Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good Monday morning, everyone. All I took was two days off, just two days, Thursday and Friday, as we played some recent best of segments, and I got into the country for a couple of days, and look at all that has happened in national politics. President Biden's border policy got thrown out in court as too restrictive to migrants seeking political asylum. Hunter Biden's plea deal got thrown out in court because the government said it's still investigating him. Rudy Giuliani admitted in court in a filing that, yes, he defamed those two Georgia election workers Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman when he falsely claimed they were rigging the 2020 election when they were just normally doing their job.

He hasn't admitted to the racism involved though when he said the Black mother and daughter were passing around thumb drives like heroin or cocaine. Donald Trump was hit with a serious new charge and another Mar-a-Lago employee was charged too in the classified documents case. This is about Trump allegedly telling Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira to delete certain surveillance video last year, and De Oliveira is allegedly telling another worker who oversees the surveillance cameras that "the boss wanted it deleted," but hey, what's a little destruction of evidence between friends. What's the big deal? It's certainly not a big deal to Republican voters.

The first New York Times/Siena poll of the 2024 election cycle published this morning finds Trump crushing his field of challengers so far, 54% support, followed by Ron DeSantis way back at 17%, and then, listen to this, Mike Pence, Tim Scott and Nikki Haley all tied for third place at just 3% support each. President Biden got a new potential Democratic primary challenger not seen as a fringy outsider like RFK Jr or Marianne Williamson. It's an actual member of Congress, Minnesota Congressman Dean Phillips, seen as a suburban moderate, and who's been outspoken about Biden's age. Certainly not a household name Dean Phillips, but he is reportedly meeting with Democratic donors in New York this week to test the viability of a primary challenge of Biden.

There's more, but that's plenty to get us going now with Jonathan Lemire. Again, that all happened in the two little days that I took off Thursday and Friday. Jonathan Lemire is with us, Politico's White House bureau chief and host of Way Too Early on MSNBC weekdays at 5:00 AM Eastern. He was hosting Morning Joe on the network today, the four hour, 6:00 to 10:00 AM show with Joe Scarborough off for the day, which since Jonathan is now extending his day to come right on with us, I think qualifies Jonathan for the next Boston and New York marathons. Hey, Jonathan, thanks a lot for this. Weren't you some record-setting runner in high school in Boston?

Jonathan: Hey, Brian. Great to talk to you. I did have some success as a high school track star. I grew up just north of Boston, set a league record in a sprinting event that stood for many years. It has since been broken, but yes, today is a test of endurance, but I'm always happy to be with you.

Brian Lehrer: That's right, from the sprint to the marathon. I'm going to ask you to do a lot of explaining this morning because I think some of these developments that I just did some headlines on are both important and confusing. First, can you explain the new classified documents charge against Donald Trump?

Jonathan: Sure thing. As all of political world last week had its eyes trained on Washington DC with the apparent imminent indictment of the former president in connection to January 6th, and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election result, well, the special counsel got us in a different way, that he swerved, if you will, and added charges to the classified document case. Now, we should note we still think the January 6th indictments are coming soon, potentially as soon as this week. This action shifted back to South Florida on two levels.

One, there was a new person charged, one of the workers there at Mar-a-Lago, Carlos De Oliveira, who was along with Walt Nauta, the indictment reads, put toward destroying videotape surveillance footage, basically tried to obstruct the federal government's efforts to retrieve this classified material and, the indictment reads, doing so at Donald Trump's behest. That's what leads to more charges here for Trump as well. It is a superseding indictment, which are relatively common in ongoing sprawling investigations like this, but it adds just plain as day what [unintelligible 00:05:14] would say took a strong case and made it even stronger. Mr. De Oliveira now, just as a few moments ago, has arrived at a South Florida courtroom.

Brian Lehrer: Is the charge here obstruction of justice?

