The Daily Signal - #449: The Inside Story of Trump’s First 2 Years in Washington

Episode Date: April 28, 2019

On today's show, we talk to Jake Sherman, the Politico Playbook writer who has a new book called "The Hill To Die On: The Battle for Congress and the Future of Trump's America." He examines the first two years of Donald Trump's presidency and some of the biggest moments in Washington.We also share your letters and an inspiring story about a college athlete who has chosen hope over despair despite a serious leg injury. Please help us spread the word about The Daily Signal Podcast. Give us a 5-star review and share this episode with your family and friends. That will help us make sure we are continuing to grow and reach more listeners. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Monday, April 29th. I'm Rob Lewy. And I'm Virginia Allen. Today we are talking to Jake Sherman, the Politico Playbook writer who has a new book called The Hill to Die on, the Battle for Congress and the future of Trump's America. We also share your letters and an inspiring story about a college athlete who has chosen hope over despair despite a serious leg injury. Before we begin, we'd like to ask for your help to spread the word about the Daily Signal podcast. Please give us a five-star review on iTunes and share this episode with your family and friends.

That will help us make sure that we are continuing to grow and reach more listeners. Stay tuned for today's show. Coming up next. We are joined on the Daily Signal podcast today by Jake Sherman, senior writer at Politico and co-author of Politico's Playbook. It's one of my favorite political newsletters. I read it every day and I'd encourage our listeners to subscribe. We're talking to Jake today about a new book he wrote with Anna Palmer called the Hill to Die on, the battle for Congress and the future of Trump's America. Jake, welcome to the show. Thanks for having me. I appreciate you guys having me. Well, first, congratulations on the success of your book. It's already a New York Times bestseller. And you and Anna have done a remarkable job

chronicling the first two years of Trump's presidency and the battles that have taken place in Congress. Tell us why you decided to write it. It's a very good question. We knew that Trump, I mean, let me even take a step back. We were approached to write a book about Congress at the beginning of 2017, and Anna and I had kind of thought about this many times over the years. We thought about whether we can write an interesting book about Congress. We've always been convinced that Congress is the best story in the world, and we think it's the best story in politics, even more than the White House.

And when Trump got elected, we had a sense that it would be very interesting because it was clear he was going to not conduct himself as a typical. and ordinary president. And that's been clear now. It was not clear to the extent of which it would be able to do that in 2017. So we figured how the deals got done or didn't get done would be a fascinating story. So we started basically with Election Day 2016, ended with the shutdown, which was not planned, obviously at the end of at the beginning of 2019, and told the story not as a Trump story solely, but as a story about Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, and the Freedom Caucus, and kind of the trials and travails and ups and down contained within those characters.

So we took a different task, which was to not focus maniacally on Trump as a lot of books have done, but through Congress's eyes. Absolutely. So, Jake, based on your reporting, what are some of the biggest changes that you've observed in Washington during Trump's presidency? So a few things. It's a good question. A few things. Number one, I think the,

and this is not a major theme of the book, but it came up time and time again the role of cable news in the Trump administration and shaping both his view and the policies that he supports. I mean, we have several instances throughout the book where Sean Hannity of Fox News was acting as an informal

advisor both to the president and to Republicans on Capitol. That's basically unheard of. It's not, I'm not saying it's criminal or anything. It's just not typical for another administration in other time. That's probably one of the big ways things have changed. Also, as has been reported a million times, the extent to which the president is talking to just many, many, many people all the time is fascinating.

