The Daily Signal - White House Correspondent Probes the Facts Behind Trump's Impeachment

Episode Date: August 24, 2020

The Daily Signal's White House correspondent, Fred Lucas, had a front row seat to the impeachment of President Donald Trump, an impeachment that Lucas says began even before Trump took office.  Lucas’ newly released book, “Abuse of Power: Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump,” dives deep into the left's plot to remove the president from office and the key players involved in the partisan effort.  Lucas joins the podcast to discuss his book and how the American people should view Trump’s impeachment.  Also on today’s show, we read your letters to the editor and share a good news story about a 107-year-old woman who has beaten both the Spanish flu and COVID-19.  Click here to purchase a copy of "Abuse of Power: Inside The Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump." 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 Monday, August 24th. I'm Robert Blewey. And I'm Virginia Allen. On today's show, we talk with the Daily Signal's White House correspondent Fred Lucas about his new book, Abuse of Power, inside the three-year campaign to impeach Donald Trump. We also share your letters to the editor and a good news story about a 107-year-old woman who has now beaten both the Spanish flu and COVID-19. Before we get to today's show, Rob, and I want to tell you about our favorite way to get the news every morning. It's called the morning bell, and each weekday, the Daily Signal delivers the top news and commentary directly to your inbox for free. You'll be able to read about the policy debate shaping the agenda, analysis from Heritage Foundation experts, and commentary from leading conservatives like Ben Shapiro,

Dennis Prager, and Walter Williams. It's easy to sign up. Just visitdailysignal.com and click on the connect button in the top right corner of the page. We'll start sending you the morning bell tomorrow. Now stay tuned for today's show coming up next. I am joined by my colleague Fred Lucas, the Daily Signals White House correspondent and author of the newly released book, Abuse of Power, Inside the Three Year campaign to impeach Donald Trump. Fred, thanks so much for being here. Yeah, thanks for having me on. So Fred, let's get right into it. Okay, so in December of last year, House Democrats voted to impeach the president. But you make very clear in the title of your book,

Abuse of Power Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump, that really the effort to impeach the president began from the moment he took office. Can you just explain that a little bit further? Well, the only correction I would make there is it actually took place, really started before he took office, pretty much after the election, well before the inauguration. And I document this in there that one of the first actions taken was Elizabeth Warren actually put forward a Senate bill on emoluments saying that Trump would be committing a high crime or misdemeanor if he did not divest all of his business holdings immediately. That bill went nowhere, but it was sort of symbolic.

From that point on, you had Maxine Waters pushing forward the what she called the Impeach-Forty movement. He had like a whole host of liberal nonprofits, such as Tom Steyer, John Bonifaz, who ran this group impeached Donald Trump now. So these things were all in place. Eventually, after the inauguration, and they continued, people were pressing. There were actually three impeachment resolutions against Trump that reached the House floor that Congressman Al Green had managed to force a vote, a House floor vote on these resolutions, well before the Ukrainian phone call. So basically, the bottom line is the push to impeach Trump did not start with a Ukrainian phone call. So you mentioned Maxine Waters.

And, I mean, it was probably, gosh, only like a month after the president had taken office, that she openly said that essentially her goal was to see him impeach. There was no hiding this. They were very, very blatant, very obvious right from the start. They didn't want Trump in office. But why? Where did this hatred come from so early on before the president had hardly done anything? It was, Trump even recently said, maybe it's my personality.

But I think that was a lot of it. I think he just was not supposed to win was a big part of it. what I would say is early on Nancy Pelosi, first as a minority leader, later speaker, did not want to see this happen. She thought it would be a political loser, had no chance of going anywhere. And she at one point said that she wanted an impeachment needed to be compelling, overwhelming, and bipartisan. She ended up being settling for an impeachment that was very uncompelling, underwhelming, and very partisan. I think one of the things about Pelosi's, it was kind of a total collapse in her leadership because she could not stave this off. And one interesting thing is that she'd said that just shortly after Democrats took the majority, Pelosi was in an interview and said that Trump just is not worth impeachment.

