The Daily - Monday, Jan. 8, 2018

Episode Date: January 8, 2018

Five days after the release of the tell-all book “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” President Trump defended his mental health, calling himself a “very stable genius.” And Stephen K. Bannon, the president’s former chief strategist, backed away from calling Donald Trump Jr. “treasonous.” Why did a publication with little new reporting in it cause such a big stir? Guests: Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent for The New York Times; Jeremy W. Peters, a Times journalist who has reported on Mr. Bannon for years. 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, five days after its release, President Trump is defending himself as a stable genius. And Steve Bannon is backing down from calling the president's son treasonous. Why did a book with little new reporting in it cause such a big stir? It's Monday, January 8th.

Welcome back. Well, the left has pushed the Russian collusion narrative and talked about impeachment, but with neither working, the left, well, they have a new talking point. Should Americans be concerned about the president's mental fitness? None of this normal, none of this acceptable, none of this frankly stable behavior. We're talking about the president's mental state and asking honest questions about his mental state. You also have members in Congress meeting with psychiatrists to talk about the 25th Amendment.

But will all this talk about the president's mental health actually backfire on Democrats? Fox News contributor David Webb joins us right now to react. Peter Baker has been covering a White House media blitz this weekend, defending the president's mental health, starting with a series of tweets by the president on Saturday morning. Well, the tweets came just minutes after a Fox News report that he evidently saw talking about how the media was questioning his mental stability. The first one said, quote, now that Russia collusion after one year of intense study has proven to be a total hoax

on the American public, the Democrats and their lapdogs, the fake news mainstream media, are taking out the old Ronald Reagan playbook and screaming mental stability and intelligence. Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart. Yeah, Peter, what's he talking about here when he's talking about Ronald Reagan? When he talks about Reagan, what he means, of course, is that Reagan, especially in his latter years in office, seemed increasingly slow, a little hazy.

And we learn later in 1994 that he had Alzheimer's. Right. So if he's talking about the Reagan playbook as if the Democrats and the media had unfairly attacked president reagan for mental instability well first of all they didn't we didn't have the same kind of conversation it was much more genteel less in your face less overt second of all reagan's example actually does raise the question of president's mental health given that we fact

now know that he had alzheimer's disease at least after leaving office and possibly even while he was there. So it's a bit of a curious example for the president to be using. Well, it is. It's like saying, you know, that it was wrong for the media to question Richard Nixon about Watergate. Well, actually, Watergate proved to be a real scandal. And with Reagan, there were genuine and legitimate questions that people have raised about what his capacity was as he got older. So after these comments about Reagan, the president now infamously ended this series of tweets by saying he is actually a genius, a very stable genius. And then a few hours later on Saturday afternoon, he elaborates on that at Camp David, where he has been spending the weekend. What happened there?

Well, he was asked by reporters, well, why did you make these tweets this morning? Why did you tweet about your mental health? Because I went to the best colleges or college. I went to a – I had a situation where I was a very excellent student, came out, made billions and billions of dollars, became one of the top business people. Went to television and for 10 years was a tremendous success, as you probably have heard. Ran for president one time and won. So it's a funny response in a way, because going to a good school 50 years ago really has very little to do with what we see about his behavior today, how we evaluate that. But he is very fixated on this

idea that he went to a very good school, University of Pennsylvania, and that he is very smart. So then, finally, we have Stephen Miller, this top aide to the president, being sent out on the Sunday talk shows to further defend the president's intelligence and his mental health. And he has this exchange with Jake Tapper that ultimately ends with Miller being escorted off the television set. What happened? Well, he had some talking points he had come on the show to make, which was that the president is a self-made billionaire. Revolutionized reality TV and tapped into something magical that's happening in the hearts of this country. The people that you don't... The president has approval rating in the 30s. I don't know what magical you're talking about. The people that you don't connect with and

understand, the people whose manufacturing jobs have left, who've been besieged by high crime communities, and who've been affected by a policy of uncontrolled immigration. Those voices, those experiences don't get covered on this network. He got a pretty sharp back and forth with Jake Tapper. I was booked to talk about the very issues I'm just describing. You're not even asking about them because they're not interesting facts to you. That's not true. I have plenty of questions on immigration. You've attempted to filibuster by talking about your flights. No, I'm not. I want to ask you a question because don't, no, don't be condescending.

Jake, Jake, Jake. The president and the White House. When he started, you know, attacking the media and attacking everybody else and Tapper pushed back. And it was a pretty feisty back and forth. What I've seen with him traveling to meet dozens of foreign leaders with his incredible work. OK, you're not answering the questions. I understand. You have 24 hours a day of anti-trump material. You're not going to give three minutes for the American people to hear the real experience of Donald Trump.

There's one viewer that you care about right now, and you're being obsequious. You're being a factotum in order to please him. And Tapper basically accused him of coming on the show, Stephen Miller, to speak just to the president. Well, that's right. He says, I know you have an audience of one. Of course, when he says that, what he means is the audience to the president. Well, that's right. He says, I know you have an audience of one. Of course, when he says that, what he means is the audience being the president. Well, and Tapper wasn't wrong,

because not long after, the president tweets the, quote, Jake Tapper of fake new CNN just got destroyed in his interview with Stephen Miller of the Trump administration. So the president was watching this performance by Miller, defending his intelligence. Tapper had it right.

