Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Happy January 8th, 2024. Did you do anything to commemorate January 6th over the weekend? Maybe binge-watch CNN or MSNBC or watch former Capitol police officer Harry Dunn launch his run for Congress from the district where he lives in Maryland after becoming a little famous for his January 6th committee testimony about fending off rioters while being called racist names for his efforts. For his part, former President Trump marked the anniversary with a campaign stop in Iowa. Don't know if you paid attention to that over the weekend, the Iowa caucuses there, of course, just one week from today.

For those of you who are inclined to not pay attention to Trump saying outrageous things anymore because that's just what he does, don't give him any attention, he does keep going further in ways that more and more I'm seeing professional Trump watchers, political analysts, people like that find very concerning for what a second Trump tum might be like. For example, he used to say some version that the people who rioted at the Capitol were wrong to do so but that he didn't ask them to. Now, he doesn't acknowledge the crimes they've been convicted of at all. He calls them hostages of Joe Biden. Listen to Trump from Saturday.

Donald Trump: What they've done, you know they ought to do? They ought to release the J6 hostages. They've suffered enough. They ought to release them. I call them hostages. Some people call them prisoners. I call them hostages. Release the J6 hostages, Joe.

Brian Lehrer: January 6th has become J6 and, "Release the J6 hostages, Joe," so there's that. Just for a little historical context as the Supreme Court now will officially consider whether Trump should be barred from running again under the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, right? Maybe you missed this. This just happened. The court announced that it will hear that case on February 8th. Order your popcorn now. For a little historical context, remember what Trump said about political violence if he lost the election when asked about that by a reporter before the election in September of 2020.

Reporter: Will you commit here today for a peaceful transfer of power after the election?

Donald Trump: We're going to have to see what happens. You know that I've been complaining very strongly about the ballots and the ballots are a disaster.

Reporter: I understand that, but people are rioting. Do you commit to making sure that there's a peaceful transfer with no problems?

Donald Trump: Get rid of the ballots and we'll have a very peaceful-- There won't be a transfer, frankly. There'll be a continuation.

Brian Lehrer: Maybe that soundbite from September 2020 will be offered as evidence to the Supreme Court. I don't know, but just a few thoughts there as we pass the anniversary of January 6th, 2021 now three years and two days ago. We'll get to how Trump criticized Nikki Haley's take on the Civil War on Saturday in that same speech with a take of his own that is arguably much, much worse than Haley's if you can believe it. This election year begins with the courts and Democrats in Congress investigating Trump, plus Republicans in Congress investigating Biden.

This includes a new report from Democrats on the House Oversight Committee issuing a report called White House for Sale, which purports to document that Trump received nearly $8 million while he was president from foreign governments, most of it from China, which could violate yet another clause of the Constitution known as the emoluments clause, even as House Republicans can't come up with evidence for their claim that Joe Biden profited from his son Hunter's overseas businesses during or after Biden's vice presidency. We'll start on this new report with Luke Broadwater, who covers Congress for The New York Times with a focus on congressional investigations. Luke, thanks for coming on. Happy January 8th if I may say and welcome back to WNYC.

Luke Broadwater: Thanks for having me.

Brian Lehrer: You wrote an article about this House Democrats report. What's new here about Trump businesses getting paid by foreign governments?

Luke Broadwater: Well, I would say, directionally, this was known, right? We knew that there had been a lot of concern about Trump violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution while he was president, but what this report does is it expands the knowledge that we had of how Donald Trump behaved with his businesses while in the White House. It expands it and it documents it. The Democrats, if you recall, fought for many years to try to get documents from Donald Trump's accounting firm, Mazars. They had to go all the way up to the Supreme Court for this. It was back-and-forth court rulings.

Eventually, they were victorious in getting a limited set of documents really from only four businesses covering about two years. In those documents, they were able to show that during Trump's presidency, even as he says he turned over the day-to-day operations of the business to his son, that they can document foreign dollars coming into Trump while he was president. Now, the reason this is important now, and I believe the reason the Democrats put this out headed into January, is that the Republicans are ramping up to try to build an impeachment case against Joe Biden and say he is corrupted by foreign monies that went to Hunter Biden when Joe Biden was not president.

