Arun Venugopal: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Arun Venugopal from the WNYC Newsroom's Race & Justice Unit, filling in for Brian Lehrer who is off today for the holiday. To all of our Jewish listeners, we hope you have an easy fast and a meaningful Yom Kippur. To all of our listeners in the Writers Guild of America, congrats on ending the strike. News outlets are reporting that apparently, the writers got most of what they wanted in the deal which members still have to vote on.

On today's show, have you noticed the subway is more crowded than in the past couple years? Ridership is now hitting seasonal highs, and the MTA is offering free bus rides on one line in each borough. WNYC reporter Stephen Nessen will join us to discuss the latest transit-related news. Plus, we're going to hear from a group in New Jersey that's making a push for reparations, and an editor at The Atlantic is going to share her very personal story about how she overcame her traumatic childhood. We'll take your calls with similar stories too.

First, on Thursday, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine completed a three-day visit to the United States, first addressing the UN General Assembly, and then heading to Washington to try and shore up continued support from the US government. Last time he was here in December, the Ukrainian President received a standing ovation from a joint session of Congress and received a lot of money and spending. This time, however, House Republicans refused to even meet with Zelenskyy. Here's House Speaker Kevin McCarthy explaining to reporters why.

Kevin McCarthy: This is a little busy week. We're dealing with the funding issue. I don't know how we could slip that in in such a short time.

Arun Venugopal: Reports from inside Congress suggest that House Republicans may be using support for Ukraine as a pawn for the government shutdown. Meanwhile, closer to home, the news broke right here before this show on Friday that the powerful New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez was charged with a corruption indictment that accuses him of using his foreign affairs influence for personal gain. He's accused of secretly aiding the government of Egypt, and trying to thwart the criminal prosecution of a friend in exchange for gold bars and cash. Senator Menendez is planned to host a press conference in Hudson County this morning at 11:30 AM. We'll update you if anything comes out from that.

Here to discuss all of those political news headlines and so much more is Susan Glasser, staff writer at The New Yorker where she writes a column on life in Biden's Washington, and also co-anchors a weekly roundtable discussion on The Political Scene Podcast, and co-author with Peter Baker of The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021.

Welcome back to WNYC, Susan.

Susan Glasser: Oh, it's great to be with you. I'm exhausted just listening to your rundown of all the crazy things that are converging on us this week.

Arun Venugopal: Well, I imagine you've been a little working overtime these last few weeks. Let's hear a little about that, starting with Ukraine. Susan, on Thursday, President Zelenskyy met with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats behind closed doors. President Zelenskyy is asking for $24 billion in United States aid. Here's what Senator Charles Schumer told reporters following the meeting.

Senator Chuck Schumer: There was a single sentence that summed it all up, and I'm quoting him verbatim. Mr. Zelenskyy said, "If we don't get the aid, we will lose the war."

Arun Venugopal: All right, Susan, we're going to get to the Republican reaction, or to be specific, the infighting, over this visit in a second. First, what has the Democratic reaction to Zelenskyy been at this point in time?

Susan Glasser: It is very striking. First of all, that sentence I think really sums it up. The Washington front in the war between Ukraine and Russia is a decisive front, and the United States has provided an extraordinary amount of military security, intelligence assistance to Ukraine. It would not be able to be launching this counteroffensive or to be fighting the way that it has been fighting for a year and a half without this extraordinary level of support, and of course it's contingent on Congress continuing to back that.

There have been large bipartisan majorities-- and by the way, it was actually Senate Republicans and Democrats who met with Zelenskyy. That was a bipartisan meeting of the entire US Senate in the Old Senate Chamber, a very rare thing to do for a foreign visitor. I do think there remains strong backing from what you might call the more conventional wing of the Republican Party in this age of Trump, but the direction of travel is away from the bipartisanship, and Donald Trump and many of his loudest acolytes in the Republican Party are increasingly focused on politicizing the Ukraine aid and working against further authorization.

Arun Venugopal: Yes, you mentioned the conventional wing, which I think in this age of Trump, as you mentioned, can be really drowned out. We can almost forget that there are people who used to stand very ideologically anti-communist and in support of, say, the Ukrainian cause. How vocal or how much clout does this wing have now?