And the important thing about that is that when she said that, that was before the Mueller report came out. Now, a lot of people knew that by this point, we're strongly suspecting that the Mueller report would not find any collusion in the Russia scandal. But at least in theory, there was some chance we didn't know what the final report would say. And I think that's very telling because here is Pelosi. on the chance, at least in theory, the chance that Mueller would come back with the report saying that there was collusion, which would be a very treacherous thing. If that were true, that would be a very treacherous thing for Donald Trump to be involved in, a collusion with Russia. It turned out not to be true. But just a few months later, Pelosi, after saying Trump wouldn't be worth it, given the chance that the

there was the collusion. A few months later, Pelosi has all been out of shape over a phone call with a Ukraine president. So, you know, those two things don't really seem to mesh. So what happened then in between her sort of being almost a little nonchalant in a way and saying that the president is not worth impeaching to then all of a sudden calling for his head? Yes. Well, I, one big thing we, there's an entire chapter. in this book that gets into Pelosi's feud with the squad. And the squad had a huge role on this. One congressional source that I talked to said that there's a direct parallel between

impeachment and the power of the squad. And they really came in and pushed this. And the squad being Ilan Omar and AOC and those folks. Right, right, right. Right, right. those lawmakers and it looks like going to be expanding maybe after this election. Yes. So from that point, they were sort of winning a PR war against Pelosi among the grassroots of

the party. And you eventually had this situation where Pelosi was to some degree in open warfare with the squad. And she was, she'd given some, an interview, I think, that was somewhat dismissive of the squad, to the Green New Deal as the Green Dream or whatever. And this goes AOC reared back and ended up playing the race card against Pelosi. So some of the, El Omar did some similar very publicly. Now, probably the advisable thing to do in this would be a sort of set back and let the Democratic

Civil War go on. Trump probably unwisely went to Twitter and attacked the squad during this, which caused Pelosi kind of gave her an out to come in and defend the squad, and that sort of settled this feud.

But there was one interesting thing that I note in this book, and that was when Pelosi visited with AOC, Pelosi posted their photos together on social media. AOC did not. And I think that there was a, there was almost a message there that Pelosi was the one who was trying to fit in and be part of the cool kids. And AOC did not feel like she had to. Hmm. Interesting. So, I mean, this is really like insider, you know, political play, essentially.

I mean, it kind of sounds like a middle school classroom of, I'm going to bully this kid because the cool kids don't like him. Yeah, there is a good bit of insider baseball stuff here because we, this book's based on more than a dozen interviews. It's not just me pontificating. I interviewed numerous people on Capitol Hill in the White House, both on the record and off the record. Another good bit of insider info that actually got some media attention this past week, which I was happy to see that, was what the book said about how Adam Schiff really edged out Nadler to end up being the guy who runs the impeachment. And a lot of that had to do with Nadler did not do a very good job when he tried to jump into the impeachment and handle it with some of the early stuff with the Mueller stuff.

he did a horrible job in his committee work and hearings and so forth. At that point, after about three hearings, Pelosi became very upset, and she knew if the caucus did push her to an impeachment, that she did not want to use Nadler. Now, another interesting thing is that Schiff was very ambitious during all this. And he, there was actually somewhat revealing here. He actually had a tweet about two weeks before the whistleblower complaint came out, and when she complained that the money seemed to be on hold at the time when Rudy Giuliani had said he was investigating Joe Biden. Some of that had been public, but some of this revealed, made it look as almost like,

Schiff might have had some advanced knowledge that this whistleblower complaint was coming. Wow, that's fascinating. So why was this scene as an opportunity? Why was the Ukraine phone call and the whistleblower the second chance, essentially, that the left saw, okay, the Russian collusion thing didn't work, we're going to latch onto this? Second chance is that's actually the New York Times even actually called it a do-over of sorts, in which they referred to Adam Schiff as being the can-do special counsel that Robert Mueller could not be, which I referenced that. But yeah, this was the Russia narrative that they built up for years, and they made a real, the Democrats made a real strong investment in the Russian narrative that collapsed on them after the Mueller report.

and they had to turn to something because even after all this, that's sort of been what Pelosi had used to stave off impeachment talk from Maxine Waters, Al Green, and others was that let's wait for the Mueller report and then see. And then the Mueller report came out. I think Pelosi probably maybe Nadler at the time thought, well, we'll be okay, we'll have to beat him in the election. And then the calls for impeachment did not quite down.

But on some level, they picked up by June or early July of that year, a majority of the Democratic caucus was calling for either an impeachment or an impeachment inquiry against Trump, even after the Mueller report. Because it became the big part of it was from people I interviewed and talked to on this. the fear among Democrats, even moderate Democrats, was that they would be primaried. Impeaching Trump became a political litmus test. So it almost stands the reason that the next thing to come along was going to be what they called for impeachment on. And this was not a perfect call, as Trump said, but it was, I don't think under any other president, it would have been considered an impeachable offense. They were looking for something, though, something, anything that they could use as the grounds for impeachment.