What the Democrats are using this report to argue is that what's good for the kettle is also good for the pot. If you accuse Joe Biden of being corrupt because of monies that went to Hunter Biden, what about the monies that went directly to The Trump Organization while President Trump was president? Everything on the hill has an element of politics to it. This serves as a counterargument on the Democrat side to the Republicans' investigation of Joe Biden.

Brian Lehrer: That all makes sense. We'll get, as we go, to some of the specifics from your very excellent article a few weeks ago, debunking some of the talking points that Republicans are using to claim Joe Biden was corrupt through his son, Hunter, with very specific evidence that you have and that's just publicly available. We'll get to that.

On the Trump thing and the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee report, I think you were making this point, but is this really new? Didn't we know during his presidency that Trump hotels were being used for stays by foreign government officials who maybe wanted to cozy up to the President by staying at his properties rather than at a local Ramada inn or something, things like that?

Luke Broadwater: Yes. Like I said, directionally, we knew broadly what was happening, right? There's been a lot of reporting on this. I think The Washington Post, a couple of years ago, documented $2 million at the Trump hotel. That was from foreign governments. This brings it up to almost, what was it, $8 million or $7.8 million. It adds the number of countries that bought hotel rooms or blocks of hotel rooms that had leases at various Trump properties. Now, what Eric Trump, who I emailed with on this article, will say, he was running the business at the time, is, one, we can't stop people--

Brian Lehrer: Oops, did we lose Luke Broadwater? I think we did.

Luke Broadwater: Okay.

Brian Lehrer: Oh, there you go. You're back.

Luke Broadwater: I'm back.

Brian Lehrer: Sorry about that.

Luke Broadwater: Sorry. I don't know what happened. I guess my ear hit the mute button. Apologies. Where was I? [laughs]

Brian Lehrer: Oh, you were talking about the $7.8 million into Trump's pocket and what Eric Trump says about it.

Luke Broadwater: Yes, great. Okay, yes. Now, what Eric Trump will say, who I emailed with on this story, is that, one, he can't block foreign entities from booking through Expedia or something at the hotel. He argued, though, that they gave the profits from these hotel stays to the Treasury every year, which is, I think, about 10% of the monies that came in, and that a lot of the money came from a Chinese bank that has a long-term lease at one of Trump's properties.

He was arguing that there was nothing nefarious about this and that they didn't change any policies because of these monies that came in. That said, the Democrats say if you read the emoluments clause of the Constitution, you can't accept any foreign money without getting cleared through Congress, and that Trump never did that. Even if he didn't change policy because of it, as Eric Trump says, that he had to go to Congress to accept any foreign dollars. That's the state of play on that report.

Brian Lehrer: Trump wasn't the first rich guy with investments to become president. I think the question here might be, in part, whether he treated those investments differently than previous presidents with respect to walls to protect against real conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest, yes?

Luke Broadwater: Yes, absolutely. They believe that upon assuming the presidency, he should have divested from any international business, that he should have not just turned the day-to-day operations of the companies over to family members, but that he should have actually sold any businesses that he wanted to continue to do international business with. That would be the proper sacrifice of a public servant.

I asked this to some of the Democrats who wrote the report and they said, "Look, there were certain things I couldn't do anymore when I ran for Congress. I had to stop doing certain business activities or certain investments. That's what we require of public servants. If you wanted to be an international wealthy businessperson, you stay in that world. Don't try to come into politics with all those foreign entanglements." That was their argument.

Brian Lehrer: Right, and I could see where Trump is arguing that perhaps there weren't any acts of corruption based on this, but also where this becomes another act of a wannabe autocrat who wants to be able to profit individually from his time in power. If he gets back into power and nothing happens as a result of the emoluments clause from his first term that it becomes even more Trump in pursuit of power and money for himself if he's in office.

In his defense, he said that he was really tough on China during his presidency, even though most of this $7.8 million was said to have come from China. He campaigned on being tough on China. He enacted tariffs on imports from China and other things. When he says this is all innuendo with no actual corruption or foreign government success in influencing US policy based on patronizing Trump businesses, maybe he's got a leg to stand on.