Jonathan: It certainly could be. The charges here, obviously for Trump, the mishandling of classified documents here. It's four counts including lying to the FBI for Mr. De Oliveira, as well as obstructing government procedure to try to retrieve the documents, and then yes, potentially obstruction of justice as well. Now, it's unclear, and this may have just happened in the last few moments while I was leaving MSNBC's air to come on with you.

There was question as to whether he had an attorney who is licensed to practice in the state of Florida. You might recall that a few weeks ago when Walt Nauta, Trump's original co-defendant, came to court he did not have one, therefore, that initial arraignment was delayed several weeks before Nauta retained counsel who was licensed to practice in Florida. I truthfully do not know yet if this defendant has done so. As of last night, he had not.

Brian Lehrer: Does the indictment say what evidence Trump and De Oliveira might have allegedly been trying to destroy to cover up what specifically because I'm sure everybody's curious about this? What? They were allegedly destroying Mar-a-Lago surveillance video. What was on that video that "the boss" as the indictment says De Oliveira called Trump, that the boss wanted deleted?

Jonathan: It was surveillance footage video of the room where much, not all, but much of the classified material was kept. Now, it does not appear that the video itself was actually destroyed, but it was the intent to do so. The conspiracy to do so is the charge here, and that it does seem to be pretty blatant and clumsy conspiracy at that, one where, as you say, almost reads like a mafia trial where Trump is referred to as the boss. In text messages exchanged between these men they even use a shh emoji, the hand to the face like trying to tell someone to hush, to be quiet in an effort to keep all of this secret.

Perhaps the former president needs better henchmen in terms of trying to carry out would-be crimes, but this is now-- it builds to this case, which is set for May as a start date, although there's some question whether that could slip again because of the nature of cases involving classified documents. They're inherently very complicated. They are inherently lengthy. This is just, we should not lose sight of, just one of many moments of legal peril facing the former president as he tries to run for the White House again.

Brian Lehrer: I wonder if this property manager De Oliveira, if this all gets confirmed, will wind up going down as the Rosemary Woods of the Trump classified documents case. Rosemary Woods from Watergate who I think was the Richard Nixon aide who was charged with destroying the audio recording, 18 minutes of the famous Watergate 18-minute telephone recording gap. That was laid at the feet of his aide, his secretary, I think, was her title, Rosemary Woods. Maybe De Oliveira goes down as the Rosemary Woods of the classified documents case eventually.

Jonathan: It certainly could be. Now there are open questions or not whether he or Walt Nauta might turn cooperating witness, would they flip to testify against Donald Trump. Now, up to this point, Nauta has shown no inclination of doing so. In fact, he's Trump's body man. He is still appearing with Trump day-to-day at his events, including at a couple campaign stops over the weekend. We don't know yet what will be the fate of De Oliveira, whether he will stay loyal to the former president or not. There are questions also about the same funds, the same super PACs that support Donald Trump, that they're paying legal bills for Trump associates who've been ensnared in all these investigations, with paying for Nauta's and De Oliveira's counsel as well perhaps.

We also do know though there's another Mar-a-Lago worker not identified, but we believe he was an IT worker who is also in this indictment, and it seems he is cooperating, in fact, the source of some of this information. We know certainly that Jack Smith has been building this case for quite some time talking to people of Mar-a-Lago and certainly were either Nauta or De Oliviera to flip they would undoubtedly be able to provide compelling testimony.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. That other potential witness you just mentioned, is this the same as the story I saw on CNN? I think it's a CNN exclusive as of this point, that there's another Mar-a-Lago employee, excuse me, who got a target letter meaning he could be charged, but he hasn't been. Yuscil Taveras is the name they're citing who oversees the surveillance cameras. Do you know if Taveras refused the request to destroy the surveillance video or maybe is cooperating with law enforcement which could be really key?

Jonathan: That does seem to be the sense of it, either refused to or was unable to do so in terms of deleting all of this material. It seems that he is indeed now working with the government as a cooperating witness. Let's remember part of the scheme was to flood that area. To drain the swimming pool and flood that area to destroy some of this evidence, but the surveillance footage we believe has indeed turned over to special counsel.

