The Daily - Democrats Wanted Zero Tolerance for Misconduct. Then Came Virginia.

Episode Date: February 8, 2019

Democrats have adopted a policy of zero tolerance for misconduct, past or present, by members of their own party. The growing political crisis in Virginia is testing that approach. Guest: Jonathan Martin, who covers national politics for The New York Times, spoke with us from Richmond, Virginia. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today. Democrats have adopted a policy of zero tolerance for misconduct, past or present, by members of their own party. The growing political crisis in Virginia is testing that approach. It's Friday, February 8th. Good afternoon. Thanks for calling Cobra. I'm here at Ritino Town. This is Alan from Front Desk. How may I be of assistance?

Hey there. I'm trying to reach a guest named Jonathan Martin in room 506. I'll connect you right now. Thank you. My pleasure. Hey, guys. Hey. How are you? Good. I think we did find the right Marriott.

Okay, let's jump in. Jonathan Martin covers national politics for The Times. Jonathan, where does this story really start? I think it has its roots in the Al Franken scandal. A growing firestorm on Capitol Hill after Democratic Senator Al Franken is accused of forcibly kissing and groping a woman more than a decade ago. If you recall, it was the fall of 2017. Another woman is coming forward to make groping accusations against Minnesota Senator Democrat Al Franken. An array of stories came out. And another woman has come forward accusing Senator Al Franken of groping her during a USO tour. She's the fifth woman to accuse the Minnesota

senator of inappropriate behavior. And there were enough charges against him. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Claire McCaskill, Mazie Hirono, Maggie Hassan. That finally. Patty Murray, Kamala Harris, Tammy Baldwin, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. Senate Democrats urged him to resign, led by Kirsten Gillibrand, now a candidate for president. And keep in mind, this was the same time that in Alabama... Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore remains defiant at this point, denying sexual assault allegations and rejecting calls to drop out. Roy Moore had been accused of sexual misconduct with a group of underage women when he was younger. And the Democrats were trying to pick up that seat. And they didn't want to give the Republicans any fodder to kind of dilute their

attacks against Roy Moore. Enough is enough. I mean, this is a conversation we've been having for a very long time. You need to draw a line in the sand and say none of it is okay, none of it is acceptable, and we as elected leaders should absolutely be held to a higher standard, not a lower standard, and we should fundamentally be valuing women. And that is where this debate has to go. They want to position themselves on the high ground, morally and politically, and you take that and put it against the backdrop of an Alabama Senate race where, lo and behold, Democrats now have an opportunity to win a seat that they hadn't had in decades. And they are acting in ways that are going to position themselves best for that. Serving in the United States Senate has been the great honor of my life.

And Al Franken was being accused of these things during that moment. And Democrats did not really hesitate. Today, I am announcing that in the coming weeks, I will be resigning as a member of the United States Senate. So what does asking Senator Al Franken to resign represent about the strategy that the Democrats were forming in this moment? I think the strategy was we have to police our own ranks. And the sort of implication of that was in the Trump era, we have to have clean hands. And if we're going to criticize the president, we have to have a zero tolerance policy in our own ranks. We cannot accept misconduct that is going to let the Republicans sort of muddy the waters politically, if you will, when we come after them.

I remember, Jonathan, as I'm sure you do, that some people saw Franken as a kind of sacrificial lamb for the Democratic Party to pursue the strategy you're describing. as a kind of sacrificial lamb for the Democratic Party to pursue the strategy you're describing. And I wonder if as a political reporter in that moment, you sensed what the conversation was among Democratic politicians and strategists about this decision the party had made. There's no question that privately, plenty of Democrats were saying that Franken is basically walking the plank because we have to make this point and we have to be pure on this issue. Now, they wouldn't dare say that publicly, but keep in mind,

the backbone of the Democratic Party in this era is women. They are crucial to Democrats winning elections. And I think that the party felt like they didn't have a choice when it came to Franken in that moment. So zero tolerance can seem hardline, but it allows the Democrats to call out the Republicans without any room for accusations of being hypocritical. That's the idea. Correct.

And how did this Democratic strategy of zero tolerance actually play out after Franken was forced to resign? Yeah, so I think the Franken precedent is what has, for some time now, carried the day for Democrats. You had other accusations of sexual misconduct. The dean of the House of Representatives, its longest-serving member, stepped down today under pressure. Democrat John Conyers was accused of sexual misconduct.