Susan Glasser: Well, it's still by far the dominant- on foreign policy, it is the dominant group of Republican-elected officials in Congress. Even in the House of Representatives, which is much more performatively Trump, and we're seeing that with the government shutdown and everything, even in the House of Representatives, the majority of the Republican Conference supports Ukraine and has continued to do so. There was a vote earlier this summer and 70 House Republicans, that's about one-third of House Republicans, voted against continuing the aid, and that percentage is much lower in the Senate.

It's still the dominant voice on foreign policy among elected Republicans in Congress, but again, the loud echo chamber, the direction of travel in the Republican Party is to continue to empower the Trumpists. As you know, Donald Trump has made public admiration for Vladimir Putin a staple of his persona. He claimed that Putin had shown strategic genius, that was a quote, "genius," after the invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022. He says now, well, he would just end the war in 24 hours. Obviously, his solution would end up being a land-for-peace type deal. It's an emerging fault line inside the GOP.

Arun Venugopal: Kevin McCarthy refused to let Zelenskyy even speak to a joint meeting of Congress. What did he say, and what do you think are the optics of that?

Susan Glasser: Yes, that was really extraordinary, especially because it seemed to only underscore the ongoing kind of slow-motion public humiliation of Kevin McCarthy, who is the weakest Speaker of my lifetime of the House of Representatives. Playing this hand of weakness, McCarthy has claimed to be a supporter of Ukraine, but is increasingly in thrall to this fringe of his party that is not.

I thought it was remarkable that he refused to allow us Zelenskyy to address the joint session of Congress, especially because he gave the excuse that he was essentially too busy, and his conference was too busy negotiating government spending bills. Of course, they not only failed to pass a single one of those bills last week, but twice last week, including on the very day that Zelenskyy was visiting Washington, McCarthy's own rule for consideration of an important defense bill went down to defeat.

That's a procedural thing, but basically what it means is in the House of Representatives, if you can't get a rule passed to consider a bill, that essentially you've lost control of the House floor, you've lost control of your own majority. That underscores the perilous situation that McCarthy is in. He really isn't really fully leading his own caucus.

Arun Venugopal: Listeners, we can take your comments too or maybe your questions for our guest, Susan Glasser from The New Yorker. Do you want to weigh in on aid for Ukraine, or maybe on whether Senator Robert Menendez should resign or not? Call us at 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-433-9692. You can also text us at that number if you can't get through on the phone, or just tweet us @BrianLehrer.

Susan, you said on The New Yorker's Political Scene Podcast that losing the rule twice. Maybe you can elaborate on what that rule is when it comes to procedure rules over the Pentagon funding bill. McCarthy has suffered a couple of defeats on that front in the last week. You said that "the nihilists are in charge." Speaker McCarthy publicly slammed his far-right flank for wanting to "burn the place down." Take us into this space a little, and tell us who his main opponents are and what they really want.

Susan Glasser: Yes. That's one thing that's very interesting when it comes to the question of, what do they really want? Even McCarthy at one point, not last week but the week before, essentially came out and lamented to reporters, I don't know what they want. Of course, it's very hard to make a deal with people who are determined just to burn things down for the sake of burning things down, and that is why there's an element of nihilism to all of this.

It's not so much about ideology, although this is a group of certainly very far-right Republicans who in a general sense say that they're waging a campaign against excessive government spending, which they define as pretty much any non-defense spending, and for some of them, even defense spending. It's broadly speaking under the umbrella of anti-government spending, but the specifics are very hard to suss out, in part because it's not so much about specifics.

One thing I've noticed, and certainly supporters of Ukraine have noticed with alarm, is that they have increasingly made ending funding for Ukraine a condition of their demands at various points. Many of them are also personal opponents of Speaker McCarthy. That certainly includes Matt Gaetz, who is probably the most outspoken leader of the movement toward the shutdown right now. He triggered this as soon as Congress came back from its summer recess, got on the floor and said, essentially, I'm going to come here every day and seek to take down the Speaker.

One of the things that happened, basically, this is all a result of the 2020 midterm elections, when Republicans were expected historically to win pretty big, they didn't. They did narrowly win back the House of Representatives, but as it turned out, with not a big enough margin for McCarthy to be comfortably installed as leader. Remember, the 15 ballots that it took to elect him as Speaker back in January? That was extraordinary, something we hadn't seen since the 19th century.

This is the consequences of the deals he frantically made to make that happen coming back to bite him. Because he made this huge concession in January to get the job, and he said, essentially, I will allow one single member of our conference to be able to bring a petition to the floor that would be to vacate the chair. In other words, to call for essentially an approval vote on whether the Speaker should stay in power. That has been the club over McCarthy's head that people like Matt Gaetz have wielded. Now they seem like they may actually use it in the middle of this spending fight.