I mean, imagine if you're a CEO of a company and you're calling up, you know, dozens of people before you make a decision throughout the company. and that's kind of what the president does. I think those two of the major changes, and one thing that I've kind of observed secondhand since the book has been released is, you know, mostly in places like New York and L.A. and on the coast, people always ask me,

are Republicans going to be happy when he's gone? And the thing that I and your listeners might sympathize with this, the thing that I don't think a lot of people understand is that there's a whole country besides the coasts, where the president is exceedingly popular, and that's reflected on Capitol Hill or at least was between 2016 and 2018. So this is not a Trump fan book. It's not a Trump hate book. And there's been a lot of those two things, which I think sets us aside. Well, and we certainly appreciate that reporting that you've done. You know, Robert Novak is one of the people who I look to when I was getting my start in reporting. and I love the fact that he was able to bring that insight, much the same way that you and Anna do in Playbook every day and you do as well in this book.

You know, one of the things that you write is that during those first two years of the Trump administration, Congress gained power, but you say shrink in its willingness to exercise it. How do you see that changing now that Democrats control the House? And is there a greater appreciation for Congress's Article I responsibility today? Well, I would say a few things. And what we meant by that is Congress gained in power because there was a president who didn't really understand Washington or government, really. And, you know, there's a great, it's not me saying that. That people like Mitch McConnell told me he basically didn't know how Washington worked in any way, shape, or form, which, by the way, allowed McConnell to reshape the judiciary. But when we say in shrink its willingness to use it, at.

times it had the opportunity to, for example, shore up Robert Mueller's investigation. It did not do that. But going forward, I think it's quite clear that the legislative branch and the oversight responsibilities and powers that Congress has are going to be used more than ever. And we see that. I mean, we see now that the Democrats are considering using penalties, fiscal penalty, monetary penalties for people who don't testify to their liking or fork over documents. I mean, I think we're about to see a major sea change in Congress's power and how it used it. And I would say the president vastly, in my reporting, would show vastly underestimated how bad a Democratic House would be for him. He told us in an interview in the Oval Office, he was, you know, Republicans were too nitpicky when it came to controlling the House.

had too many changes to legislation. He didn't appreciate that. Now he has a Democratic House who he thought he would be able to work with based on his relationship with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, and he finds himself under a barrage of very serious investigation. And I don't think he anticipated that. Absolutely. Jake, you write about the government shutdown in the book,

how that happened and the fallout. In both cases, President Trump squared off, against Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer. What did you learn about their relationship? And is there any chance of them working together on legislation? Well, I would say I learned a lot. And I was eager to learn a lot because it's a very unique relationship. I will, let me start backward kind of.

In 2017, the president, as many your listeners will remember, cut a deal with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to keep the government. open in place of cutting a deal with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, who had a different issues. And we make the case in the book that that deal that he cut to keep the government open for three months, lift the debt ceiling for three months, and provide disaster relief for places like Texas led to a lot of the border squabbling that we saw over the years. So I think the president appreciates the flare he gets, the coverage he gets for cutting deals with Democrats, number one. So number two, he has a reverend.

for Nancy Pelosi that he does not have or did not have for Paul Ryan, I would say for sure. He doesn't understand why Democrats stick together so much better than Republicans. And he said as much to us on the record. The Democrats stink with their policy, their bad politicians, but they stick together and Republicans do not. And he likes Pelosi. He actually had planned to convince the Freedom Caucus to support Nancy Pelosi for Speaker if she fell short with Republicans, which is a stunning statement.

And a lot of your listeners will appreciate that. I mean, that's unheard of. The Republicans have spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to prevent Nancy Pelosi from taking back the majority. So I would say that I was optimistic that he would cut deals with Democrats. I had been 2016. I don't believe right now there's the climate to do so for many reasons. Chief among them that the president is exercising his power and we'll see how much power he's able to exercise. in preventing Democrats from talking to members of his administration and getting documents that they deem pertinent,

that is going to be a huge battle both legislatively, politically, and legally, I would imagine. So I would imagine that the cost of Nancy Pelosi trying to cut deals with Donald Trump goes up exponentially if he's unable and unwilling to participate in oversight in his administration. I want to follow up that and follow up on that in my next question. You know, much of the tension with Democrats over those two years has centered on immigration and border security. We're now hearing that Jared Kushner, whose reference throughout the book, is working on a plan. How much influence does Kushner have with the president? And do you see any potential for him to repeat the success that they had with criminal justice reform on an issue like immigration?

