The Daily Signal - Ep. 304: In UN Speech, Trump Makes Powerful Case for American Sovereignty

Episode Date: September 25, 2018

President Donald Trump was the center of everyone’s attention at the United Nations on Tuesday, where he delivered a formal address defending his policies. Brett Schaefer of The Heritage Foundation will join us to discuss. Plus: Protesters harass Ted Cruz and his wife during their private night out. We also cover these stories:--Trump defended Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and suggested Democrats were playing a "con game."--A key Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski, is now calling for the second Kavanaugh accuser to make her accusation publicly.--The Treasury Department is imposing sanctions on top Venezuelan officials, including the wife of Venezuela’s president, Nicolas Maduro.--“Cosby Show” star Bill Cosby was sentenced Tuesday to 3 to ten years in prison for the crime of drugging and sexually assaulting a woman, Andrea Constand.The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! 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 Wednesday, September 26th. I'm Kate Trinco. And I'm Daniel Davis. President Trump was the center of everyone's attention at the United Nations on Tuesday, where he delivered a formal address defending his policies. Brett Schaefer of the Heritage Foundation will join us to discuss the big takeaways. Plus, protesters harassed Ted Cruz and his wife during their private night out. We'll discuss that and the disturbing direction of public protests.

But first, we'll cover a few of the top headlines. Well, President Trump made another splash at the UN Tuesday, his second thus far as president. He covered a range of international and domestic issues from terrorism to trade and immigration. He was particularly hard on Iran, blaming its regime for a host of global ills. Here's what he said. Every solution to the humanitarian crisis in Syria must also include a strategy to address the brutal regime that is fueled and financed. the corrupt dictatorship in Iran. Iran's leaders so chaos, death and destruction. They do not respect their neighbors or borders or the sovereign rights of nations. Instead, Iran's leaders

plunder the nation's resources to enrich themselves and to spread mayheming. across the Middle East and far beyond. The Iranian people are rightly outraged that their leaders have embezzled billions of dollars from Iran's treasure, seized valuable portions of the economy, and looted the people's religious endowments, all to line their own pockets and send their proxies to wage war. Not good.

Iran's neighbors have paid heavy toll for the region's agenda of aggression and expansion. Well, Trump also spoke to the refugee crisis and the rights of nations to set their own immigration policies. We recognize the right of every nation in this room to set its own immigration policy in accordance with its national interests. Just as we ask other countries to respect our own right to do the same, which we are doing, That is one reason the United States will not participate in the new global compact on migration.

Migration should not be governed by an international body unaccountable to our own citizens. Ultimately, the only long-term solution to the migration crisis is to help people build more hopeful futures in their home countries. make their countries great again. But it wasn't all tension in the room. There was one light moment that got some laughs. In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration

in the history of our country. America's so true. Didn't expect that reaction, but that's okay. Well, speaking Tuesday, President Trump, taking a little bit less of a light note, defended Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Charges come up from 36 years ago that are totally unsubstantiated. I mean, you as watching this as the president of a great country, you must say, how is this possible? 36 years ago, nobody ever knew about it, nobody ever heard about it. And now a new charge comes up. And she said, well, might not be him.

There were gaps and she said she was totally inebriated and she was all messed up. And she doesn't know with him, but it might have been him. Oh, gee, let's not make him a Supreme Court judge because of that. This is a con game being played by the Democrat. Well, a key Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski, is now calling for the second Kavanaugh accuser to make her accusation publicly. Deborah Ramirez made the allegation in a New Yorker article that has since been widely questioned. for a lack of corroborating witnesses. Murkowski is considered a critical swing vote in Kavanaugh's confirmation.

She said, quote, how can I base the credibility based on just what I read from you all? If there are allegations out there, Ms. Ramirez needs to be willing to come forward with them, just as Dr. Ford has been willing to come forward, albeit reluctantly and understandably so. In an interview with Fox News that aired Monday night, Kavanaugh defended himself.

I am looking for a fair process. a process where I can defend my integrity and clear my name. And all I'm asking for is fairness and that I be heard in this process. He also once again made it clear that he denies any sexual assault. No, I've never sexually assaulted anyone, not in high school, not ever. I've always treated women with dignity and respect. Listen to the people who've known me best through my whole life. The women who've known me since high school, the 65 who overnight signed a letter from high school saying I always treated them with dignity and respect.