It's entirely possible, within the next week or so, we could see a no-confidence vote against Kevin McCarthy that would tie the House of Representatives even more up in knots.

Arun Venugopal: Would that conceivably empower House Democrats?

Susan Glasser: Well, it's interesting. There's this fantasy-- and I have to say, lots of fans of The West Wing out there. I'm a big fan of The West Wing. There's always the kind of fantasy, good government outcome version in Washington. It usually doesn't happen in my experience. The current West Wing scenario, if you will, for how this week might play out is that enough Republicans from these Biden-voting swing districts-- there are about 18 of them, by the way. There are 18 House Republicans, I believe, who were elected in districts that also went for Joe Biden at the presidential level, so those are the more moderate House districts.

If enough Republicans, and they only need five or six, joined with all Democrats, they could have, essentially, control of the House floor. They could seize control of the House floor temporarily to pass spending bills and to keep the government funded. Because, by the way, the clock is really ticking. Saturday is the deadline. If these guys don't get their act together, the US government is going to shut down for, frankly, no real apparent reason except the vanity and ego of a small number of politicians.

Arun Venugopal: All right, we've got some callers for you, Susan. Let's take the first one. Pete, calling from Sherman, Connecticut. Hi, Pete. You're on the air.

Pete: Hey, how are you? Good topics, a bunch of them, actually. I don't even know where to start. My question is, why isn't President Biden using more executive orders [unintelligible 00:14:38]? Trump did lots of executive orders. Is he doing it because of the election? I don't know. Because it seems like-- I don't know how seven Republicans- they're not senators, they're just congresspeople, the seven that they talk about, are holding up everything? I don't get how this government has turned into this government. It's just insane. It's like, who do you vote for? It's like, you got to vote for the lesser evil. Okay-

Arun Venugopal: Thank you.

Pete: -so you vote for Biden because he's done a good job. [crosstalk]--

Arun Venugopal: Thank you, Pete. I think you've voiced a good chunk of the electorate, how did this government turn to this government? Susan, do you want to take any of that, in terms of what President Biden can viably do and perhaps the illusion of what he can do, but what he actually can do, given the divisions in Congress?

Susan Glasser: Well, look, the bottom line is there's the Constitution, and the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. That's the main power that Congress has. Sorry, that's my coworker, Ellie. [chuckles]

Congress, basically, this is its job, its core job. If it doesn't do any other job, this is the job that it has to do, which is to pass the funding necessary to keep the US government opening. There is a lot, and increasingly, in fact, presidents of both parties over the last few decades have turned to executive authority. What they're not able to do, though, is to actually do Congress' job for it. That's number one. There's no way around Congress having to pass these spending bills.

Number two, I think to the point about, why is this happening? One thing we've seen that's pretty notable is this is a tactic, basically, of Republicans, okay? There's plenty to question about Democrats' tactics and their strategy, and what kind of a job President Biden is doing in the White House, but the bottom line is since Newt Gingrich decided to weaponize shutdowns back in the 1990s, when Republicans took back control of the House for the first time in 40 years, this has been a tactic that again and again and again Republicans have turned to.

Interestingly, they often get blamed for it and penalized politically. It has not proven to be a winning strategy for them politically. Donald Trump had, at his instigation, the longest government shutdown in history, 35 days; at the end of which, he got nothing of what he had demanded. Yet nonetheless, it's still something that you see Republicans attracted to as a tactic.

Arun Venugopal: Susan, I just want to, for a moment, circle back to the war in Ukraine and away from the optics but to substance. Last time Zelenskyy came to Washington, DC, he addressed both sides of the aisle, got a standing ovation. What did he get from that last visit, and what do you think he's likely to get now?

Susan Glasser: By the way, Zelenskyy did get something very significant in his meeting with Joe Biden. He got, essentially, the last in a long list of weapons and capabilities that the Ukrainians had asked for at the beginning of the war. Biden did inform Zelenskyy, according to reporting after the visit, that he had finally and reluctantly signed off on sending ATACMS, which are longer-range missiles than we have up until now provided to Ukraine. That would enable them, for example, to hit targets in occupied Crimea and elsewhere beyond the range of their frontlines. The British have provided similar missiles called the Storm Shadow missiles. This one from the US is even longer.

