[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Two headlines from Congress this morning, progressive Democrats and more conservative Democrats from the House will meet separately with President Biden today as he tries again to get to yes on the physical and human infrastructure bills. If 96% of Dems want one thing and just two other people want something much less, what deal would reflect a functioning democracy? That's one story.

Remember when Donald Trump first claimed the election was stolen and he and his people kept going to court to invalidate the vote in state after state and they kept losing and losing and losing? As of January 6th, that infamous day, the Washington Post counted 62 lawsuits filed, 61 lawsuits for team Trump. The only case they won, people don't remember this because it was so small, was to make mail-in voters in Pennsylvania get their IDs to accurately match their names on their ballots no more than three days after election day. Not exactly a stolen election case. 62 lawsuits, 61 losses.

Well, now it's all these months later and Trump is going for 62 out of 63. This time he's trying to stop the January 6th committee in the House of Representatives from getting access to documents that could shed light on Trump's own role in the insurrection. At the same time, former Trump advisor, Steve Bannon, is now the subject, as you may have heard, of a criminal contempt of Congress referral by the committee for defying a subpoena to testify.

NPR congressional correspondent, Claudia Grisales, joins us now on these stories. She's been focusing mostly on the emerging battle between Congress and Trump world over witnesses and documents. Remember when the Mueller report found 10 instances of Trump obstructed the Russia investigation, he got away with that. How much can he obstruct the investigation into January 6th and get away with that? Claudia, thanks so much for some time today. Thanks for coming on WNYC.

Claudia Grisales: Definitely. Thanks for having me.

Brian Lehrer: Let's start with the newest thing, which is Trump's suing the January 6th committee and also the National Archives. What is he seeking and on what grounds?

Claudia Grisales: He's seeking to stop these records from the National Archives, these are Trump era documents, being handed over to this House select committee investigating this January 6th attack on the Capitol. He's saying that this committee is essentially of bound, that they don't have the grounds to access these documents. He also pointed at President Biden as playing a role in all this.

Of course, we know the administration greenlighted taking steps forward and sharing these kinds of documents with the committee. They said it was a priority to find out the truth behind what happened behind January 6, behind that attack in the days and weeks leading up to that day. Trump is taking direct aim at this committee in hopes of trying to stop these documents from being handed over to the panel.

Brian Lehrer: I hear something like this and I think, "What is he trying to hide?" To the extent that any of your sources have a theory, what specifically does it look like he's trying to hide?

Claudia Grisales: Well, that is a theme I'm hearing from members on the panel. Every time the former president brings up objections to the work that the committee is doing, they say, "What is he trying to hide?" They also raise this point with some of these witnesses that they have subpoenaed such as former strategist, Steve Bannon. That is the concern. Now, in terms of what those details may be, those are the sort of details that the committee is still trying to sort through to find out what possibly could be underlying all of these concerns of sharing these kind of records and testimony.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. Remind us about executive privilege and why it's a thing. My basic understanding is it's supposed to allow the president to have private policy conversations with their advisors without having the records revealed publicly. Is that the essence of it?

Claudia Grisales: I think so, yes. This is a legal shield that, as we understand it, generally sitting presidents can use to protect certain records and conversations. Now, this goes to the crux of the debate right now that's brought up in this new lawsuit that Trump has filed and also that members have taken concern with with some of these witnesses, these former Trump officials who have pointed to executive privilege.

Of course, we know Steve Bannon in one case in point was not part of the administration on January 6th. This is why panel members argue that he's presented such a weak case to rely on executive privilege to escape these demands for records and testimony. Of course, we have three other former Trump officials who are also going through this process, but Bannon presented the strongest case for this committee to move forward this evening with a vote on a contempt report and the others are still in talks with the committee, so they're not reaching that stage as of yet.

Brian Lehrer: I'll get back to Steve Bannon in a minute and what he's to trying to hide potentially, but even to dig a level deeper on executive privilege itself, why would it ever be in the public interest to restrict that transparency? Forget about the president planning a coup against the United States for a minute and trying to cover that up, why even for a normal thing is secrecy over how policies were arrived at ever in the public interest?