Well, the Treasury Department is imposing sanctions on top Venezuelan officials, including the wife of Venezuela's president, Nicholas Maduro. Other officials hit by the sanctions include the country's executive vice president, the defense minister, and the minister of popular power for communication and information. That's actually a title. That's amazing, and I want that title. Well, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin released a statement on the matter saying, quote, President Maduro relies on his inner circle to maintain his grip on power as his regime systematically plunders what remains of Venezuela's wealth. We are continuing to designate loyalists who enable Maduro to solidify his hold on the military and the government while the Venezuelan people suffer. Cosby show star Bill Cosby was sentenced Tuesday to three to ten years in prison for the crime of drugging and sexually assaulting a woman, Andrea Constand.

The judge in this case, Stephen O'Neill said, quote, no one is above the law and no one should be treated differently or disproportionately. end quote. In a victim impact statement to the court, Constance said, quote, Bill Cosby took my beautiful, healthy young spirit and crushed it. He robbed me of my health and vitality, my open nature, and my trust, and myself, and others. She also said, now more than 60 other women have self-identified as sexual assault victims of Bill Cosby. We may never know the full extent of his double life as a sexual predator, but his decades-long reign of terror as a serial rapist is over. Well, you wouldn't know it from the media coverage, but the GOP's popularity is at a seven-year high.

A new Gallup survey found that 45% have a favorable view of the Republican Party, while 44% favorably view the Democrats. The GOP's popularity has sharply ticked upwards since Trump took office. At that point, only 38% approved of the GOP. and a key trend here is among the middle class. In the past year, the Republican Party's popularity jumped by 13 points among people who earned between $30,000 and $75,000. Notably, Democratic popularity among the same group dropped by 1% during the same period. So definitely an encouraging sign for discouraged Republicans.

Next up, we'll talk to Brett Schaefer about Trump's UN speech. I'm Rob Blewey, editor-in-chief of The Daily Signal. And I'm Jenny Malta Bono. Each weekday, the Daily Signal, delivers the Morning Bell email direct to your inbox. We created the Morning Bell to be your one-stop source for credible news reporting and insightful commentary on the issues that are shaping the agenda. You can subscribe today and get it delivered to your inbox each weekday morning. Sign up now at dailysignal.com. Just click on the connect button at the top of the page and subscribe today.

Well, here in studio to discuss President Trump at the United Nations is Brett Schaefer. He's the J. Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs at the Heritage Foundation. Brett, thank you for joining us. Thanks for having me on. So a big week at the UN with not just President Trump, but leaders from around the world attending the General Assembly. Brett, what did you make of President Trump's speech on Tuesday? I thought it was quintessential President Trump. He went into the auditorium.

He gave his prepared remarks and then went off script at times, gave some. commentary on his own commentary and elicited some interesting reactions from the crowd. It was unapologetic. It was a robust defense of what he called principled realism in his speech, which is not really well defined. But I think you can interpret from this speech and from other speeches is putting American interests and the protection of the American people above all else. And that includes the nice feelings or the interest in cooperating with other countries, which rubs a lot of people the wrong way, both on the left and on the right. And sometimes within this own building, it rose people the wrong way. When you talk about issues like trade and other economic issues that we think benefit not only American consumers, but the consumers in other countries as well, and something that should be embraced rather than used as a lever for competition or for advancing the insubriced.

interests of certain industries domestically. And so I thought that the president did what he wanted to do, which is go in there and defend the policies of his administration. He did so in a very strong way. And he did so without blinking and without going in there attempting to try and to get applause lines from countries, many of whom in the audience are not with the United States in terms of our values, in terms of our principles. And whose concurrence and support, in all honesty, we should not want.

Countries like Iran, countries like China, countries like Cuba, these are countries that are diametrically opposed to the United States, opposed to our principles, and we're going to be opposed to them inside the United Nations and around the world. So President Trump, of course, has had, let's say, a bit more of an adversarial relationship with the UN than President Obama did. one of the things that the Twitterati or the twittering class have really focused on on this speech is there was laughter at one point during President Trump's speech. He said, today I stand before the United Nations General Assembly to share the extraordinary progress we've made. In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country.