Brian Lehrer: Wait, I don't even know that part. They were going to create an actual flood to destroy evidence with water?

Jonathan: That was one of the schemes being considered, yes, that came out in some reporting some time ago.

Brian Lehrer: I see, but as far as we know wasn't actually carried out?

Jonathan: Correct.

Brian Lehrer: That's all under Special Counsel Jack Smith, but so is as you referred to at the top this, and my guest is Jonathan Lemire White House Bureau Chief for Politico and MSNBC host. We keep hearing a grand jury being overseen by Jack Smith could produce January 6th and general [unintelligible 00:11:46] indictments against Trump at any time now, including I think possibly today. Aren't Mondays and Thursdays, do I have that right, the days that that grand jury meets? Confirm that if it's true, and can you explain the indications that they are very, very close.

Jonathan: There are so many grand juries it's easy to mix them up, but this one actually meets on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so we don't anticipate anything happening today but there is possibility of tomorrow. Let's move this back up a step. Donald Trump announced that he had received a target letter from Jack Smith about this particular case, the efforts to overturn the election and January 6th. It's shorthanded as the January 6th probe although it's far bigger than that. It's everything that led up to that day. That was about two odd weeks ago. When that happened, and we confirmed through reporting that indeed Trump did receive that letter.

Once that happens, the clock starts ticking. It is very, very rare for someone to receive a target letter and not be indicted. It would be almost impossible to conceive a notion where a former president of the United States and all of that means, and how charged the situation is, would receive a target letter and then not be indicted. It's a matter of when that might happen. That is not happening now. It has not happened yet, but we do believe that it will be soon. Last week the grand jury did not meet on Tuesday.

There was a speculation that's because the Hunter Biden matter was on Wednesday, and DOJ didn't want to be accused of trying to put its thumb on the scale and overshadow one with the other. They did meet on Thursday last week, but no charge came from it then. They're expected to meet again tomorrow. There's no guarantee. It could be tomorrow, it could slide to Thursday, it could even slide to next week, but it's hard to see it sliding much beyond that.

Brian Lehrer: There's a lot of speculation about what Trump might be charged with in connection with January 6th and the events leading up to it. The overall big lie, and some of the nonviolent, but perhaps illegal machinations to try to overturn the election. I only have one specific question. I don't want to go down every rabbit hole about things he could be charged with, but do you know if Trump's inaction after the January 6th riot began could be the basis of any of the charges? The January 6th committee in Congress as many of our listeners remember heard all this testimony that he sat idly by, or more than that seemed to be cheering them on as he watched coverage on TV for hours on that day. Could that result in a criminal charge?

Jonathan: It's entirely plausible Brian, but I think we simply don't know. This one has been a particularly opaque probe, because of reporters who have staked out the courthouse there in Washington. We know some of the players who have come in and out, but it's such a sprawling, lengthy, massive investigation. It's unclear what he could be charged with. Something connected to his inaction that day. Very possible. Could he receive similar charges to those who stormed the Capitol that day, even something as serious as seditious conspiracy? We can't rule that out. We simply don't know just yet how narrow or how broad these charges would be.

A safe bet would be something trying to obstruct government proceedings, trying to interfere with the due processing of that election, but beyond that we simply don't know, but we do know most legal experts believe that this case though perhaps the hardest to prove would be the most serious. It's against our very democracy. This is the moment now where Trump has already been indicted twice, we certainly believe, and we can speak to later if you'd like another indictment in Georgia is likely coming this coming month in August. This is the one, the January 6th one that seems to be for most the most important, but we simply at this moment don't know what the specific charges will be.

Brian Lehrer: Yet per this New York Times/Siena College poll just out, Trump is raking in the Republican primary polls. He's the errand judge of Republican politics you might say despite, or maybe because of his outlaw status. Do you think people are buying his line that by going after him they're really going after them?