Claudia Grisales: Yes. This is a long running tradition for sitting presidents and it has to do largely with sensitive conversations and exchanges that presidents will take part in with their various teams. There's just some details that they want to hold onto, that they want to have restricted for a period of time before they're available for public disclosure. Again, yes, this is what Trump is trying to claim and committee members are saying, "Not so fast, we don't know that this applies for you at this stage."

Brian Lehrer: NPR congressional correspondent, Claudia Grisales, with us. You mentioned the legal question that much of the media is focusing on, can a former president, not just a current president claim executive privilege? That's one for the lawyers, as far as I'm concerned, I'm still much more interested in knowing what they're hiding, which seems like why they would probably be bothering with these claims. We talked about Trump, what might Steve Bannon be hiding? Trump had the right-wing populous leader fired from his White House job years before January 6th.

Claudia Grisales: Exactly. What we've heard from members such as Jamie Raskin, this is the Maryland Democrat, who was the lead impeachment manager in the second impeachment of former President Trump, he was saying that Bannon was part of a lot of key conversations leading up to January 6th. For example, one detail we've since heard about is a meeting that took place the evening before January 5th at a hotel just by the White House, where, from what we understand, there were discussions about what January 6th could look like and just rallying the troops, if you will, for what could come the next day.

Bannon had expressed objections as well, just as former President Trump did at the time, as to whether Biden should be president, whether he was elected rightfully. As we know, these are false claims, but this is part of this misinformation that was being spread by Bannon and others in the lead up to January 6th. From our understanding, he was in talks with a lot of key officials who were taking part in plans, especially for that key rally that came on January 6th, preceding the attack.

Brian Lehrer: The committee has now made a criminal contempt of Congress referral against Bannon to the Justice Department. Is that going to leave Attorney General Merrick Garland in the awkward position of deciding whether to actually prosecute Steve Bannon?

Claudia Grisales: This is going to be a very, very tricky position. Now, from what I've heard talking to members, this is a brand new day. This is something that could not be considered during the Trump era, but because they are under a new Biden administration, speaking of the Justice Department, there's an opportunity for this. This is an option that they can actually consider, to refer this criminal contempt charge to the Justice Department, but yes, ultimately, it will be quite the test for Garland.

Once this case gets in his hands, of course, many steps need to be followed. It needs to be sent out of committee this evening, the full House floor needs to vote on this and then it needs to be sent to the US attorney's office, but once those steps are followed, yes, it's going to probably involve highest levels of the Justice Department. Yes, it could put Garland in a very tricky position, because if he does not follow through with this, this will essentially stall out the committee's efforts in terms of them moving full steam ahead on this investigation.

Brian Lehrer: One thing you just said that I didn't know, before they can actually make this criminal referral on Bannon to the Justice Department, the full House of Representatives has to vote on it. Is there going to be some very contentious floor

debate that might involve the 200-plus Democrats and the 200-plus Republicans over whether to criminally refer Steve Bannon?

Claudia Grisales: Yes. This could be very contentious on the House floor. That is something that we are watching for, because this is part of a debate that has played out in public for months since January between Democrats, and especially between Republicans who really want to put aside the events of January 6, not discuss it or even downplay it. Those are the kind of debates that are going to be relitigating, if you will, on the House floor. Once this committee pushes this out, we're expecting them to vote. They've been very much on the same page. We expect them to vote this forward to the House floor, but once it gets there, yes, we're expecting quite a contentious debate to happen over this contempt report for Steve Bannon.

Brian Lehrer: Well, let me ask you this, if they're referring Steve Bannon for potential prosecution for obstructing the January 6th investigation by refusing to comply with a subpoena, why aren't they going after Trump himself on the same grounds, who Bannon says asked him to defy the subpoena in the first place?

Claudia Grisales: My understanding is they're going after their strongest case first, Bannon. They have multiple attempts that they have documented of reaching out to Bannon, of the subpoena, of the request made to him, of the information they have requested, and he utterly just rejecting those requests outright and trying to point to executive privilege. Yes, it was former President Trump that was telling these officials, Steve Bannon and others, that certain conversations documents are still covered by executive privilege, and so Bannon is pointing to this as his defense. However, this is what the panel was saying will not pan out.