Does laughter signify a kind of disrespect for President Trump? Was it just, you know, he's just being Trump and people are taken by the country? surprise or what does it say about the overall relationship between the Trump administration and the UN? Well, it was an interesting moment. Presidents often go into the speech at the UN General Assembly and they tout their domestic achievements because they know that this is a big speech that it's going to be broadcast on the news and they're speaking at least in part to an American audience as well, which is going to be viewing this speech. And so you will see them talk about some of their achievements and pat themselves on the back or pat or sort of give themselves credit for their

accomplishments there but most don't do it that overtly and i and when he says most i'm so he said it uh my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country that's quite a bit of her hyperbole um i mean i i don't know about you but i tend to view the uh president Washington has accomplishing quite a bit of and some of the founding fathers and establishing in our nation to be what it is today and that benefits every American. Lincoln getting through the Civil War. I mean, these are things that are obvious rejoinders and probably were going through the mind

of some of the people in the audience and that might have elicited it. But I think the president also his response to it where he says, well, that wasn't the reaction I expected. And then that elicited even more. It was an interesting interaction. And I think it was an acknowledgement that the president heard it. and that it was okay to react to it. And sort of, it almost broke the ice in a way.

It was kind of interesting. Well, you mentioned Iran, and he made a big point about being critical of Iran and its funding of terrorist practices abroad. And he also talked about withdrawing from the Iran deal with the support of other Arab partners. Where does Iran stand right now in the context of the UN? And does the U.S. have the kind of leverage that it, needs with Arab allies to really correct some of Iran's behavior? Well, it's an interesting question. Iran is a human rights abuser. It's a supporter of terrorism.

It's a source of instability in the Middle East. All of these things combined with Iran's hegemonic ambitions, the threat it poses through its pursuit of nuclear weapons and its ballistic missile program, have alarmed regional actors. You can point to not just Israel, but you can point to Saudi Arabia, you can point to Iraq, you can point to Jordan, and you can point to Lebanon. And these are countries that are feeling the real impact, not only of Iran's support for instability in terms of Syria and other actors in the Middle East, but through the potential threat to them of a nuclear armed Iran capable of launching those missiles at other countries regionally.

And so this is something that has alarmed them and has led to a curious, or not a curious, but a new realignment in the Middle East in ways that probably would not have been easily predictable 10 years ago. You're seeing the United States and Saudi Arabia and Israel and Jordan and other countries work together to try and counter the threat posed by Iran. And this threat is more real to them than it is to the. the Europeans who still have faith that the Iranian nuclear deal is going to be a lead to a change of character on the part of Iran, lead them not to pursue nuclear weapons in the future after

the DRL expires in defiance of everything we know about that regime, in defiance of its stated objectives, which is to destroy Israel. It's stated bellicosity in terms of the United States, calling us the great Satan in terms of its aggressiveness regionally against other Arabs who do not share its ideological predilections. Okay. Well, to switch to yet another fun topic in international sphere. Trump addressed the international criminal court. I don't think that's something that I would guess most of our listeners are familiar with.

Can you discuss a bit about the history and why it's problematic for the United States? Sure. this is, it's an interesting thing. And Ambassador Bolton gave a speech about the International Criminal Court not too long ago, which is probably one of the reasons why it was in this speech. The International Criminal Court is an international court that is established to address the most serious crimes internationally, crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity. And this court was set up originally to address these crimes in the 1990s.

the United States, under the Clinton administration, voted against the establishment of this court. And it voted against it because it had some serious concerns about the jurisdiction of the court, the ability of the court or the vulnerability of the court to be politicized. And it wanted certain protections put into the treaty and put into the court to prevent it from being politicized and to make sure that it stays within a really narrow mandate in terms of the crimes that it had jurisdiction over. President Clinton signed the treaty in the very last day he was able to do, though, but he recommended against George Bush, his successor, submitting to the Senate for advice and consent until the very serious flaws in the treaty were addressed. President Bush tried to resolve those concerns when, under his administration in the first couple of years, he was unable to. And he actually ordered Ambassador Bolton, who is now the National Security Advisor, and later in the Bush administration was ambassador to the U.S.