Well, on that point, he certainly was. This was a performance intended to impress the president. It did impress the president. This is what he likes in the people who go out to defend him. He doesn't want, you know, a soft-soaked kind of defense. He wants an aggressive, in-your-face, put-the-other-guy-back-on-his-heels kind of defense. And that's what Stephen Miller delivered. So, Peter, what does all of this have to do with the book that just came out,

Michael Wolff's account of life inside the White House, as told by Steve Bannon and others? What does that have to do with this defense by the White House over the weekend of the president's mental health? Because the book seems to somehow have started this campaign of theirs. Well, Michael Wolff in his book says basically that people around the president themselves, his own advisors, his own associates and friends, question his fitness for office. In fact, in one of his interviews on television, he said 100% of the people around him question his fitness for office. A little hard to imagine that 100% do, but it's certainly true to say that there are concerns among the people around him. This is all really sticky stuff, right? The question of mental health. Contrary to what the president says in that tweet

and the defense he's mounting, the media has really sort of avoided the subject for that reason. But it is true that Democrats in Washington have been increasingly trying to mobilize some kind of action around this, right? Is that part of what the president is responding to as well? Right, exactly. In fact, about a dozen of them met last month with Dr. Bandy Lee, who is a forensic psychiatrist from Yale Medical School. She's the editor of a new book that came out last year questioning the president's mental health. And all of this is tied into legislation that Democrats have introduced and has been signed onto by 57 House Democrats. They would set up a panel that would evaluate the president's mental and physical health. This is a panel that's envisioned by the 25th Amendment, but it's never actually been set up.

That probably goes nowhere because, of course, Democrats don't control either House or Congress. And it's more of a political statement. But it is an extraordinary one to hear in Washington, to hear a president's mental health question in such an overt way. And Peter, when you mention the 25th Amendment, what does that actually say? And what, therefore, would this legislation that these Democrats are envisioning do? The 25th Amendment, among other things, provides for taking the powers away from a president who is judged not to be able to discharge his duties. And what that is, we don't know.

And traditionally, in the last 50 years, that's been used for physical ailments. In other words, when President George W. Bush had a colonoscopy and was under anesthesia, he transferred his powers on his own to his vice president for the couple hours he was unconscious. But there is a provision that says that the vice president and a majority of the cabinet can vote to transfer the powers of the president to the vice president if they decide he's unable to discharge his duties. Another way that can happen is if the vice president and a majority of a body created by

Congress votes to remove the president's powers. But Congress has never actually created that body. That's what this legislation that a Maryland Democrat, Jamie Raskin, has introduced would do. It would set up that body 50 years after the ratification of that amendment, in which it would be then up to them to help decide whether the president was fit for office. And despite a psychiatrist from Yale meeting with these Democratic members of Congress, the mental health community largely has been sort of divided on whether to wade into this, right, with a lot of professionals coming forward with opinions, but a lot of other psychologists and psychiatrists saying it's just incredibly dangerous and irresponsible to diagnose someone from a distance. Yeah, exactly. There is in the American Psychiatric Association something called the Goldwater Rule, and that was put in place after Barry Goldwater, the Republican senator from Arizona, ran for president in 1964. And back then, some people did some armchair diagnoses of him that caused some real debate in the community. The Goldwater Rule then says it is not okay for professionals in the mental health community to

diagnose people they have not examined. And so there's been a debate this last year or so about whether that rule should still apply. The psychiatrists say we have a duty to warn the country given what we see. Lay out what your concerns are as a psychiatrist. So our concerns are that someone with this level of mental instability and impairment has this much power. And there are others who say, as you said, that that's dangerous, dangerous thinking mental instability and impairment has this much power. And there are others who say, as you said, that that's dangerous, dangerous thinking and that they should not be that far out. I cannot diagnose Donald Trump. I don't know Donald Trump.

It's still kind of remarkable, though, that this is being discussed now. It's extraordinary that we're having this conversation this way. But, you know, he himself raised it on Saturday with these tweets that he put out. He didn't have to. Most presidents who would come under attack for something as volatile and sensitive as this would dismiss it and ignore it and not say it doesn't deserve to be addressed. But because he raised it up himself in these tweets, it's hard not to address the question. Thank you, Peter. Thank you. Great talking to you.

When we come back, why Steve Bannon is now walking back his comments in the book, calling the president's son treasonous, for meeting with Russian officials last year. Some breaking news while we were in commercial. Steve Bannon apologizing to President Trump. Jeremy, I want to work backwards from the surprise apology on Sunday. We've just heard from our colleague Peter Baker about what's been going on with the Trump team in the time since this book was previewed or leaked. What's been going on with Bannon since then that led to this apology? Well, Bannon has been increasingly isolated. This past week has been one indignity after another. Donald Trump has launched a scathing attack on his former chief strategist, Steve Bannon.