You tell me. I also remember, for example, when Kellyanne Conway as an aide to then President Trump came out and said on camera that Americans should buy Ivanka Trump products as a way of supporting the President. That was so blatant and so maybe a reflection of how the Trumps had and have a different attitude about mixing governance and their personal bottom lines.

Luke Broadwater: The Democrats allege very much that Trump used the presidency to try to not only enrich himself but also members of his family. Obviously, Jared Kushner landed a $2 billion investment deal with the Saudis right after leaving office. Their case was that they did not try to separate business from the functioning of government. That's what's alleged by the Democrats.

As an example, Jamie Raskin, who was the author of this report, often cites Abraham Lincoln who received some gifts while in office from foreign governments that he wished to keep. He came to Congress and asked, "Could I keep these gifts?" Congress told him no and so he had to give them back. That's what they say Trump should have done. If he wanted to continue this long-term lease with the Bank of China, we're getting $5 million that he should have come to Congress and asked for permission. He never did that. They say that's what the Constitution requires.

Brian Lehrer: When we get to the clip of Trump talking about Nikki Haley and the Civil War, we'll hear him imply, at least, that Lincoln fought the Civil War so he could become famous for all of American history. We're going to get to Trump and Lincoln, not just Trump and Nikki Haley-

Luke Broadwater: [chuckles] Got it.

Brian Lehrer: -having nothing to do with the emoluments clause as we continue with Luke Broadwater from The New York Times. Listeners, we can open the phones on a few tracks if anyone has a question or a comment. Do you care about how either Trump or Biden may have made money from their notoriety in politics even if one actually did and one actually didn't? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. Did anyone hear Trump's comment on Nikki Haley and the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln, which we'll play in a couple of minutes and have a comment?

212-433-WNYC, 433-9692, or we'll get to some more cooperative news, let's say, a bipartisan agreement among the leaders at least to avoid a government shutdown without latest deadline, supposed to be coming later this month, and also the divisions between Democrats, not just between Democrats and Republicans, over the border and the negotiations on that, which might be headed towards some kind of bipartisan agreement, which would also free money for Israel and Ukraine. You can talk about that too, 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, for Luke Broadwater who covers Congress for The Times.

You wrote that article last month-- oh, and I should say you can text a comment or question as well as call as usual. You wrote that article last month assessing six major claims by the Republicans in the Biden impeachment inquiry and the disconnect between the way they're spinning things and the actual facts that they're supposedly based on. It's really stunning. Let me ask you to talk us through just a couple of these because they're so stark. I thought you did a great job of comparing facts to rhetoric. How about the one that the Republicans are selling as Hunter Biden claiming he shares half his overseas business profits with his father? Can you decode that for us as an example?

Luke Broadwater: Yes, sure. If you analyzed the Republican investigation into the Biden family, one of the points that they're really trying to establish because they know, in order to have a credible case of impeachment, they've got to trace the money from Hunter Biden to Joe Biden to see that Joe Biden was being enriched and that he had lied about it. Joe Biden has always said that he had this wall with his son and they weren't sharing any money. This wasn't enriching Joe Biden.

What you'll find is that some of the evidence the Republicans are putting forth will come from text messages or lines from text messages that lack context when you read the full thread or do some reporting or you interview the people involved about what this actually meant. One of those is that Hunter Biden at one point is texting with his daughter and there's a discussion about work. He says, "Don't worry. I won't make you give me half the money, half your money like Pop did."

The Republicans have seized on this to say that, "Look, here's evidence that Hunter was sending basically half of all the money he's getting to Joe." That does seem kind of damning on its face, right? Once you look into it some more and interview everyone involved, you understand what the reference was that they're referring to Hunter's college job and that as part of his college job, he had to give half the money to help pay for room and board-

Brian Lehrer: Oh.

Luke Broadwater: -which is very different than splitting half the money from [unintelligible 00:18:20] or China.

Brian Lehrer: Because his father was paying his tuition.

Luke Broadwater: Yes, correct. It was a very different context.

Brian Lehrer: He is asking Hunter to chip in?

Luke Broadwater: Yes.