UN to unsign the Rome statute. So reverse President Clinton's signature on that treaty to remove any legal obligations that might result from that signature. We entered into a number of bilateral agreements with other countries called Article 98 agreements. It's after an article in the Rome statute in which those countries promised not to turn U.S. people over to the court, whether they be military or other U.S. persons. and the Congress adopted the American Service Members Protection Act, which restricted U.S. cooperation with the court. Now, you might think that that's just a Republican or a conservative piece of legislation, but Hillary Clinton voted for it.

John Kerry voted for it. A number of Democrats voted for it as well. So this was a bilateral concern at the time. Under the Bush administration, we entered into these agreements with over 100 countries to protect ourselves, and we restricted our cooperation with the court to not lend it legitimacy other than the very narrow circumstances under which the U.S. wanted to support it. But we did support it in certain instances. For instance, we abstained on a referral from the Security Council referring Darfur to the court.

We've cooperated with the court on trying to get, locate and secure individuals. For instance, the Lord's Resistance Army, which is a horrible group operating in Hongo and Chad, Central African Republic and Uganda. Horrible, to use as child soldiers, kidnapping rape, terrible situation, to try and bring Sudanese officials to justice in Darfur. We also, under the Obama administration, referred, supported a security council referral of the situation in Libya to the court. Now, what's happened recently is that the court has, the prosecutor for the ICC, has

requested authorization from the pretrial chamber, another aspect of the court, to investigate allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by U.S. persons, U.S. military, and CIA officials related to the situation in Afghanistan. The U.S. has never ratified the treaty. We've taken steps to insulate ourselves from its jurisdiction, yet the court is asserting jurisdiction over U.S. persons because Afghanistan ratified the Rome statute back in 2003. So even though the U.S. repudiates this jurisdiction, the ICC could very likely, is very likely

to authorize an investigation to Americans and could seek the arrest and trial of American military, CIA personnel or U.S. government officials, including Don Rumsfeld and other people, for alleged crimes committed in Afghanistan. This is a very serious thing. It's an infringement on our sovereignty, and the U.S. and is right to refute this. And I think it says a lot that even the Obama administration, which was very sympathetic and supportive of the court, never got rid of those Article 98 agreements to protect American persons. They never sought ratification of the Rome statute so the U.S. could join the court. And they never really broadened or sought to overturn the American Service Members Protection Act that limited U.S. cooperation with the court.

And so even under the previous administration, the concerns were serious enough that they did not seek to fully embrace the court. And now we know why. Well, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out between the U.S. administration and the ICC. Brett Schaefer, thanks so much for joining us to unpack the General Assembly this week. Thank you. And share with us how Trump broke the ice. That's going to be a first for American president. Want to get up to speed about the Supreme Court?

Then subscribe to SCOTUS 101, a podcast about everything that's happening at the Supreme Court and what the justices are up to. Twitter account called Smash Racism, D.C., shared a video Monday of protesters forcing Senator Ted Cruz, Republican from Texas, and his wife Heidi out of a restaurant. The account tweeted, activists just chased Ted Cruz out of a fancy Washington, D.C. restaurant channing, we believe, survivors. Cruz has been friends with Creep Kavanaugh for 20 years. Now Cruz is on Judiciary Committee hearing his testimony. Fascists not welcome. Hashtag cancel Kavanaugh. Listen to the audio.

We believe survivors. We believe survivors. God bless you. God bless you. Excuse me. Let my wife. We believe survivors. We believe survivors.

We believe survivors. In a follow up, tweet. The group said, activists from smash racism, DC resist this. DCIW, members of DC Democratic Socialists of America, anarchists, women, sexual assault survivors, and members of the LGBTQ community interrupted Ted Cruz's peaceful meal. And while our interruption does not compare and scale to the interruptions, his actions as a senator have had on millions of American lives, we hope that it reminds Cruz and others like him that they are not safe from the people they have hurt.

