable numbers is if Israel would let journalists into Gaza. They've been unwilling to do that, and we've seen the deaths of more-- The journalists we have in Gaza are the generally Palestinian journalists who live there and who have been trapped there with everyone else and have continued, many of them, to do reporting. The number of journalists killed in Gaza is quite remarkable. I haven't checked this, but I heard someone say the number of deaths has been quite remarkable, and by one measure, more deaths in this conflict between Israel and Hamas than the number of journalists killed during World War II.

I would say to Israel, let Western journalists into Gaza so that we know more about what's happening there and how serious Israel is about protecting refugees, and about how many refugees have been killed.

Brian Lehrer: Yes, many journalists. We're going to look up the number. Last I saw, it was scores and scores of journalists, and I think more in these several months of this war than in the entire two years of the war in Ukraine so far, for example. I guess even if we accept the number that the particular listener wrote in, that 15,000 of the 28,000 people killed were Hamas fighters, let's say that's true, that's still 13,000 civilians. That's October 7th. It's still obviously a big topic of moral debate, whichever side of it people land on.

Here is information from the Committee to Protect Journalists. This says, "As of today, February 12th, the Committee to Protect Journalists preliminary investigation showed at least 85 journalists and media workers were among the more than 28,000 since the war began."

Susan Page: 85 journalists killed there. That's really just a remarkable number and a terrible thing.

Brian Lehrer: With that, let's go on to the House of Representatives. How did Speaker Mike Johnson manage to bring two big votes to the floor last week that he thought would pass, including his version of an aid to Israel package, which he very much supports, and an impeachment vote on Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas over the border? They both failed.

Susan Page: Hey, it's pretty amazing. They thought they were going to pass. That is a failure of the ability to count votes. He said Al Green, the Democratic congressman who had been in the hospital, came back to vote. That was a big surprise. As Nancy Pelosi who knows how to count votes said after this debacle for Mike Johnson, she did not go to the floor of the House for a vote unless she knew she had the votes and a couple in her pocket, because sometimes you need that. That is clearly a lesson that Mike Johnson is just beginning to learn.

Brian Lehrer: What happens next on either of those items?

Susan Page: He's going to bring the impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas back up. It may well pass this time, although we don't think there's any chance he'll actually be convicted if impeached in the Senate. The national security aid votes for Israel, for Ukraine, and for Taiwan, that's still a work in some progress, especially if the Senate moves ahead and acts on Wednesday as we think they will with a funding bill on that.

Brian Lehrer: What's happening with the Senate bipartisan compromise on a border crackdown in exchange for Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan aid, plus humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Gaza is also in that bill? Is it dead for real, or can that one come back? If they can bring back the Mayorkas impeachment with fail, can the Senate bring back its bipartisan border bill?

Susan Page: They could. Do you think they will? I don't think so. It was a remarkable bipartisan effort to try to address this serious issue but by the time they got finished, there were questions about whether the House would pass it, and then Donald Trump spoke against it and it just disappeared.

Brian Lehrer: Biden and the classified documents special counsel who called Biden old and questioned his mental acuity, here are two of Biden's responses at his hastily called Thursday night news conference on the allegation that Biden couldn't remember when his son, Beau, died.

President Biden: How in hell dare he raise that? Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself it wasn't any of their damn business. I don't need anyone to remind me when he passed away.

Brian Lehrer: Then there was this response to the question in the news conference that we will hear from a Fox News correspondent.

Fox News Correspondent: How bad is your memory, and can you continue as president?

President Biden: My memory is so bad I let you speak.

Brian Lehrer: Ha-ha-ha. When we have all these existential policy debates, and certainly, we learned there that Biden can be angry, passionate, sarcastic, and a little bit funny, and he's obviously running policy and doing many ambitious things, agree or disagree on the merits, how is this one set of comments in a report becoming the big story in the campaign?

Susan Page: I think the comments in the special prosecutor's report are becoming a big thing for two reasons. One, Republicans are going to focus on them as a line of attack. Secondly, they touch on an issue that even Americans who very much support President Biden worry about, and that's his age and the toll of age. Part of being president is public. Part of it is private, running things, policy, passing legislation, all that, but part of it is the public part of connecting with voters and representing the country.

I remember the first president I covered, Ronald Reagan, was once asked, "How can an actor be president," and he responded, "How can someone who is not an actor be president?" Because there is a performative aspect of it that reassures Americans, it connects with Americans. I think Biden has had some trouble doing that. As example A, the failure to do the decision not to do that traditional Super Bowl interview last night. That is a way to connect with Americans in a relatively low-risk interview, and the White House decided not to do it. I think that reinforces these questions that are raised in the special prosecutor's report.

Brian Lehrer: I guess it's fair to say that it's a campaign strategy to lay low, and you're suggesting that, yes, often a president does an interview during the Super Bowl. It's good publicity, it's also presiding over a national event, and that Biden doesn't think he would stand up well in even a friendly Super Bowl one-on-one interview?

Susan Page: Right. It's not entirely friendly. I'm sure that CBS would have asked some tough questions of the day, but it's not the most hostile of occasions. Doing interviews, doing news conferences, making speeches, interacting in spontaneous ways with voters, these are things we think of as part of the job description of being president, along with setting policy and direction and directing things behind the scenes.

Brian Lehrer: Last question, does your reporting indicate that the special counsel, Mr. Hur, while not finding any criminal wrongdoing by Biden, purposely put a little Easter egg about his age in that report as a political gift to Trump? Biden is criticizing it as politically motivated, but of course that's the same thing Trump always does with respect to the other special counsel in the Justice Department.

Susan Page: That's certainly an accusation that Bob Bauer, the President's lawyer, made on one of the Sunday shows yesterday, that it was politically motivated. I thought that the comment about the death of Biden's son seemed really a step too far to me. He had other examples in the report of where there were lapses of memory by the President in terms of years. That seemed to me to be legitimate to mention, but I did think the comment about his son was a questionable one.

Brian Lehrer: Like he actually doesn't know when Beau Biden died. We're out of time. One more time, happy birthday. I will say that that one listener, once she heard the reference to your birthday-- Oh, I'm just going to let her on the air, wait. Robin in the Bronx. You're on WNYC. Hi, Robin.

Robin: Good morning. Thank you for taking the call. Yes, my remark was simply that it is in addition to the Super Bowl and Mardi Gras and Susan's birthday, most importantly, it's Lincoln's birthday. Nothing is more important than that at this time when democracy is being so tested.

Brian Lehrer: Robin, thank you very much. I guess you know that, you were born on the same day of the year as Abraham Lincoln, and I'm sure you know that once upon a time, the United States celebrated Lincoln's birthday and George Washington's birthday, February 22nd, as separate holidays. They were days off from school and everything. Now they folded both of them into President's Day so there could be a three-day weekend.

Susan Page: Robin, I can say it's always been a point of pride to me to share a birthdate with Abraham Lincoln, and I completely agree with your statements about that great president.

Brian Lehrer: If I don't talk to you before, Susan, I'll talk to you in April when your book on Barbara Walters comes out. Looking forward to it.

Susan Page: Thank you, Brian. Me too.

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. We turn the page. Much more to come.

 

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.