Rob, as you know, Republicans have been for criminal justice reform for many years. And you'll remember, Paul Ryan in late 2016, had a deal basically cut with Barack Obama to do something similar on criminal justice reform. So a lot of Republicans and Democrats believe Jared prowess when it came to criminal justice reform was a little bit overstated because he convinced Republican to do something that Republicans were already willing to do. That's number one. Number two, Jared obviously has huge influence with the president. He's his son-in-law. He's a trusted advisor from what we could see. Jared also doesn't really, in my reporting, and according to Republicans who are in the room with him,

does not really grasp the issues on immigration reform as he would need to to cut a deal. That's not my assessment. That's Republicans who he's worked with their assessment. He in the beginning of the shutdown said, I'll be able to quickly solve this and then proceeded to convince the president to negotiate with Democrats. And, of course, he negotiated with Democrats and he had to declare a national emergency. So he's not as savvy as maybe he thinks he is when it comes to immigration reform. I would say there are two sides to this issue. We make the argument in the book that Democrats were completely disingenuous when it came to the border wall

and opposed it because it was Donald Trump's border wall. Democrats had approved the border wall many times before in different forms, but Donald Trump made the border wall about himself. And Democrats were then incentivized to oppose it. That's kind of how it went in 20, at the beginning of this year. So I'm skeptical because I'm a skeptic because I'm a reporter that immigration reform will happen. I think the two sides, frankly, just have way, way different views on immigration reform. Jared Kushner is not going to bridge those gaps, which are basically

defining gaps between the two parties at this point. And I just, I'm a bit skeptical that he'll be able to do that. Jake, you had the opportunity to speak with the president. What insight did you gain from talking to President Trump directly? And given his hostility towards the press, what does he like one-on-one? I think his hostility toward the press is obviously disappointing to members of the press. But he still, I mean, we see he just spoke to the Washington Post, Bob Costa for a story, you know, about oversight of his administration. He speaks to reporters all the time. obviously he sees it politically expedient or politically benefiting him to stoke a war with the press,

but that's his choice. It's disappointing because we live in a country where freedom of the press is of such huge importance and such a defining characteristic of our country. So it's a little bit befuddling to me why he does that, but that's that. I thought he was a lot more engaged in the kind of rough and tumble of D.C. politics than I had expected, and I don't mean that I didn't expect him to be engaged in politics. He's obviously the president because he's a pretty good politician. But I didn't anticipate that he would understand the characters and the palace intrigue as he did,

the tension between Jim Jordan and Kevin McCarthy or Nancy Pelosi's inability or her quest to become speaker again. All of those things were really interesting to me, how he was very tuned into those dynamics. And a friendly guy who, he's a friendly guy who, he's a friendly guy who, I would say enjoys basically my assessment was he would be talking to the press all the time if it were up to him. And obviously he has gripes with the coverage, but so does every president. Nothing to do with that. So those are my kind of general impressions of dealing with him.

We're talking to Jake Sherman, co-author of the book The Hill to Die on, the Battle for Congress and the future of Trump's America. Now, Jake, from our own reporting at The Daily Signal, we know what a whirlwind it's been since President. Trump was elected in November 2016. As you reveal in the book, there's been quite a bit of tension between the conservative House Freedom Caucus and Republicans in leadership in Congress. Based on your reporting, who has a bigger influence on President Trump today? Is it someone like a Congressman Mark Meadows or Jim Jordan who lead that Freedom Caucus or the Republican leadership of Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell?