He did get something new from Biden, but the bigger issue right now is that there is an additional $24 billion spending request that the administration has sent up to Congress over the summer. They need that to continue funding and supporting Ukraine's military effort. This counteroffensive, according to Ukrainian officials, is they don't plan to stop it, and they plan to keep fighting through the winter, but the money at some point will run out. Congress has provided something like, I don't know, more than $50 billion so far in military and security assistance since the Russian invasion in 2022, but while vast, it is not unlimited. It is running out right now. That's the bill that's getting caught up in the larger fight over the government shutdown.

Arun Venugopal: All right, let's take another call. This is Marie from the Bronx. Hi, Marie. You're on the air.

Marie: Hi, there. Good morning. I've heard from other news sources that much of the weaponry that's being given to Ukraine is manufactured here in the United States, and therefore, a benefit to local workers. First of all, I wonder, is that true? Second, if it is true, why is it not part of the discussion that we're hearing aired on the air?

Arun Venugopal: Susan, any thoughts?

Susan Glasser: Sure. This is definitely a boon to certain corners of the American defense industry. These are in some cases very sophisticated, in some cases not very sophisticated weapons that the US is supplying both from its own arsenals or contracting with US suppliers to do so. Of course, the US' allies, European allies, and increasingly, allies around the world such as South Korea and others, are providing things like artillery munitions.

This is a war that really hearkens back in some ways to the conflicts of the 20th century. There are high-tech drones being deployed in Ukraine, but there are also tank battles and artillery battles in ways that are almost reminiscent of the trench fighting in World War I. Every kind of weapon is being sent there. The scale of it is absolutely massive. By the way, the scale of US assistance; before the war, Ukraine's defense budget was $6 billion, 6. Think about that in the context of nearly $50 billion in assistance over the last year and a half we have green-lighted.

Arun Venugopal: Let's go to another caller. This is Scott calling in from Soho. Hi, Scott. You're on the air.

Scott: Yes. Hi. I love listening to all these facts and figures. How many Ukrainians have been killed so far, and how many Russians? They're usually young people too.

Arun Venugopal: I'm not sure. Susan, do you happen to have those figures on hand about death tolls on either side? It's maybe something you don't have with you right now.

Susan Glasser: Well, that's right. There's no precise information. Interestingly, there was quite a dramatic report that came out in August, sourced to the Pentagon, I believe it was in The New York Times, which the numbers that were quoted were absolutely enormous. This is the largest and deadliest land conflict in Europe since the end of World War II, absolutely, and the numbers cited for Russian casualties were unbelievable. They were, I think, close to 150,000 of whom something close approaching 100,000 deaths, if I'm not wrong. The numbers were not quite that high for Ukraine, but of course Ukraine is a much smaller country. In general, we haven't gotten as much information about Ukraine's potential casualties because-- that's really the sensitive issue there.

We can supply, as I've been talking about, enormous numbers of weaponry and intelligence and other capacities to Ukraine. We're wealthy, our allies in Western Europe are wealthy. We can do that without too much pain on ourselves. What we cannot supply is more Ukrainians. That is a limited, a non-renewable resource, and of course that's the tragedy of this conflict. It's a very, very deadly conflict. What's been remarkable is that Russia seems to be absorbing this large number of casualties and so far, we haven't really seen what the effect has been inside the increasingly closed Russian society.

Arun Venugopal: Scott, I take it you had a point you want to get across, one that you might have made to the screener a couple minutes ago. Is there one?

Scott: Well, yes, there is. There's a lot, actually. Those numbers [crosstalk]--

Arun Venugopal: Why don't you focus on one, though, yes? [crosstalk]--

Scott: Well, that's what I'm saying. The number of debt is probably closer to a half a million. I'm just wondering, when did WNYC and NPR get so fond of the military and war? I mean, what's so bad about people that don't want to continue a war that's killed that many people?

Susan Glasser: Sorry. There's no evidence to suggest that it's a half a million. I don't think that would be a responsible number to just throw out there for people. Again, I do think it's clear, this is a very deadly war, but just to be clear, there's no reporting that I'm aware of, any reliable reporting. I think it's such a distortion and it's sad to me, really, that we're at this moment in time where it's caricatured as being pro-war to have--

Ukraine's country was invaded, with no provocation, by a Russian force- essentially, in a neocolonial war of aggression, by a force of nearly 200,000 people. Now there are, according to reports I've seen, far more than that now in the parts of Ukraine that are occupied or that are active war zones. This is a remarkable circular argument. "Well, Russia invaded your country and people are dying, so you're in favor of war." Can you imagine, would that be your argument if Canada or Mexico invaded part of the United States, "Well, we should just give it to them the part that they took"?