Brian Lehrer: So different. One more. How about the phrase that you say is becoming ubiquitous among House Republicans, "10% for the big guy"? Can you explain what that refers to and what the evidence actually shows about that?

Luke Broadwater: Yes. If you look at the transcripts from the people involved in the public statements, from the people involved in that email, basically, the person who sent it had an aspirational idea, this is before Joe Biden runs for president, that maybe they can get Hunter's dad involved in some of these businesses to give them higher name recognition or more cache.

He says that never materializes, that 10% wouldn't go to Joe, and if that no deal ever came about that any money came from the split. Basically, that's an email where somebody is suggesting something that could happen, but it never happens and was never acted upon. 10% for the big guy is an idea that was suggested but never happens. There wasn't some sort of 10% cut for Joe Biden from this money according to everybody involved in that email who's been interviewed.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, if you want a really good summary of six false claims that the Republicans are making about Joe Biden corruption as they take this impeachment inquiry into the election year, read Luke Broadwater's article on that from late December. One thing though about Hunter Biden as we try to follow both truth and single standards of upholding democracy here, I see Republicans are considering holding Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress for defying a congressional subpoena to testify in their investigation. People didn't like it when Trump associates defied subpoenas regarding January 6th or other congressional investigations. Why is Hunter Biden pulling that now too? Shouldn't anyone who defies a subpoena in a formal investigation by the Congress of the United States regardless of party be subject to contempt proceedings?

Luke Broadwater: It's a fair point. Hunter Biden was summoned by deposition to appear on Capitol Hill to testify behind closed doors in the Republican investigation as they try to build evidence to impeach his father. He showed up that day. He offered to testify publicly, but he said he would not go behind closed doors because he feared the fairness of the Republican investigation. He believed they would selectively leak out only portions of his comments and twist his words. He said they have a pattern of doing that.

He wanted, if he was going to testify, to do it in public so everyone could see exactly what he said. That said, that is still not a precise compliance with the demands of the subpoena. The subpoena had a date and a time and a room. It didn't say testify whenever and wherever under your own wishes. The Republicans this Wednesday will move to vote on holding him in contempt of Congress. You'll know in the last Congress with the January 6th committee, four different Trump advisors were held in contempt of Congress by a vote.

The Justice Department decided to only prosecute two of those and not pursue two others. If there is such a vote of the House, it would then go to the Justice Department to decide whether or not to pursue that case. Generally, the Justice Department likes to see that Congress made some sort of attempt to work with the person. They also like to see that in order for them to charge that the person made a blanket refusal with no cooperation at all. If the person does provide some documents, does offer some sort of testimony, it makes the case sometimes harder for the Justice Department to believe that there was a true crime here.

For instance, the Justice Department did not prosecute Mark Meadows, who had turned over thousands and thousands of text messages, but only wanted to answer questions from the committee in writing. He was held in contempt by the House, but the Justice Department decided that he had complied enough and they didn't believe that this was worth a prosecution or an actual threat of jail time. We'll see. If there's a vote and it goes to the DOJ eventually, we'll see how they decide what to do with this.

Brian Lehrer: On the emoluments clause of the Constitution, which you were describing before for people who are just tuning in, as a requirement that if a president is going to accept gifts from any foreign governments, tell me if I'm summarizing this accurately enough, he has to go through Congress to get permission. One listener texts, "Democrats would have more credibility on Trump and emoluments if they introduced legislation to outlaw stock trading by Congress members." So interesting political argument there. Blair in Manhattan is calling about the emoluments clause too. Blair, you're on WNYC with Luke Broadwater from The Times. Hi, Blair.

Blair: Good morning. The question is we know what the emoluments clause is and it appears fairly obvious that Trump violated it. Who gets to enforce it? How is it enforced?

Brian Lehrer: Good question.

Luke Broadwater: That's the exact problem here, right? If, as the Democrats say, he violated the emoluments clause, what's the ramification for that? One of the recommendations in their report is that there be legislation passed in Congress that spells out exactly what the penalties would be for violating the emoluments clause and then set clear standards for timely reporting to Congress about foreign dollars that may or may not go to a president. I guess, constitutionally, what scholars might say is that if a president is clearly in violation of the emoluments clause, Congress has the power of impeachment to force them out. There are not criminal penalties in the law for violating it. I guess that the constitutional ramification would be an impeachment.