So we have an interesting dynamic now because in the last Congress, Meadows and Jordan were foils to Paul Ryan and disagreed with him on a lot. And in the end, the president sided with Meadows and Jordan, which led to a government shutdown over immigration. Now he has a lot of trust in Kevin McCarthy. Kevin McCarthy is a close ally as are Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan. And I think the relationship between Meadows and Jordan and the president is no longer as important as it once was, because Republicans are out of the majority. But for those two years, between 2016, seen in 2018, the House Freedom Caucus, the 20 or so members, depending on the issue of the House Freedom Caucus, or the most important people in Washington and perhaps some of the most important people in the country because they had veto power over any legislative issue.

So, but today, I would argue that McCarthy and McConnell have a little bit more sway than Jordan and Meadows. Jordan and Meadows do play an important role, though. They are the president's defenders on the judiciary and oversight committee, and that's incredibly important. You've mentioned the influence that Sean Hannity wields with President Trump. Who else like him is influencing the president behind the scenes? Well, there's nobody who's quite like Hannity based on my reporting. I mean, we have a couple instances in the book, and I'll mention two of them. He was on a conference call on health care reform that Sean Hannity was with Paul Ryan and Mark Beddows.

I mean, we've never kind of seen something like. that before, or at least not in my experience. That's incredibly odd. And I know, because I was there, that Sean Hannity was talking to members of the Freedom Caucus during the government shutdown, and they were swapping ideas, swapping strategy. That's very, very unusual. I mean, I can't remember, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but I can't remember Rachel Maddow on the phone with President Obama during health care reform or anything like that. Perhaps, was happening and we missed it. But I would say there's no parallel to Sean Hannity. Maybe Lou Dobbs, who the president obviously appreciates his views on immigration and other things of that nature.

But Sean Hannity is really a singular figure for President Trump. And Jake, finally, I want to ask you, you know, you've been reporting on Capitol Hill now for 10 years and you're also an NBC and MSNBC contributor. You've earned a lot of respect and credibility for the work and reporting that you've done. what is your advice to those who are getting their start in journalism today? I work hard because there's nothing really that replaces hard work. I would say a few things. I would say, and I'm guilty of this too, don't spend too much time on Twitter because it's a pretty poisonous place. But I would also say that there's really no plus if you're kind of an even reporter for a news outlet.

But there's no plus in picking sides. There really is it. I mean, my entire career has been covering House Republican. The media is viewed as liberal. My job is not to choose sides. My job is to adequately and accurately reflect what the views are of the people I'm covering and inject skepticism where necessary. But there's no reason to be a partisan in a nonpartisan environment.

It's just not worth it. And if you can't get both sides to talk to you, you don't have much cloying in this business. And I would say be there all the time. I mean, I spend 12 to 14 hours a day in the Capitol, and that's how people get to know you, people get to trust you when you're talking to them, when you don't need something.

So that would kind of be my top line advice. Well, that is really great advice. And I think that it's something that is certainly a lost art as reporters today. Look for perhaps easier ways to go about getting stories, but there's nothing better than I agree with you, showing up being there in person, talking to people directly face to face. And also, you're not the first person on this show who's had that advice on Twitter. So hopefully people take insight from it and be mindful.

Again, we're talking to Jake Sherman. He's the co-author with Anna Palmer of the book, The Hill to Die on, The Battle for Congress and the Future of Trump's America. I encourage our listeners to check it out. Also subscribe to Politico Playbook, the newsletter that he writes seven days a week. Jake, thanks for being on the show today. Thanks, Rob. Appreciate it. Do you own an Amazon Echo?

You can now get the Daily Signal podcast every day as part of your daily Alexa Flash briefing. It's easy to do. Just open your Amazon Alexa app, go to settings, and select Flash Briefing. From there, you can search for the Daily Signal podcast and add it to your Flash briefing so you can stay up to date with the top news of the day that the liberal media isn't covering. We will now hear from our colleague Genevieve Wood, who has a new commentary on immigration, As the issue continues to dominate the headlines,

Genevieve outlines the four principles that should guide an immigration reform proposal. Here she is. Immigration is one of the fundamental building blocks that helped make America the unique nation that it is. But the debate over border security and immigration has become toxic because politicians have put politics before principles. And reasonable Americans find themselves trapped between zealots on both sides. For over two centuries, The United States has welcomed millions of people from every corner of the globe.