Arun Venugopal: Well, thank you for that answer, Susan, and thanks for that question, Scott. My guest is New Yorker writer Susan Glasser. Susan, let's take it a little more local now. New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez and his wife are accused of accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in exchange for the Senator's political influence. Can you briefly recap the accusations for listeners who might have missed the story and give us your own take as well?

Susan Glasser: Yes, thanks so much. This is really a remarkable document as indictments go. It's a fascinating read. There are pictures to go along with it, pictures of things like gold bullion bars that the Senator and his wife are accused of accepting, pictures of a jacket with the US Senate logo on it and the Senator's name stuffed with cash. I believe the indictment alleges that more than $400,000 in cash was found when they did a search of Menendez's property and his things. The overall allegation, there are two other co-defendants as well, is that Menendez was essentially using his official position on behalf of undisclosed foreign interest, the government of Egypt, and that he was receiving improper payments, including also no-show work for his wife, as well as the aforementioned cash and gold bullion and even, I think, a car was involved.

This is a classic foreign influence-peddling payoff scandal. It's reminiscent of some of the big scandals of the past. For example, the Abscam Scandal, way back when I was a little kid, involved, I think, then New Jersey Senator Harrison Williams. Same thing, huge amounts of cash and, in that case, Middle Eastern lobbyists' payoffs, and there was an FBI sting that was very controversial.

In this case, the other thing that's notable is that it's not even the first time that Menendez, who was serving as the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been forced to step aside from that role because of a federal corruption indictment. He already had one case against him a few years ago, which he got off after, I believe, a deadlocked jury in his case in 2018, and now there's a whole different corruption charges being lodged against him.

Arun Venugopal: And certainly, we're hearing an uproar from some of his fellow Democrats after the charges. Let's listen to some of that. We're going to hear New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, and Arizona Senator Mark Kelly here.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: I do believe that it is in the best interest for Senator Menendez to resign in this moment. As you mentioned, consistency matters. It shouldn't matter whether it's a Republican or a Democrat. The details in this indictment are extremely serious. They involve the nature of not just his, but all of our seats in Congress.

Dick Durbin: This is a very serious charge, there's no question about it. In terms of resignation, that's a decision to be made by Senator Menendez and the people of New Jersey.

Mark Kelly: Well, these are serious and shocking charges: bribery, corruption. I've never seen anything like this. I think Senator Menendez is going to have to think long and hard about the cloud that's going to hang over his service in the United States Senate.

Arun Venugopal: That was New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, and Arizona Senator Mark Kelly speaking to CNN. Susan, this sounds like to me, I guess, a pattern where- a very distinct pattern in terms of how Democrats handle these kinds of accusations versus Republicans. Am I correct, do you think?

Susan Glasser: Well, I think that's one of the reasons you're seeing such a loud pressure campaign on Menendez to step aside for that reason, that Democrats would like to be able to make that contrast between how they're approaching this case and how Republicans are approaching the four criminal cases pending against Donald Trump. They're looking to make that juxtaposition. Remember, Democrats are the ones who pressured Al Franken, the Minnesota Democratic Senator, to step aside after allegations that were nothing like this and certainly didn't involve a criminal case against him. There's also the question of, what are the standards inside the Democratic caucus?

I thought it was very notable that New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, and many of the other members of the New Jersey Congressional Delegation, all acted en masse on Friday to say that Menendez should step aside, and that shows a big split inside the state Democratic Party. If Menendez chooses to fight, one big question is what he will do about 2024 because he is actually up for reelection in 2024. This is presumed to be a pretty solidly Democratic seat, but Republicans could have a chance if Menendez were to run and were to win the primary again with this cloud hanging over him. One of the congresspeople, Andy Kim, has already announced that he's running, others could jump in, the Democratic primary as well. There are political implications for this, including, by the way too, control of the US Senate, which is very, very narrow right now.

Arun Venugopal: Now given that one of the big questions hanging over Washington is how a former president who has been indicted four times can be running competitively with the current president, Joe Biden, do you think that this idea of showing a strong response to alleged corruption charges, that it's going to empower Democrats? Do you think that is wishful thinking on their part, or do you think that actually it does bear some resemblance to how people actually vote?