Brian Lehrer: All right. We'll continue in a minute with Luke Broadwater from The New York Times who covers Congress, especially investigations. We'll get into the breaking news from last night about an apparent deal to avoid a government shutdown for the rest of this fiscal year, how close they are to a bipartisan agreement on the border even as the Republicans' next impeachment target might be the Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, regarding the border, also why Trump's take on the Civil War this weekend might be even worse than Nikki Haley's. Stay with us.

[MUSIC - Marden Hill: Hijack]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. We continue now with Luke Broadwater, which, by the way, the autocorrect on my word processing program changed to Lukewarm Broadwater, but he is not Lukewarm. He is hot, hot, hot. Luke Broadwater, who covers Congress for The New York Times with a focus on congressional investigations. We'll continue to take your phone calls and texts on a few tracks if anyone has a question or a comment on any of the things that we've been talking about or will talk about.

I want to touch on what Trump said in Iowa on Saturday, criticizing Nikki Haley for leaving slavery out of her original answer to a question about the cause of the Civil War. What Trump said Saturday might be even much worse to my ear. It reminds me of when after the Charlottesville neo-Nazi, neo-Klan march and riot in support of a Robert E. Lee statue, Trump said there were good people on both sides of that. One of his most infamous quotes. Here, he seems to say the same thing about the Confederacy itself, which, of course, wanted to secede to keep enslavement. Listen.

Donald Trump: Abraham Lincoln. Of course, if he negotiated it, you probably wouldn't even know who Abraham Lincoln was. He would've been president, but he would've been president. Abraham Lincoln would've been different, but that would've been okay. It would've been a thing that-- and I know it very well. I know the whole process that they went through and they just couldn't get along. That would've been something that could've been negotiated and they wouldn't have had that problem.

Brian Lehrer: "Could have been negotiated and they wouldn't have had that problem," the Civil War. Number one, Luke, he makes it sound like Lincoln fought the Civil War so he could become an icon. If Lincoln didn't go to war, nobody would've remembered who he was. He would've been just another president. On the main point that the war could have been avoided through negotiation, does that mean by allowing the South to keep holding human beings as property, because that would've been much worse of a way if that's really what he means, to curry white Southern votes in the primaries than what Nikki Haley said?

Luke Broadwater: I don't think anybody should trust Donald Trump for history lessons.

Brian Lehrer: Really?

Luke Broadwater: As we've seen in the past, he thinks dead people are alive. He confuses basic facts of American history all the time. It's hard for me to interpret exactly what he's saying, but it does sound like that he is suggesting that the South and the North could have cut some sort of deal. I don't know. Does that mean continued slavery in some states and not in others? I'm not sure what he's saying there to be honest. That doesn't make a lot of sense. I do think that's a worse answer than what Nikki Haley said, which was Nikki Haley just said a word salad and then quickly corrected it once she realized her mistake. I'm not sure exactly what this is.

Brian Lehrer: You don't think Trump read the book on Lincoln, Team of Rivals, or Steve Inskeep's new book on Lincoln? You don't think he's gone through those hundreds of pages?

Luke Broadwater: No, I do not. He is famously not much of a reader.

Brian Lehrer: That's shocking to me. That's really shocking to me. All right. Also, I guess related on this Monday after the January 6th anniversary, are you alarmed for the sake of democracy? You're a reporter. You're not a commentator, so you're not allowed to save your alarm. If Trump is labeling as hostages rather than convicted criminals, January 6th rioters, people actually convicted of things like obstructing an official proceeding and seditious conspiracy. Elise Stefanik, the Republican member of Congress from Upstate New York, is labeling them as hostages too. Does this indicate to you as a journalist a way that Trump might govern if he's reelected?

Luke Broadwater: Yes, I think so. First of all, we should just correct the misinformation. There are not hostages being held by Joe Biden, who were innocent people, who are political prisoners. That's just false. I think sometimes some on the right try to stretch what's already a false narrative into what's just straight-up demagoguery. There's this idea. There's all these non-violent protestors who just walked through the Capitol, who are being held in long prison sentences.