And today, we lawfully admit over one million people every year. That is more than any other country in the world. The debate is not about whether we should allow immigration. It's about how we should do so in a way that protects American sovereignty, respects a rule of law, and is beneficial to all Americans. So what does a thoughtful agenda for American immigration reform look like? Here are four guiding principles. Number one, we must respect the consent of the governed, that is, the will of the people.

Individuals who are not citizens do not have a right to American citizenship without the consent of the American people. That consent is expressed through the laws of the United States. Through those laws, we the people, invite individuals from other countries under certain conditions to join us as residents and fellow citizens. Number two, we cannot compromise national security and public safety. Every nation has the right,

recognized by both international and domestic law, to secure its borders and ports of entry and control what and who is coming into its country. A disorganized and chaotic immigration system encourages people to go around the law and is a clear invitation to those who wish to take advantage of our openness to harm the nation. Secure borders,

especially in a time of terrorist threat, are crucial to American national security. Number three, becoming a citizen means becoming an American. We must preserve patriotic assimilation. The founding principles of this nation imply that an individual of any ethnic heritage or racial background can become an American.

That's why we have always welcomed immigrants seeking the promises and opportunities of the American dream. Patriotic assimilation is the, the bond that allows America to be a nation of immigrants. Without it, we cease to be a country with a distinct character, becoming instead just a hodgepodge of different groups. If we are to be a United Nation, living up to our motto of a pluribus unum, out of many one, we all must understand and embrace a common language, history, and civic culture. And that not only benefits America,

but also those immigrants and their families who aspire to prosper here. Number four, our lawmakers must respect the rule of law and immigration is no exception. Failure to enforce our immigration laws is unfair to those who obey the law and follow the rules to enter our country legally. Those who enter and remain in the country illegally should not be rewarded with legal status or other benefits. When politicians condone such behavior, they only encourage, first, further illegal conduct. Based on these principles, immigration reform should include transitioning to a merit-based system. We should end practices like chain migration, birthright citizenship, the visa lottery, arbitrary per-country immigration caps, and any form of amnesty for those here illegally.

We must close loopholes that prevent enforcement of our laws and have overwhelmed immigration courts, allowing illegitimate asylum claimants and other lawbreakers to remain in the U.S. indefinitely. And we must take on these issues one by one. A comprehensive deal subjects the fate of policies with universal appeal to the fate of the most controversial topics. The key is to begin by working on the solutions on which most Americans agree. We must and can address this issue in a manner that is fair, responsible, humane, and prudent.

too important an issue to not get right and too important an issue to be driven by partisan agendas. Let's stay focused on what is best for the welfare of all Americans, both those of today and those of the future. Do you have an opinion that you'd like to share? Leave us a voicemail at 202-608-6205 or email us at letters atdailysignal.com. Yours could be featured on the Daily Signal podcast. Thanks for sending us your letters to the editor. Each Monday, we feature our favorites on this show and in our Morning Bell email newsletter. Virginia, who do you have up first?

Elizabeth Crane writes about the Electoral College. We need to keep the Electoral College. Who wants California and New York telling the rest of the country what they can do? States like Vermont and Wyoming would have no say in an election with the popular vote. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they set up the electoral system. We've got to start educating people on the Electoral College. It is not taught in schools anymore. Well, thank you for that letter, Elizabeth.