Jonathan: You just hit it there. That's the argument he's crystallized, particularly in recent weeks where they're trying to indict me to get to you. That he puts himself at the forefront of this entire movement, this entire mass of people, his base, The MAGA Movement. I think we have to answer this in two different parts. First part would be looking ahead to a potential general election, it is hard to see any of this helping Donald Trump, all of this legal trouble. A campaign in which he may be mixing up campaign rallies with court dates, shuttling from one to the other, next spring, summer, fall.

The constant reminders of the accusations of misconduct, the fact that he could be not only charged, but on trial and maybe even convicted and awaiting sentencing between now and next November. It's hard to see that being of any appeal to the independents and swing voters who often decide our elections. That said, in this first stage in the Republican primary it's only helping. Poll after poll shows that he has consolidated his leads. His grip on the Republican party has only grown firmer. His would-be challenger [unintelligible 00:17:24] thought that would be Florida Governor Ron DeSantis would be the Trump alternative, he has faded badly in the polls.

Polling suggests, including this new one, the majority of Republicans didn't think he did anything wrong. They think he had every right. He was simply contesting the election in terms of what led to January 6th. Right now anyway these indictments are not only eating up so much news coverage, it's impossible for any other Republican to break through to have oxygen, but frankly, it has only lashed GOP supporters more tightly to the former president.

Brian Lehrer: On the Democratic side can you explain who this Congressman Dean Phillips is who might now according to multiple reports primary Biden, even though nobody and 98% of the country has probably ever heard of him?

Jonathan: It's more of what he represents what matters here. Yes, he's a pretty obscure congressman. Dean has a good record, Dean is a good loyal public servant, a moderate, but he's someone who just is out there saying, shouldn't we have an alternative? As much as the Republican party is certainly grappling with what to do with Donald Trump and all of his legal woes and political baggage, there are some Democrats, polling suggests, who really like President Biden and think he's done a terrific job but aren't sure they want him to run again. The reason mostly is because of his age. He is already 80 years old. He would turn 82 very soon after the next election meaning were he to serve all four terms, be reelected and serve all four terms he would be-

Brian Lehrer: Four years.

Jonathan: -86 years old as his successor takes the oath of office in January of '29. There are real concerns there among Democrats whether this is the path that the party should go down. Look, right now the only primary challenges declared facing Biden are Marianne Williamson the self-help guru who's polling zero, and then Robert F. Kennedy, Jr who's become full on conspiracy theorist and anti-Semite who does score a few points in the polls, but his approval rating is certainly well underwater and no one in the Biden camp takes him particularly seriously. This would be interesting if a more mainstream, moderate Democrat were to jump in even though I'm certain President Biden's reelection team would squash him like a bug were this to actually happen. It would point to this lack of, frankly, enthusiasm around the Biden campaign among many Democrats even those who like him.

Brian Lehrer: On Morning Joe today I saw you talking about an article by Jonathan Martin, your colleague at Politico, on why there might be a four-way general election next year for president. Can you explain this scenario a little bit?

Jonathan: Well, the idea would be could there be some independent candidates who jump in? Perhaps it's this congressman, if he were to go to the independent route. Could there be a conservative who jumps in? I think that the name that we should flag here is actually Cornell West, the academic, the Princeton professor, who at this point is running as an independent candidate and has, Democrats will have flashbacks here, but the name Jill Stein. Jill Stein was the third-party the Green Party candidate in 2016. She didn't get that many votes, but she got just enough votes in certain battleground states to make the difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in what was a very tight election.

I do know that there are some Democrats, including the senior levels of the White House, who do watch this candidacy with a little bit of worry because we certainly anticipate that next year's election will be close again, we're basically a 50/50 country, and that the Democrats in 2020 showed a little bit of weakness in certain demographics, particularly Black men. There is a thought that if a Black man, certainly Cornell West's record speaks for himself, his academic record, who were to pull away some Black supporters that could be a complicating factor. I think J. Martin's bigger point was simply that both of these men, Biden and Trump, even though they both are standing head and shoulders above the rest of their party, they both come with real concerns and battle though very different baggage to be sure. Both have to overcome some doubts within their own parties.