That's also completely false. The people who have gotten long prison sentences are people who are accused of assaulting police and convicted of assaulting police, or they're people who are accused of plotting and engaging in a seditious conspiracy to overthrow the government. Those are very serious charges. The vast majority of January 6th cases are for minor offenses like trespassing and those people have not done jail time.

They've been charged and then released. This idea, there's all these non-violent Trump supporters who are being held in long prison sentences is just false. That's just not true. Moreover, to use the word "hostages" makes it seem like there's some sort of rogue element in the government that's snatching up Trump supporters and holding them in jail. That's also just not true. Yes, it's dangerous rhetoric. It's perhaps not surprising.

I think if you talk to people close to Trump, what they will say is it shows on Trump's behalf, he's actually worried about the democracy arguments, that it is having an effect with swing voters, with moderate voters, with the slice of the Republican Party that is more interested in taxes and economics and not really totally devoted to Trump, that they do see what happened on January 6th, still is very bad. There's many who do see him as a threat to democracy. What he's trying to do is muddy the waters and make it that Joe Biden is also a threat to democracy, and that if they're both threats to democracy, then that, in his view, would help his reelection chances.

Brian Lehrer: Here's a call on the Civil War. Sheila in Mineola, who says she went to Gettysburg College. Sheila, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Sheila: Yes, hi. Nice to be on the phone with you.

Brian Lehrer: Good to have you. What you got?

Sheila: Well, I'm listening to this presentation today. I love your show and we listen to it every day. The guy who's talking right now, sorry, I can't think of his name right now. I think you could benefit himself and whoever he advises to go to Gettysburg College, which is the best historical collection of information. They studied every blade of grass during the Gettysburg conflagration, but also the Civil War history is so incredibly documented there. There were conversations throughout the war between Robert E. Lee and Abraham Lincoln. It actually went to Virginia. I think it went undercover to speak with Robert E. Lee. Robert E. Lee was a West Point guy. One of the first.

Brian Lehrer: Does that indicate that when Trump says that there could have been a compromise that would've avoided all the killing in the Civil War that there could have been a compromise that included the abolition of slavery?

Sheila: Of course, there always could have been anything, but there wasn't.

Brian Lehrer: Right, but I mean realistically.

Sheila: It wasn't that people didn't try. It wasn't that people didn't try and that the leaders of the two sides were not face-to-face in private conversation with each other. There's movies about this. There's a Lincoln movie that was out several years ago with Daniel Day-Lewis and so forth. I love this because I was a student there and Gettysburg College was incredibly good to me. I was a scholarship student. I just loved my time of life there. I learned more there than almost any other experience I've had in life.

Brian Lehrer: Sheila, thank you for--

Sheila: That was how to study basically.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you. Thank you very much for that and for calling from Mineola today. One more on this in a text message. I'll just throw this in and then you can respond, Luke. Listener in Riverside, Connecticut writes, "In 1861, negotiations over slavery had been taking place for over 70 years without significant progress in reaching agreement," which is to say, no, they couldn't have negotiated avoiding the Civil War and abolishing slavery, but go ahead.

Luke Broadwater: Yes, no, I took my kids to Gettysburg last summer. I totally recommend visiting the battlefield there and learning all the history. It is really fascinating. That said, the South, if you read the articles of succession from the various Southern states, they're obsessed with slavery. They fire the shots at Fort Sumner. Anyway, it's the idea that if only Abraham Lincoln had just cut a deal, we could have avoided the Civil War. That seems pretty ahistorical to me. That doesn't seem like--

Brian Lehrer: What exactly is he implying to those Southern voters who fly Confederate flags to this day whose votes he might need and Nikki Haley might need and why this is a topic in the first place in the context of the Iowa caucuses and the Republican primaries generally? I'll leave that as a rhetorical question. To get to the two bits of breaking news before we run out to time, there is the deal announced last week between the House and Senate and White House leaders on a budget for this fiscal year that runs through September.

In other words, the threat of another government shutdown, Cliff Walk later this month widely anticipated, seems likely to be averted. Luke, does this mean that the new very conservative speaker, Mike Johnson, does not line up with Matt Gaetz and people like that in wanting to force the country to that brink to accomplish other political goals?