Daniel, what do you think about a Washington, D.C., where no one is able to eat in peace of their Republican? It's not good for me. I'm not as famous as Ted Cruz, so not to worry about that. But look, this is absolute madness. I mean, thankfully, you know, he wasn't provoked by this. I don't know if you may have heard during that clip,

he said, God bless you. I don't really know what I think about that response. I get praying for your enemies and turning the other cheek, but I just, I don't know. That stuck me as a little bit funny that he said that. I mean, I thought it was, it was, he must have read, so Salawinsky, you know, the, the communist mastermind who's, who really brought communist tactics to like left-wing protests in America. He talks about trying to provoke your enemy because once you provoke them, then that's good. It kind of shows them to be bad. and I'm sure he read that at some point

because he's very well-educated guy and he did not buy into that. But on a broader scale, look, I mean, this is very depressing to me. I don't think it's good for our culture. The fact that protesters can go into a restaurant and I don't even know how they found Ted Cruz. I mean, how do you find him without stalking him?

I'm assuming here that some waiter or other staff member tipped off some left-wing group. Or, I mean, honestly, if you think about social media, Like if you said it so that every single mention of Ted Cruz on Twitter you get an alert for, which I'm not sure as possible, but might be. I mean, you've really got someone reading those at all times. Like someone with 10 followers is going to tweet, just saw Ted Cruz on the sidewalk or, you know. Right. It's possible.

Yeah, I mean, that's true. So one of my friends posted on Facebook, quote, America 2018, where people protest fascism by, dot, dot, dot, dot, ritualistically dressing up in a black and shouting down people with views they don't. like off campus and out of restaurants and other public places. I think that captures the irony of the situation. They're supposedly protesting its fascism. And this is the thing about the left that I just find hard to deal with is that so often they're dealing with abstractions and they don't take you into account.

It doesn't matter if you're a conservative. It doesn't matter how you behave yourself. You're part of a structural movement, a structural problem that has to be corrected. And so even if you're a wonderfully delightful person, I don't owe you respect and kindness and justice because you're part of this oppressive movement. And so I just get to shout you down. Well, that's just poisonous for our politics.

Also, I think it shows a lack of imagination and understanding. I mean, I think that, you know, I was really struck by that tweet. I read where they said, you know, we're there to essentially show you that people who hurt you can hurt you back or something like that. And, you know, if you think Ted Cruz is animated by desire to hurt people, you don't understand. and Ted Cruz at all, I would say. I mean, I can't read his heart. But I think generally in politics, you shouldn't, your beginning principle shouldn't be the opposite side's number one goal is to hurt me. Like, even if their actions do hurt you, that is generally not why people make decisions or why they support certain things. And that strikes me as a really harmful thing. I'm also, you know,

what you said about, like, the fascist components of it, you know, I think Cruz did a CNN town haller debate with Sanders a while back on health care. Like, he's not someone. who's known to not engage with his opponents. He's not someone who's unwilling to debate. So I don't understand. If you want to have Ted Cruz debate, like, yeah, have him, have protesters, have other stuff. But like this idea of shutting him down in his private life is there's no need for it.

And to be fair, I believe Chuck Schumer has been critical of this tactic. I think a few months ago on the Senate floor, he was saying like, look, we need to not, you know, harass people in their private lives. And he was out on a, presumably a date with his wife just getting dinner, which is about as private as it gets. But I would like to see more, you know, this is a big problem. And I'd like to see more outcry from the left about this because you certainly don't see any, any that I know of conservative groups doing this. Well, I also wonder, too. We didn't play this part of the video, but you have the restaurant, presumably manager asking them to

the premises. I mean, I'm sure that for most restaurants, this is not good news. I mean, they don't want it, you know, that half of DC officials can't feel like they can't go to their restaurants. Like, I mean, it's just grossly inconsiderate in terms of it's not your property either. Yeah, totally. Well, we're going to leave it at that on a somewhat depressing note, but thanks for listening to the Daily Signal podcast, brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio studio at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google, Google, play or SoundCloud and please leave us a review or reading on iTunes to give us any feedback. We'll see you again tomorrow.

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, visit DailySignal.com.