Brian Lehrer: Cornell West, legendary progressive, running as an independent to Biden's left obviously puts him as potentially the Ralph Nader of 2024, and a threat to Biden in that respect. The fourth corner of Jonathan's quadrant scenario, how do you see the centrist group No Labels, which might have its own candidate and their real agenda? Jonathan, I've heard opposite analyses in the last week, one that said their real agenda is to help elect a Republican by splitting off votes from Biden with a centrist third-party candidate and if that's Trump, it's not their favorite, but it's okay with them. They just want to stop Democratic Party tax and social policies that they see as extreme. On the opposite side, I've heard that their main goal is to stop Trump. Do you have reporting on this?

Jonathan: It's pretty opaque. I do think that, frankly, this No Labels group has a hard time defining what it is or what it wants. They've certainly been around for a while. They've raised plenty of money, although some of the sources of that money remain unknown. They have said they're committed to having a third-party candidate. Some of the language is something that a lot of Americans can get behind, alternative to the two major parties or give people a third option, something down the middle, whatever it might be.

The names they've been floating out there, that's Jon Huntsman the former Republican Governor, and certainly Senator Joe Manchin, who's the Democratic senator from West Virginia who might be in a very tough reelection fight, there's a sense that at least in the current trajectory, that if they were to field a candidate, it would be a moderate, who almost certainly would take more votes away from President Biden than Donald Trump.

There are a lot of Democrats who [unintelligible 00:23:28] spit at the even mention of No Labels because they're so convinced that No Labels is a Republican front. They're just trying to keep Biden from a second term, that they would be willing to throw the election to Trump in this case. Now No Labels has said that's not their goal as you noted.

There is some belief around Washington that when push comes to shove, they won't at the 11th hour field a candidate, that they'd make their point in other ways, they don't want to be vilified if they were to play a role in electing Donald Trump again. This is another worry, it's another headache for what will be, and this was Jonathan Martin's point. On one hand this seems here we are, almost a year and a half out from the election, and it seems almost predictable, oh, we're having a rematch. Well, there's a lot of twists and turns ahead and there's a lot of things that could change the dynamic and trajectory of the race.

Brian Lehrer: All right, listeners, your Monday morning politics questions or comments for Jonathan Lemire, (212) 433-WNYC, (212) 433-9692. We've gotten through some of the Trump indictment and Biden politics stuff. When we come back from a break, we're going to turn to the Hunter Biden plea deal collapsing in court. I know we don't want to ever make too much out of the Hunter Biden story if there's not really a there there, but something significant happened in court that also could have political overtones in Congress. We're going to talk about that and more as we continue. Your comments or questions on this Monday morning politics conversation, (212) 433-WNYC, (212) 433-9692. Call or text for Jonathan Lemire, Politico's White House Bureau chief, and an MSNBC host who is explaining the fast moving political developments, all of these things in just the last few days. We'll continue in a minute.

[music]

Brian Lehrer on WNYC with Jonathan Lemire, Politico's White House Bureau chief and MSNBC host explaining the fast-moving political developments of the past few days. We are continuing with him for another segment here. No dog days of summer for national politics in the intense heat we've been having and the intense political heat that is not yet broken and is only going to get hotter for the next year and a quarter I think it's safe to say. Also, judging by our phones now that I opened up the phones, Jonathan, and gave out the number, our 10 lines instantly filled up, we're getting texts. Let me open it up for tweets as well or should we call it your X-files @BrianLehrer. Here's a text that just came in, Jonathan, on the Democratic side. "Why doesn't Gavin Newsom run for president?" Listener asks. Governor of California who we know has flirted with the idea, if not for this cycle.

Jonathan: Well, Governor Newsom certainly has his eyes on the White House. He makes no secret of that, but I don't think we're going to see a mainstream Democrat really challenge President Biden now yet. We did mention just last segment, there is this Midwestern congressman who's considering it but that would be more of trying to make a point than someone who has feels they have a real shot at the White House.