We also have one from Joseph Morrow, who adds, We must keep all of the checks and balances in place that prevent democracy from going to its otherwise inevitable extreme. Mob rule. Repeal the 17th Amendment while you're at it, so that the Senate shall no longer be under the control of the mob population centers in the states. Having the state governments themselves elect our senators shall ensure that each state is properly and directly represented in the Senate again, per our original constitution. Let us never forget what the great compromise was all about. Your letter could be featured on next week's show. Send an email to letters at daily signal.com or leave a voicemail message at 202-608-6205.

Do conversations about the Supreme Court leave you scratching your head? If you want to understand what's happening at the court, subscribe to SCOTUS 101, a Heritage Foundation podcast, breaking down the cases, personalities, and gossip at the Supreme Court. Virginia, you have an inspiring good news story to share with us today. Yeah, thanks, Rob. Many of you have heard of McKinsey Melton, the University of Central Florida's all-star quarterback, who led his team in a 23-game winning streak. But on November 23rd, 2018, all that changed in an instant. McKinsey was tackled by a University of Southern Florida player. The helmet of McKinsey's opponent crashed into his knee, causing it to be dislocated and tearing his LCL and PCL. Those are

two of the four major ligaments attached to the knee. In an interview with I-Heart Radio, McKenzie remembers the moment of his injury. Yeah, I mean, I mean, it was a lot of all kind of like surreal in that moment because like when something like that happens you don't you don't know how to like react like it wasn't like excruciating pain like I think just a lot of adrenaline just being in shock and whatnot sure but I mean it's it's surreal like having both sidelines clear yeah pastor John Evans our team chaplain come and pray over me like you know that kind of that kind of moment feels like a dream in the locker room medics tried to find a pulse in McKenzie's leg but they couldn't find one he was rushed to the high

hospital, and it was discovered that he had also popped an artery in his leg, an injury that 50% of the time results in the leg being amputated. His family, friends, and teammates all began to pray. We just prayed, you know, for complete healing. And, you know, the next MRI read, ACO was perfect, the MCO was perfect, both meniscuses were perfect. Somehow the hamstring was back-attached. It was divine intervention. Doctors can't even explain it. It was a miracle that McKenzie's leg was saved. Now more than ever, he's determined to play again, maybe even in the 2019 season. He has been using his time on the sidelines to act as a coach and voice of encouragement to his teammates.

And even to men all across the country. Earlier this April, McKenzie spoke to thousands at the Better Man event in Orlando, Florida. He told his story of recovery and becoming a better man himself as he seeks to love his guys from the sideline. lines. In an interview with ESPN, McKenzie said, I feel like I got hurt for a reason. Something goods going to come out of it. Rob, and I think that we're already seeing a lot of good come out of this as McKinsey's taking the opportunity off the field to speak about his journey of faith and recovery in order to be an encouragement to others. He certainly is. Well, thanks for sharing that story of Virginia. Absolutely. We're going to leave it there for today. The Daily Signal podcast

comes to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. You can find it on the Rickusay Audio Network along with our other podcasts. All of the shows can be found at daily signal.com slash podcasts. You can also subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or your favorite podcast app.

And be sure to listen every weekday by adding the Daily Signal podcast as part of your Alexa Flash Briefing. If you like what you hear, please leave us a review or give us feedback. It means a lot to us and helps us spread the word to others. be sure to follow us on Twitter at DailySignal

and Facebook.com slash the DailySignal News. The Daily Signal podcast will be back tomorrow with Kate and Daniel. Have a great week. You've been listening to The Daily Signal podcast, executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis. Sound design by Michael Gooden, Lauren Evans, and Thalia Rampersad. For more information, visitdailySignal.com. What the heck is trickle-down economics? Does the military really need a space force?

What is the meaning of American exceptionalism? I'm Michelle Cordero. I'm Tim Desher. And every week on the Heritage Explains podcast, we break down a hot button policy issue in the news at a 101 level. Through an entertaining mix of personal stories, media clips, music, and interviews, we help you actually understand the issues. So do this. Subscribe to Heritage Explains on iTunes, Google Play, or wherever you get your podcast today.