Now, when it comes to Trump, they haven't had a direct subpoena request to him as they did with Bannon. This contempt report is several pages long. It documents all these attempts, so it's a very strong case for them. For Trump, that would take some time. If they did decide to go in that direction, they would have to have a lot of documentation, a lot of preparation in order to repeat this effort with him directly.

Brian Lehrer: They are considering subpoenaing Donald Trump for testimony before the January 6th committee?

Claudia Grisales: That is not something that we've heard of as of yet. They are talking about issuing additional subpoenas for other individuals, whether that would involve Trump, we have not gotten that signal as of yet, but it is a possibility.

Brian Lehrer: In our remaining time, Claudia, one other thing, Biden meeting with more progressive and more conservative Democrats in the House today to, hopefully, move closer to a deal on the physical and human infrastructure bills. My question is why is he meeting with the more conservative Democrats in the House? Many listeners probably assume the only real dissenters are Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema in the Senate.

Claudia Grisales: Some have argued, perhaps Manchin himself, that they provide cover for some of these other moderates who may be feeling the same way, may

have some of the same concerns as they do. In the House in particular, there have been some complaints that Biden has not done enough outreach with members of the democratic caucus there. Especially when we talk about certain segments of the caucus, when we're talking about these moderates or progressive's even in that wing of the party. Now, when we talk about moderates, they took a hit this past month. They were expecting this big vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill that did not happen.

This is something that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi committed to and it did not happen according to the date planned, which was the end of September. Now they've had to push everything off. Both these bills are walking in tandem, and so the House is where really efforts have stalled out and the negotiations really need to reach some sort of a final resolution in order to move forward. That's where everything is waiting right now. Although we know that Manchin and Sinema are playing a key role here, directing what direction they may go in when it comes to the ultimate deal on both these bills, if they happen.

Brian Lehrer: Before you go, one thing I think is really interesting now on this is the back and forth between Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin. In the press in West Virginia, listeners, in case you haven't heard this, Sanders wrote an op-ed in West Virginia newspaper the other day, arguing to mention some constituents that the plan, the human infrastructure bill is "Vitally important for seniors and enormously important for working families and their children" and of course, a lot more than that, but that's the central case.

Manchin issued a statement in response calling Sanders an out-of-stater, trying to tell West Virginians what's best for them without having a relationship with them. Sanders pointed to polls that show the provisions of the bill are in fact very popular. This is about childcare, this is about elder care, this is about access to community college. Claudia, I think it's really interesting that they're debating the policies now before working class voters, who the bill is for in West Virginia, not just debating a hypothetical price tag, which is, in my opinion, what the media covers too much. Any indication yet, if that kind of substantive pressure is moving Manchin's political calculation?

Claudia Grisales: It's hard to say right now. I thought it was very interesting yesterday seeing Manchin and Sanders, they happened to leave the Senate chamber at the same time. They even posed for a photo together. They were sending each other encouraging words. This is quite the dramatic fight that's playing out right here in public. Yes, they're getting into more specifics when it comes to these policies. Now, whether that moves Manchin, that's really hard to say. He has been saying for months-- He's had the same theme in terms of what he wants to see in this ultimate bill that the Democrats want to move just with their members, this human infrastructure bill, if you will.

That is something that remains to be seen if he could be shifted, but so far, there are signs that he has not been. This battle between Sanders and Manchin could continue along with the rest of the caucus as they try to figure out a way out of this

deal to reach some sort of agreement.

Brian Lehrer: Well, I'm glad it's moving a little bit, at least, off numbers, numbers, numbers and into substance substance substance. There we have to leave it with NPR congressional correspondent, Claudia Grisales. We so appreciate your coverage day to day. We really appreciate that you came on with us here on one little radio show on one little radio station out of the whole NPR network. Thank you for your time, Claudia. I guess you have to go back to the Hill.

Claudia Grisales: Yes. Thank you so much. Great to be with you.

Copyright © 2021 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.