Now, if President Biden were to change his mind and not run, then yes, there'll be a number of Democrats who would eagerly jump in the race. We know, and we reported earlier this year that Newsom, Governor Murphy of New Jersey, Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota, others, all were just looking around, just were lining up some staff and ducks just in case President Biden didn't opt for reelection, but he has. So, none of them will. Newsom will certainly be at the top of the front of any list of a 2028 challenger. There's no doubt there.

Brian Lehrer: Next topic. Can you explain how the Hunter Biden plea deal collapsed last week?

Jonathan: Yes. Hunter Biden, we should note because sometimes people get angry when we talk about Hunter Biden, Hunter Biden is of course, a private citizen. This is a very different matter than what Donald Trump is facing, but Hunter Biden still took a plea deal earlier this summer in which he pled guilty to two tax related charges, as well as one about gun possession because he shouldn't have had a firearm while under the influence of drugs. He has written himself openly that he has struggled with addiction. That deal was struck. Obviously, Hunter Biden is a political shadow for this White House. The house GOP is obsessed with him claiming inappropriate business dealings.

The "Biden Crime Family", all that. They've supplied little to no evidence of any wrongdoing. You could say perhaps Hunter Biden's business conduct was unseemly, but there's no suggestion that it was illegal or that President Biden benefited from it. Let's just underscore that. Hunter Biden himself did take a plea deal after a year's long investigation about these tax charges. A lot of Republicans cried foul. They thought he got a sweetheart deal. Most legal analysts, however, say that, no, this seems very reasonable with one perhaps exception. That's the idea, the plea deal contained language that would grant him some immunity for lots of other future charges, were they to come up, including some of other financial crimes.

When this plea deal was taken before a judge in Delaware last week, the judge said no. The judge basically, and I'm paraphrasing, but suggested that that part of the plea deal was too broad. It wasn't appropriate, and she didn't have the right to sign off on it. It was a chaotic scene in that Wilmington, Delaware courtroom. It looked like the plea deal was falling apart. The two sides negotiated a revised more narrow version, presented it to the judge. They said it'd be acceptable. The judge still said, "Wait, I'm not ready to sign off on this yet. We need to really do our due diligence, decide if this is appropriate and legal," and said, basically, we'll see you again in a few weeks. That's where things stand.

Hunter Biden, because he had to enter a pro forma not guilty plea, he can certainly change that down the road to guilty were this plea deal to be resuscitated and made official, but right now we're in a holding pattern. It's certainly something that weighs on Hunter Biden, it weighs on the president and his family. It certainly is going to remain a political issue and the legal chapter is not closed just yet.

Brian Lehrer: Here's a Hunter Biden question from Sarah in Teaneck. You're on WNYC. Hi, Sarah.

Sarah: Hi. Can you hear me? Should I take myself off speaker?

Brian Lehrer: Yes, take yourself off speaker if you would. Pick up the handset. Good advice for anybody calling the show so everybody else can hear you well. That's much better, Sarah. Thank you.

Sarah: Okay, thanks. No problem. Speaking of Hunter Biden, just the other day I was speaking to a sibling of mine who is a staunch Republican pro-Trumper. He said to me on Friday, "Wait till Monday when Hunter Biden's business partner is going to be testifying at some hearing, and that's when the current president, he didn't call him that, is going to get impeached. That's going to be the basis for an impeachment." I said to him, "Really? I really haven't heard that." He said, "Wait for Monday." Here's Monday. Is there any there, there in what I was told that there's some big hearing going on today from Hunter Biden's business partner that's going to be damning of Joe Biden?

Brian Lehrer: Sarah, thank you for the question. I do think that in certain media circles where this gets talked about a lot more than it does here, there's always that big bombshell that's going to change everything is right around the corner and then it never quite comes, or at least it hasn't yet. Do you know, Jonathan, what she might be referring to about some testimony scheduled for today?