John Conyers, longtime member of Congress from Michigan. You had an up-and-coming Democrat in the House from Nevada who also was similarly forced out because of fairly serious sexual harassment charges. That has become the kind of Democrat's rule of thumb that we're going to take a sort of zero-tolerance approach on these kinds of allegations. We need one standard across the board.

So if folks are going to call on Donald Trump to resign, John Conyers, who has retired or resigned, if folks are going to call on everybody else to resign, then we have to hold Senator Franken and anyone he had been accused of sexual assault, a lot of them felt like this is somebody who simply cannot sit on the highest court in the land. And for them, it was the very principle of, you know, do we believe women? I believe you. And I believe many Americans across this country believe you. That's the guiding force in terms of the Democratic strategy on this. You know, we come down on the side of the accuser. We believe women. This man is not a monster, nor is he what has been represented here in these hearings. But the Republicans and what was really a sign of a divided country sided largely with Kavanaugh. And I think there was no more illustrative moment of this country's chasm on these issues than those Supreme Court hearings last year.

Right. But it also, to me, started to signal some of the potential limitations of zero tolerance. Yeah, there you go. Which is that some Americans started to look around them at the people they know or at themselves and to ask, would I want to be held to this zero tolerance standard that the Democrats are holding people to right now? Yes, because what happened with the Kavanaugh hearings was also this question of, how far back do we go? And are we going to start judging people based on their high school and college conduct? And that was a huge thread of that moment.

And I think that a lot of conservative women, especially, looked at somebody like Kavanaugh and said, that could be my husband, that could be my son, who could be, in their eyes, falsely accused. And a lot of other people looked at Blasey Ford and said, heck, that could be my daughter or my wife. And I sure as heck would want them to be believed. So it did start this moment of a conversation of, OK, what is and is not fair game?

And what is that line? We still haven't sort of defined that. It's still kind of moving target here. But quietly, you do hear some Democrats starting to wonder, well, how far is this going to go? And Virginia has really brought that question home. We'll be right back. So let's just start, Jonathan, by reviewing what's actually happened in Virginia over the past week. Deep breath. Okay.

It's been an extraordinary week in Virginia. Nobody in the Capitol here has seen anything like this in state history. It started on Friday. Breaking tonight, a racist yearbook photo taken over three decades ago has surfaced, leaving Virginia's Democratic governor facing some serious questions about his past. A conservative website published a yearbook photo from Governor Ralph Northam's medical school in 1984. A decades-old yearbook page suddenly in the spotlight tonight because of this picture of two people, one in blackface, the other in a KKK hood. This immediately created a firestorm. He was either the guy in the Klan outfit or in blackface when he was an adult in medical school. This is not

some youthful indiscretion. This is an adult acting as a racist. And by Friday night, Governor Northam had conceded and apologized for being on that page and asked for forgiveness. I cannot change the decisions I made, nor can I undo the harm my behavior caused then and today. But I accept responsibility for my past actions and I am ready to do the hard work of regaining your trust. Well, by midnight, Democrats across the country and in Virginia were demanding he resign. Reaction across the political spectrum pouring in tonight after Governor Ralph Northam admits and apologizes for appearing in a racist photo that dates back to his med school days in 1984. On Saturday, Governor Northam reversed course, had a news conference at the executive

mansion in Richmond. In the hours since I made my statement yesterday, I reflected with my family and classmates from the time and affirmed my conclusion that I am not the person in that photo. He had concluded that he was not one of the two men in that photograph and that he had no plans to resign. I did participate in a dance contest in San Antonio in which I darkened my face as part of a Michael Jackson costume. part of a Michael Jackson costume. It is because my memory of that episode is so vivid that I truly do not believe I am in the picture in my yearbook. Then Sunday, Super Bowl Sunday, there is rumors swirling all day that the lieutenant governor, Justin Fairfax, has some kind of a Me Too issue. It's not clear what it is. Now, Justin Fairfax himself stands accused of serious wrongdoing. At three in the morning on Sunday night, so Monday morning,

Fairfax, Lieutenant Governor, posts a statement on his Twitter account preemptively saying that he did not commit sexual assault on a woman. Monday morning, the Washington Post publishes a story saying, we reported this out last year around the time that Fairfax was being inaugurated, and we decided that we couldn't corroborate it and we were not going to publish it. But they did, at that point, offer some details about the woman and about the encounter. A politics professor from California called Vanessa Tyson says that Fairfax sexually assaulted her in his hotel room at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston.