Luke Broadwater: Yes, and what you're seeing is a big change on the part of Mike Johnson because, not too long ago, he had voted against this very type of deal, which would keep the government open. Now, he says he negotiated a tougher deal than what Kevin McCarthy, the previous speaker, did. It has about $30 billion in cuts or lower spending than what the Senate had proposed. It's not enough for the Freedom Caucus. The Freedom Caucus has already put out a statement condemning this deal.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of the right-wing members of Congress, has said that she will vote against it. He probably will get some backlash from his right flank. Some prominent members of the Freedom Caucus has already said he has either one or two strikes against him. They're looking for strike three where they might invoke the motion to vacate and try to kick him out as speaker again for a second time or a different speaker. Johnson is now negotiating with Democrats. That is what the Freedom Caucus doesn't like. This deal may well keep the government open, but it may well imperil his speakership.

Brian Lehrer: Yes, so that may be being over-reported a little bit, this deal between Johnson and the Democrats who run the White House and the Senate as like, "Okay, we're going to avoid a government shutdown," or "Hey, look. Now, things are going a little bit more smoothly in a bipartisan way under Mike Johnson because we may be heading down that road again." That ended in Kevin McCarthy losing his speakership. Lastly, how close are they to a bipartisan border deal?

Because Israel and Ukraine funding are still being held up by Republicans, including Johnson, who want a deal on the border as part of it. Maybe some Democrats representing various cities with concentrations of recent asylum seekers like New York and Chicago. I think the mayor of Denver has been outspoken recently. The fact that they also might want more limits on who can come in, is that pressuring Democrats in Congress for something that we might not have expected from them in the past?

Luke Broadwater: Yes, I think there is a lot of pressure on Congress to get a deal here. One, I think it's embarrassing to a lot of the hawks in Congress that we have yet to provide enough money to Israel for what they've asked for that's tied up in this deal. The hawks are also concerned about funding for Ukraine, that without the money in Ukraine, the Russian invasion will take over the country.

There are a number of pressures that could get people to the table. That said, immigration and border has been such a sticky issue. The fact that it's been co-mingled with the foreign military aid, it makes this very difficult. You'll recall, it's been decades and decades working on some of these issues with no deal whatsoever. We've seen bipartisan immigration policy deals go down in flames in the past. Count me in the skeptical tank or skeptical camp about the likelihood of a deal here.

It may well be possible. The pressures may be enough to build and finally reach an agreement on something, but the parties are so far apart on what they view as a solution. The Republicans want to build Trump's wall. They want to have mass roundups and send people south of the border. It's a lot of things that a lot of people in the Democratic Party do not want. How much are the Democrats willing to swallow in order to get money for Ukraine? I just think it's a very difficult task.

Brian Lehrer: To come full circle for a final question on your beat, which is centrally following investigations in Congress, and we started on the Biden impeachment inquiry near the top of the segment. How real is this threat to hold the Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, up for impeachment proceedings over border issues?

Luke Broadwater: I think the Republicans will probably impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over this month. That said, he'll be acquitted in the Senate. They have not alleged wrongdoing or any ethical problem. They're basically just saying they don't think he's good at his job. They're doing this at the same time when he is negotiating the board of deal with the senators. He's negotiating this deal with one chamber. Down the hall, they're plotting to impeach him. We'll hear what they have to say at this hearing on Wednesday, what they're going to allege, how he's failed as Homeland Security Secretary.

Obviously, they're going to point to the record number of crossings. That said, Mayorkas can point to record numbers of fentanyl seizures and record numbers of arrests and things like that. He can point to very high enforcement numbers with some of his statistics at the same time as the Republicans will point to high numbers of people crossing. We'll see whether the American people think that's popular or not, whether to impeach someone over the border without an accusation of unethical behavior or corruption or wrongdoing.

Brian Lehrer: Luke Broadwater covers Congress, especially investigations, for The New York Times. Thanks for starting your week with us, Luke. Really, really appreciated this good segment.

Luke Broadwater: Thank you.

 

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.