Jonathan: Sadly, I do. Hunter Biden's former business partners, one of his former business partners, a man named Devon Archer, who is scheduled to give closed-door testimony today on Capitol Hill. This is part, of course, of the Republican-led investigations into Hunter Biden. Now, over the weekend, DOJ asked a judge to schedule a date for Archer to surrender to prison because he has been convicted on an unrelated fraud case. He is someone who is prison-bound, this Archer, but he is going to testify today in a closed-door hearing.

The Republicans have said, "Wait a minute, this is the DOJ. Is the Biden DOJ putting its thumb on the scale of justice, trying to prevent this testimony from ever happening?" Archer's old lawyer says that's not the case. That this is an unrelated matter that he will go to prison for that, but he is going to offer his testimony first. What we'll hear from the hearing, we don't know yet. It hasn't happened, but certainly, the GOP is trying to use it as the latest political cudgel which to use Hunter Biden to attack the president.

Brian Lehrer: An opinion piece in the New York Post, and it's the Post, but it's an example of what's circulating out there that a lot of people are paying attention to, argues that Hunter was getting lots of money from overseas people linked to the Chinese government and corrupt Ukrainians at the time that Biden was vice president, and Biden had a lot of influence on policies toward those countries. Have they produced any evidence that policy of any kind was based on Hunter's business interests?

Jonathan: They haven't yet by their own admission. Even Congressman Comer who chairs the committee that's leading the investigations into Hunter Biden, has acknowledged they don't have that there yet. Other Republicans as well. It's a lot of smoke, it's a lot of Fox News sound clips, it's a lot of pieces in the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal, but it's not any hard evidence just yet. We should take this moment to note as well that Hunter Biden is part of the argument that some House Republicans are making to even impeach President Biden suggesting that that must happen.

Last week, there's something with some momentum to start an impeachment inquiry, which is not the same as impeachment, but sometimes can go down that path, and House Speaker McCarthy seemed to give it his blessing for a day or two, but by the end of last week, he had walked that back and in a closed door meeting with Republicans suggested, "We're not there yet." That, "Even an impeachment inquiry is a serious matter. We have to have some evidence to bring that forward." Now, he left the door open. He's like, "We might get there someday." He basically told Republicans, "Hey, cool it for now. We don't have enough to go forward with this."

The Republicans are now on a, I believe, six-week recess. I think there's some, we're told, some in the speaker's orbit who hope that this fever for impeachment cools during the break because politically, they think it's a loser. They think that they don't have a there-there, and were they to impeach Biden, first of all, would just trivialize the whole concept of impeachment and it's pure weaponization of it. Also, they think there would be a backlash. It would only help Biden and Democrats in the polls next November.

Brian Lehrer: One more there-there question then. That's really interesting, by the way. I'm glad you brought that up, even just for my benefit because when I took Thursday and Friday off, because I can't ever resist to follow the news to some degree, I did not see that McCarthy had backed off the idea of pursuing the possibility of impeachment hearings. I thought that was actually going to go forward or looking likely to go forward. That's an interesting development and perhaps significant in terms of how much of a there-there there isn't with any of this. Some Republicans are saying Biden lies when he says he never talked to Hunter about Hunter's business dealings overseas, and that Joe Biden collected $5 million from the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. Is that fact or fiction or unknown?

Jonathan: There's no sense that President Biden has benefited from that. Hunter Biden was on the board. He was paid by Burisma. There's no sense though that the president himself, well, he wasn't president back then, but the current president took any money from there. This is part of the Republican case that they believe that Joe Biden benefited from Hunter Biden's business dealings, but they have not proved that yet and may never.

We should also just be clear on the impeachment inquiry thing. Yes, McCarthy, it was the end of the week, I believe it was Thursday, at a closed-door meeting with Republicans that's when he delivered that message that we're not there yet. However, Donald Trump spent all weekend talking about it. In Iowa at that Lincoln Day at dinner, and then on Saturday at his rally in Pennsylvania, very much pushing Republicans to go forward with the impeachment inquiry. We know that McCarthy and others in the far right parts of the conference often do what Trump tells them to do. We'll see if that revives that effort.