Fairfax emphatically denies again the case and at that point starts suggesting that some of his political rivals are potentially behind the leak. You don't have to be a political genius to understand that this is a complete smear. And in my character, I've put up for election for the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia in three statewide elections. Never has anything like this ever been raised, not throughout my life. Flash forward then to Wednesday, where the state's leadership is already in chaos.

People are waiting to hear what they're going to do. Will they resign? And rumors again pick up. Now to another update in the now multiple scandals embroiling Virginia's top officials. This time that Mark Herring, the attorney general, has some kind of racially insensitive issue in his past. A stunning admission from Virginia's attorney general, Mark Herring,

who revealed he once wore blackface in college. He said he was dressed as a rapper in the style of the legendary Curtis Blow. This comes after Herring called that photograph on Northam's medical school yearbook page indefensible, profoundly offensive, shocking, and deeply disappointing. And that leads us to Wednesday, where the state of Virginia is in utter chaos. It's not clear who is still going to imagine, on the Democrats' zero tolerance policy. That's exactly right. Now, you know, this is where the rubber meets the road. Are Democrats going to enforce their own policies

in this moment where you've got three Democrats who lead a major state in this country who are facing serious allegations of racist conduct and sexual assault? Are they going to force all three out? Are they going to show forgiveness for some but not others? Are they going to show forgiveness for all three? Well, walk us through how Democrats are handling it so far and what they have been thinking. So, so far, the hardest line has been on Northam. Tonight, the calls for Governor Ralph Northam to resign are growing. Reaction was swift, with much of the outrage coming from Northam's fellow Democrats.

State legislators, the Virginia State Black Caucus, for example. Presidential candidates Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Eric Swalwell. Practically every major Democrat has called on Northam to resign. So Democrats are largely united on that front. Okay. With Fairfax, there's much more of a wait-and-see mode. Here we go again, except for now, you know, you have Democrats

who are avoiding talking to the press. It's difficult because you've got a woman making detailed accusations now on the record. Fairfax emphatically

denies it. Neither of them have yet to produce corroborating evidence from that time. So Democrats in that situation are saying...

I think it's important to have consistency and moral clarity. I don't have any reason to know whether Justin Fairfax is telling the truth or not. But I think I'd say the same thing I said in the Brett Kavanaugh issue, which is there should be a full and complete, thorough, independent investigation. They want to hear more. They want to see an investigation even. That's a tough situation because what happens if there is no investigation? What happens if it does just remain the accusations of Ms. Tyson and the denial of Mr. Fairfax? What do they do? And what's, and is Mark Herring need to go,

are there calls for him to go? What's happening? So no calls on Herring to go yet. With the case of Herring, he preemptively apologized to the Black Caucus, an emotional meeting Wednesday morning in Richmond. He seems to be on somewhat steadier ground because of how he handled the issue. Also worth noting, yes, there is politics in the politics. Here's the law. If the attorney general of Virginia is to resign during the legislative session, his successor would be picked by the legislature. Well, guess what? The Republicans control narrowly the state house and state Senate. So they would be in charge of picking a successor if Herring does resign.

So that also has created some incentive for Democrats to hold their fire. So suddenly zero tolerance in the midst of a very confusing situation is being even more further complicated. By politics. It's important to keep in mind, Michael, if I can just go back for a minute to what happened in the case of Al Franken and the case of John Conyers. There was no real political risk there because you had Democrats in Minnesota who were going to replace Franklin

with a Democrat, and John Conyers had a really safe seat in Detroit, and he was going to be replaced by a Democrat. No real risk there. It's a different story, I think, in Virginia, where you've got all 140 seats of the state legislature up for grabs this fall. Democrats are on the threshold of taking back both chambers, which would give them entire domination of state politics. And, you know, do you want to hand the Republicans the attorney general seat entirely by forcing him to resign and letting the Republican-controlled legislature appoint his successor? That's a much more real, shall we say, test of this policy than it was with the Franken or Conyers situation, because you're talking about much more in the way of political sacrifice.