They framed this as a national security threat. And the book gets into how they went through several actions of this. First they called it a quid pro quo with Zelensky. That didn't really shock people's conscience. So they started using the word bribery, but that was not a convincing cell. Extortion is a word that they tossed around for a little while to describe Trump and Zelensky. That didn't work. So they eventually settled with abuse of power and obstruction of justice, which was sort of broad enough for people to generally understand,

but non-specific enough that they didn't have to really explain. So one of the most interesting things that you discuss in the book is that this standard that was used by the Democrats to justify impeachment. If those standards were applied across the board to every other previous president, pretty much every other president would be worthy of impeachment. Can you just explain that a little bit further? Well, yes, yeah, yeah. I get into the book quite a bit on that. certainly you don't have to go back at far. I mean, just Obama. Certainly obstruction of Congress.

He, in this case, Obama used executive privilege to shield Eric Holder from having to turn over documents about Fast and Furious. That was something that could have easily been considered. And Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress for holding back these documents. That's something that Congress could have, in theory, impeached, by this standard, they could impeached Obama over that for obstructing Congress. And abuse of power? Oh, my gosh, that's such a broad term. Certainly, you could say that Obama's use of the immigration executive actions, DACA, DAPA, DAPA, one could say that those were abuses of power. So we have to touch on just briefly, I know you touch on in the book,

Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were the only presidents who were actually, besides President Trump, impeached. What was different about their impeachments versus President Trump's? Well, the big thing is that both of those were impeached over actual crimes or alleged crimes, I should say, but actual criminality was involved in the articles of impeachment. Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in his attempt to cover up the Monica Lewinsky affair. And I would further note that impeachment, the legacy of impeachment was not the only consequence for Bill Clinton, and that he had to pay a $90,000 contempt of court fee for lying under oath about the Lewinsky situation. he had to surrender his law license. And so he faced legal consequences beyond political.

There's almost no chance that Trump will be face any kind of legal consequence for the Ukraine phone call because abuse of power is not an actual statute. Obstruction of Congress is not a statute. It seems to be, Democrats seem to try to merge. contempt of Congress, which is an actual statute, with obstruction of justice, which is a statute, and create something new called obstruction of Congress in the impeachment of Trump. So that was not a actual criminal law. Going back all the way to Andrew Johnson, he was impeached for violation of the tenure of office act. And just real quickly, that was Congress had passed a law with a supermajority over Johnson's.

veto saying that the president cannot fire a cabinet official without the approval of the Senate. So Johnson knew it was an impeachment trap. He walked right into it and fired the Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton. So the Republican House impeached him for that, and the Senate acquitted him by just one vote, actually. But that's, that impeachment is pretty much frowned on by most historians today, mainly because the tenure of office act was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But I think there's a point that at the time, that was a duly enacted statute. And Johnson was actually impeached by, impeached for violating an actual law. So I think the Johnson impeachment probably will stand up to history much better than

the Trump impeachment. Wow. So, you know, what I think to me, and I'm sure to so many Americans, is so troubling and concerning about Trump's impeachment, is that it was so partisan. And, you know, we see from really the founder's intent of, you know, allowing for impeachment was not to remove a candidate just because you disagree with their policies or you don't like them. There was very specific intent there. So just to explain for a moment why this vote was really concerning to see it straight down party lines. Well, there was, there were a couple of Democrats in the House that are, I think four overall that voted against at least one article of impeachment. But yeah, I mean, for the most part, it was a party line vote. And then in the Senate, Mitt Romney

crossed over to vote to convict. But yeah, it was almost entirely partisan. And the book actually gets into a bit of why we've seen Republicans, actually, who didn't like Trump early on, why they became somewhat more loyal to him. And it's largely because he ended up being a more conservative president than anticipated is one, but also because of the left sort of hair-on-fire attitude towards Trump, which is on. almost one of always exploding over everything he does and it's always a crisis. And I think that extended here. Democrats felt very pressured by their party base.

There were a lot of moderates who ran in purple districts and red districts in 2018. Pelosi owed the majority to them. And they campaigned on saying, we're not going to Washington to impeach the president. We're not like those other Democrats or moderates. But then when they got into Congress, they sort of faced the threat of a primary challenge. And I think their rationale was that a primary challenge, even if it's not successful, could really hobble somebody going into a general election. whereas if voters might forgive you if you just vote along the party line on a major seemingly inconsequential issue like impeachment because no one thought that Trump would actually be removed

by the Senate. Fred, you know, I love your perspective on all of this because as the Daily Signals, White House correspondent, you were watching all of this unfold really up close and personal. I mean, when there's not a global pandemic, you're at the White House mall. multiple times every week. You're on the hill. What was it like being in D.C., being at the White House, being on the Hill when all of this was unraveling? Give us kind of your inside perspective. What were some of those vivid memories that you have? Oh, it was just a feeling of being involved in something historic. And like I said, there was never a chance that Trump was going

to be removed from office. But there was definitely, this is only the third. time in American history this has happened. Yeah, I think there was this vibe. I think there was chatter among other reporters about the historical aspect of it, but also there was chatter about who this helps, who this hurts in the election. I think since that time, everything's been sort of focused on COVID. But yeah, yeah, at one point, this seemed like it might be a big issue going into the election. So the book is called Abuse of Power Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump by Fred Lucas. And Fred, the book can be found on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, wherever books are sold, correct?