Brian Lehrer: One joke coming in on Twitter or X or whatever we should call it, in reference to our brief reference to Rosemary Woods from Richard Nixon Watergate Frame, listener posts a photo of Rosemary Woods from that time and writes, "In tonight's performance, the part of Rosemary Woods will be played by Carlos De Oliviera." If you're keeping up on the Trump news and looking at that photo, it's actually pretty funny. Another tweet says, "The ageism is ridiculous. Biden will be 81, so what? Jane Fonda is 85, Chita Rivera is 90. Let's look at what Biden has accomplished in his first term not his age," writes one listener. One more call. Hinda, in New Rochelle. You're on WNYC. Hello, Hinda.

Hinda: Hi. Can you hear me?

Brian Lehrer: I can hear you. Are you on speakerphone?

Hinda: Can you hear me?

Brian Lehrer: Yes. I can hear you. Go ahead.

Hinda: No, I'm on bluetooth actually. Boy, I've never done this before. My questions are, there's not a lot of love out there for Kamala Harris. Do you see, or your guest see any scenario in which President Biden would choose another running mate that would be more attractive to the electorate? Let me just continue [unintelligible 00:38:08] vice presidents, do we have any indication as to who Trump would choose as a running mate? It clearly won't be Mike Pence, but any ideas?

Brian Lehrer: Hinda, thank you very much. On the premise of that call, before we just accept it, that there's not a lot of love for Kamala Harris, isn't she a major Democratic Party draw for fundraising events?

Jonathan: Actually, my colleagues at Politico did a piece on this recently. Her record's a little more mixed on that, but yes, she has done well raising money. Look, she had some political struggles early in her term as vice president, she herself will acknowledge that, but the West Wing really thinks that she has found her voice on a couple of issues, particularly on abortion. She has become the administration's leading voice on that issue, particularly because President Biden, by his own admission, isn't always the most comfortable talking about it. She has really stepped to the forefront there.

To answer the caller's question, no, she's not going anywhere. Is there some doubts in high-level Democratic circles about whether she'd be up for the job if President Biden suddenly decided he wasn't going to run for reelection? If she should be the party standard bearer in 2024? I think she'd be the leading contender, but she'd face a primary. I think there'd be other Democrats who were not willing to challenge President Biden, but who would be willing to challenge Vice President Harris. That said, there's no indication whatsoever that President Biden is looking to move on from his vice president. They have a pretty good working relationship.

Also, let's be clear here, the backbone of the Democratic Party, Black voters and particularly Black female voters, you're not going to alienate them by changing the vice president. That's just simply not going to happen. She's going to be a Biden-Harris ticket. As for Trump, remains to be seen, a safe bet. The caller's good joke there, that won't be Mike Pence, and a timely question because literally 10 minutes ago on Truth Social, which I checked so you don't have to, Donald Trump made a reference to the first Republican debate, which is just in a few weeks in Milwaukee.

He is planning to skip, but he says this, "Let them debate so I can see who I might consider for Vice President." Now, obviously, that's a swipe at the field, a dig at the rest of them thinking that none of them can beat him, but it is possible that someone from that field could emerge as his VP. Nikki Haley's been rumored. Tim Scott, another. Kari Lake is openly auditioning for it, it would seem, but it's entirely too early to know.

Brian Lehrer: Jonathan Lemire, Politico's White House Bureau Chief, MSNBC host of Way Too Early, weekdays in the 5:00 AM hour Eastern Time and sitting in today and again tomorrow. Jonathan, for people who may have heard you here, but not even yet seen you on television ever sitting in for Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe from 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM again tomorrow?

Jonathan: I will be there along with Willie Geist. We'll be running the show, the next couple of days.

Brian Lehrer: All right, Jonathan, thanks. We always appreciate when you get up way too early and then stay up way too late with us. Thank you.

Jonathan: My pleasure. Hope to do it again soon.

 

Copyright © 2023 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.