Right. But I wonder, is your sense, Jonathan, that the bigger question here is about that, whether Democrats are willing to stand by this policy when it could have negative political implications, like a Republican taking a democratically held seat, or that it's about perhaps this zero-tolerance policy being too stringent for the reality of our lives. Yeah, there's two things at work here in Virginia. As more and more revelations come out of college students appearing in blackface and yearbooks. I think this question now is, how many people are going to get swept up in this kind of investigation? And if we do apply this standard widely, that that is abhorrent behavior that has to be prosecuted with the loss

of a job, then are we prepared for a lot of people to lose their jobs? Some people will say, absolutely. It is an appalling demonstration of racism. It's the worst kind of vestige of the bad old days. And we absolutely should penalize folks for that. There are others who will say it took place 30 years ago. People make mistakes in their youth. They shouldn't lose their jobs and their livelihoods for their worst day or their worst moment. You're going to hear both of those arguments quite a bit in the days ahead because these pictures of blackface are not going to be limited to a few politicians in Virginia.

You can be assured that this is going to be turning up in other states and other professions around the country. And it's not going to stop here. It's going to be a bigger conversation beyond this state and beyond politics. Jonathan, we started by talking about Al Franken and the line that was drawn in his case as Democrats started to create this zero tolerance policy 18 months ago. I wonder if in this moment, Democrats are recalibrating and rethinking that decision to force him to resign, given the recalibration we're seeing now. I think we're seeing the first makings of that

recalibration. I'm not sure if they'll go fully through with rethinking their policy as long as Trump is the president and they want to have the high ground. But the best example of this kind of real-time assessment is Senator Gillibrand, who led the charge when it came to pushing out Al Franken, but who has said on Fairfax that she wants to see an investigation. She was very sympathetic to the woman, Dr. Tyson, and the charges that Dr. Tyson made. But Senator Gillibrand's not calling for Fairfax to resign. She's saying that she wants to hear or see, rather, an investigation of this case. That itself is very telling. The fact that Gillibrand has been out front on these issues is not calling for Fairfax to quit. She's calling for an investigation, I think, does indicate the first makings of some kind of recalibration on this approach. Jonathan, thank you very, very much. Thanks, Bill. Bye.

On Thursday, yet another elected official in Virginia, this time a Republican, became ensnared in the state's political crisis. State Senate Majority Leader Thomas Norman acknowledged his role in editing a yearbook that featured racist slurs against African Americans, Asians, and Jews, as well as racist photographs, including people in blackface. I don't condone it, and I haven't engaged in it. If you look back through that yearbook, you will see, first of all, I do not appear in any pictures in any derogatory or disingenuous way to any minority group. way to any minority group. Here's what else you need to know today. On Thursday, the Supreme Court voted to block a Louisiana law that would have made it harder to have abortions in the state

in a five to four decision that suggests for now that the court will observe precedent on the issue despite its rightward tilt under President Trump. The decision, in which Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court's liberal members, prevents Louisiana from enforcing a law that opponents said would close most of the state's abortion clinics. And. During today's hearing, we will examine a topic of great interest to the American people.

We will review whether a president, vice president, or any candidate for this office should be required by law to make their tax return available to the public. House Democrats began hearings on Thursday about a plan that would force President Trump to release his tax returns, despite his longstanding objections to making them public. In other words, we were asked the question, does the public have a need to know

that a person seeking a hold in the highest office in our country obeys the tax laws? The House Ways and Means Committee debated a bill that would compel presidential candidates, including Trump, to release 10 years of tax returns shortly after receiving their party's nomination. But Republicans on the committee, including Representative Mike Kelly, warned against trying to release the president's tax returns against his will. It would set a very dangerous precedent. And the question is, where does it end?

What about the tax returns of the speaker, members of Congress, or federal employees, or for that matter, any political donors? There is no end in sight for those whose tax information may be in jeopardy. The Daily is produced by Theo Balcom, Lindsay Garrison, Rachel Quester, Annie Brown, Andy Mills, Ike Streis-Conneraja, Claire Tennesketter, Michael Simon-Johnson, Jessica Chung, Alexandra Lee Young, and Jonathan Wolfe,

and edited by Paige Cowett, Larissa Anderson, and Wendy Dorr. Lisa Tobin is our executive producer. Samantha Hennig is our editorial director. Our technical manager is Brad Fisher. Our engineer is Chris Wood. And our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsberg of Wonderland. Special thanks to Sam Dolmick, Michaela Bouchard, and Stella Tan. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you on Monday.