Susan Glasser: [chuckles] It's a great question. There's a lot to unpack there. I'm glad you started with this observation because I think it's the most important one. It's a remarkable situation that we find ourselves in as a country that's so divided, that Donald Trump has not lost the support of the Republican Party after everything. That he continues to be the runaway leader in the Republican primary fight for 2024 despite the four criminal indictments, despite the two impeachments, despite his becoming literally the only president in American history to seek to overturn the results of a legitimate election, and all of the other out-line behavior.

It's a remarkable thing that whenever you think of any particular poll, essentially, these two are running that close to dead even. It tells you, I think, about an ongoing, very serious crisis in our country.

Arun Venugopal: Now one of the few people publicly defending Menendez would happen to be Republican Congressman George Santos of New York, who is facing 13 federal criminal charges related to alleged financial crimes. Santos is calling for due process. Not the best look for Menendez that he's getting very little support from anyone else, is it, Susan?

Susan Glasser: [chuckles] Well, sometimes I guess you don't pick who you end up in the foxhole with, but you can definitely do better than to have the fellow guy who's accused of serious federal crimes be in your corner. That suggests that there's not going to be a lot of solidarity, I don't think, behind Senator Menendez if he chooses to stay and fight in the Senate. It's a disgrace. Whatever the criminality or not that ultimately is found, he's entitled, of course, to his defense and his day in court, but these allegations clearly bring an amount of disrepute on the Senate. They are very, very serious. To me, they go right to the heart of his official position. He wasn't just a rank-and-file member of the Senate. This is the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman allegedly abusing the power of that position.

Arun Venugopal: Well, let's take a caller from New Jersey. This is Jim calling from Brick Township. Hi, Jim.

Jim: I just wanted to clarify the way it's being posed that Menendez can defend himself but outside the Senate. He's only going to-- Andy Kim is a Democrat, and he may not win against him in the primary, but the option that Menendez has is to withdraw from not just the Committee but the Senate, and have a Democratic governor, Murphy, appoint his successor and with a greater likelihood of winning the sooner he does it.

Arun Venugopal: And so, Jim, you want him to step down, is what you're saying.

Jim: Yes.

Arun Venugopal: Okay.

Jim: He's entitled to defend himself, but he doesn't have to do it from the Senate. There was some evidence aside from his other violations. He had succeeded in appointing someone to the New Jersey Attorney General's Office, I believe, but that person, I forget their name, has recused themselves, even though it's in the Southern District of New York. Menendez is attempting to stay in office to effectively get better treatment and at the expense of everyone else.

Arun Venugopal: All right. Thank you, Jim. Jim just referred to New Jersey Representative Andy Kim, who on Saturday announced that he will run against Menendez in the state's Democratic primary for Senate next year. Fox News is anticipating that in his conference today, Menendez will actually announce his own reelection bid for 2024. Susan, what do you think is going to happen and what might the political fallout be?

Susan Glasser: [chuckles] It's certainly a fight Democrats probably weren't looking to have right now, between this and the indictment of Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden. It's a reminder that there's a long history of influence peddling and public corruption cases in this country, and they have historically involved Democrats as well as Republicans. That's something you learn pretty quickly when you come to Washington to cover politics. Menendez stands out even in that long history; two different criminal cases on corruption charges against a single New Jersey senator. It's not a super-distinguished record, let's say that.

Arun Venugopal: Susan, I'm wondering if maybe this is a little bit afield, but just relating to the topic of immigration, another hot button in budget negotiations, perhaps, on Wednesday. There are close to half a million Venezuelan migrants who received what's called Temporary Protected Status, a greenlight to legally live and work in the US for another 18 months, follows a lot of lobbying on the part of Democrats here in New York. How much do you know about what went into that decision on the part of the Biden administration?

Susan Glasser: Well, I think you're right, that it was long in the works and that they were pushing for it for a long time. It was something that Democrats had wanted, and I think that the Department of Homeland Security wanted it as well because of the enormous complications of this, but it's a significant move.

Arun Venugopal: All right. Well, we're going to leave it there for today. My guest has been New Yorker staff writer Susan Glasser. She's also the co-author with Peter Baker of The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021. Susan, thank you so much for coming on today.

Susan Glasser: Great to be with you. Thank you.

 

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.