Yes, that's right. Okay, awesome. Well, we'll be sure to have a link to the book in today's show notes. And Fred, we just really appreciate you coming on this show and so excited for this book and just to really hear and read your inside perspective. Okay, thanks for having me on. Conservative women. Conservative feminist.

It's true. We do exist. I'm Virginia Allen, and every Thursday morning on problematic women, Lauren Evans and I sort through the news to bring you stories and interviews that are a particular interest to conservative leaning or problematic women. That is women whose views and opinions are often excluded or mocked by those on the so-called feminist left. We talk about everything from pop culture to policy and politics. Search for problematic women wherever you get your podcast. Thanks for sending us your letters to the editor.

Each Monday we feature our favorites on this show. Virginia, who's up first? In response to my recent podcast interview with John Tillman, what's going on in Minneapolis after city council vote to defund police, Esauconic of Minnesota writes, Thanks for the podcast, shining a light on the dysfunction happening in our Minnesota state government. It's embarrassing to be a citizen here with the recent unrest in the Twin Cities.

Although I do feel that the majority of Minnesotans support our police, I work in the heart of the metro, surrounded by far-left supporters. And it is difficult to feel comfortable speaking about this topic. And Gima left us a five-star review on Apple Podcasts, writing, balanced and insightful interviews on a variety of topics. look forward to listening each day. This is the way the national press used to be. Keep up the good work.

Well, thanks for that review. It means a lot to us, and we encourage other listeners to take the time and do a review themselves so we can help continue to expand our reach. Your letter can be featured on next week's show, so send us an email at letters at dailysignal.com. Do you have an interest in public policy?

Do you want to hear some of the biggest names in American politics speak? Every day, the Heritage Foundation host webinars called Heritage Events Live. Webinar topics range from ethics during the COVID-19 pandemic to the CARES Act and the economy. These webinars are free and open to the public. To find the latest webinars and register, visit heritage.org slash events. Virginia, you have a good news story to share with us today. Over to you.

Thank you, Rob. At the age of 107, Anna Del Priory has now beaten both the Spanish flu and COVID-19. Del Priory grew up in Brooklyn, New York, and contracted the Spanish flu when she was only six years old. In May, she was diagnosed with COVID-19 and suffered from appetite loss and a fever, but she never needed a ventilator. Darlene Jasmine, Del Priory's 66-year-old granddaughter, told the Asbury Park Press that when she received a call that her grandmother had contracted COVID, she thought, this is a the thing that's going to take her down. But that was not the case. Del Priory has made a full recovery

and is back to her normal self, sewing, walking, and even dancing. The COVID survivor who now lives at a senior care facility in New Jersey was a seamstress when she was younger, and her late husband was a professional tango dancer. To this day, she still loves to dance. Del Priory told the Asbury Park Press, dancing makes you feel good. I want to keep my health. I want to keep my Her granddaughter said her recovery from COVID may have something to do with her having beaten the Spanish flu as a child. And she added that her grandmother has always lived a healthy lifestyle. She's constantly moving. We always walked in Brooklyn to the grocery store, to the bakery.

Every night she would make a homemade meal from scratch, all Mediterranean food, olive oil, vegetables, fruits, nuts. It's like the old peasant food that now they charge so much for, Jasmine says. The 107-year-old told reporters, I feel good. I thank God, I'm alive. And Del Priory's younger sister, who's 105 years old, has also survived both viruses. Wow, a story like this makes me think that I should probably be eating more Mediterranean food and I guess take up dancing. What an amazing woman. It's always beautiful to see someone who has lived such a full life and overcome great challenges, but is still so full of joy. It certainly is, Virginia.

Thanks for finding that story. You know, we know from our work at the National Coronavirus Recovery Commission how much the older population, particularly those in nursing homes and senior centers, have been impacted by COVID-19. So it's nice to hear about a success story in someone who's overcome the challenges that our country faces. So many thanks for that spirited family and all that they're doing to bring hope and joy to others. Well, we're going to leave it there for today. You can find the Daily Signal podcast on the Rickishay Audio Network.

All of our shows can be found at daily signal.com slash podcasts. You can also subscribe on Apple Podcasts, 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 in a five-star rating. It means a lot to us and helps us spread the word to other listeners. Be sure to follow us on Twitter at DailySignal and Facebook.com slash the DailySignal News. Have a great week. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation.

It is executive produced by Rob Blewey and Virginia Allen, sound designed by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. For more information, visitdailySignal.com.