First of all, you have the president basically saying, Steve who? Never heard of the guy. Jeremy Peters has known and reported on Steve Bannon for years. He's a credit-stealing blowhard. Steve was a staffer who worked for me after I had already won the nomination by defeating 17 candidates, often described as the most talented field ever assembled in the Republican Party.

And you should write him off just like I have. That was essentially Trump's message to Republicans and the conservative movement, which is crucial for Steve because here Steve is trying to build a political movement off of Trumpism. Right. And recruit candidates and run them kind of in the mold of Trump. The blowback continues against Mr. Bannon. There are multiple reports tonight. Then you had the next day.

The Mercer family is distancing themselves from him. They are among his most important financial backers. Rebecca Mercer, who is Bannon's political patron, has funded much of his activity and also was a major donor to Trump, saying, was a major donor to Trump, saying... My family and I have not communicated with Steve Bannon in many months and have provided no financial support to his political agenda, nor do we support his recent actions and statements. I'm severing ties with him. He will not have any more of my financial support.

Today, President Trump weighed in via tweet. Mercer family recently dumped the leaker known as Sloppy Steve Bannon. Smart! Exclamation point. But it's not just Trump and the Mercers who have turned on Bannon. It's some of the candidates that Bannon has been campaigning for and supporting who are going to challenge Republican incumbents in Senate races across the country. You had Kelly Ward in Arizona, Danny Tartanian in Nevada, among others saying, look, see the spokesman for Republican Kelly Ward downplayed Bannon as only one of the many

high profile endorsements Dr. Ward has received. Steve is just one guy who supports me. I have the support of many other people in the conservative movement. Convicted felon Michael Grimm, who's running for his old house seat in New York, said, I strongly denounce the comments by Steve Bannon. They are baseless attacks against the president's family, and I fully support our commander in chief. And I think ultimately the most painful indignity for Bannon personally happened on Sunday morning. It's tragic and unfortunate that Steve would make these grotesque comments so out of touch with reality and obviously so vindictive. When Stephen Miller, who was a close associate and ally of Bannon's going back well before they ever worked together

on the Trump campaign, basically went on national television and twisted the knife and said, Steve Bannon is dead to this White House. And the whole White House staff is deeply disappointed in his comments, which were grotesque. So over the course of 48 hours, his political capital drops like a stone. But Jeremy, Bannon knowingly participated in this book written by Michael Wolff. He did a similar interview with Vanity Fair just a few weeks earlier, and he talked to you a few weeks before that. Obviously, he is being intentional, it seems, with his comments. So what's going on here?

Did he know that this would happen, or do you think he didn't expect this reaction, this kind of anger at him over what he's been saying about the president? You know, Michael, it's funny. I get that question a lot. What was Steve thinking? The answer is really quite simple. He wasn't thinking. This was impulsive. It was reckless.

And it was done, as far as I can read the situation, without any thought. He was saying what was on the top of his mind. He was hot at the time. The disclosure that this meeting had taken place with the Russians in Trump Tower, which was such an obvious and avoidable self-inflicted wound, that infuriated Steve and it infuriated other people around the president as well. So he's reacting there without thinking through the consequences. Now, I think it's a question of whether or not those comments were ever meant to be on the record or not, and whether the author took some liberties in putting them in the book. But there's no doubt that Steve said

them. So what does Bannon say on Sunday? What is his apology? It's not really an apology. It's more of a clarification. What he says he meant is not that Donald Trump Jr. is treasonous for taking this meeting with Russians in Trump Tower in 2016, but that the other people around Trump who should have known better, like Paul Manafort, who was the campaign manager at the time, he should not have ever allowed Russians into Trump Tower. And sure, Donald Trump Jr. was there. He was at the meeting,

but he's this great patriot. I do not believe that he's treasonous. Here's more of what Bannon writes. He says, quote, My comments were aimed at Paul Manafort, a seasoned campaign professional with experience and knowledge of how the Russians operate. He should have known they are duplicitous, cunning, and not our friends. To reiterate, those comments were not aimed at Don Jr. Bannon did, however, say that he regretted how long it took him to respond. It was five days from when the news first broke to when we finally heard this mea culpa. So what do you make of that, especially the part where he expresses regret for how long it took him to express regret?

I don't think it's Steve. I don't think it sounds like Steve. He watched his political capital evaporate. He watched his financial support collapse. He watched the conservative movement and the White House turn its back on him. And Steve, being somebody who is hardheaded, stubborn, and unapologetic, this doesn't sound to me like it was written by him. But when you say that, do you mean that somebody else literally may have written the statement or that Steve Bannon's heart wasn't in it? What is your reporting telling you about that? I think the people around Bannon wanted to mend the relationship with President Trump and that the only way they were going to do that was to essentially put a gun to Steve's head and say, you've got to go out and say something. And I think that this statement was issued under extreme duress. And

Bannon did not, even today, with all that happened with the denunciations on television by senior White House officials, didn't want to apologize and display the weakness that he believes apologies do. And yet he ultimately did apologize, though. If you read it, the word I'm sorry isn't in there, is it? Hmm. Do we know, Jeremy, if Steve Bannon wrote this statement? We do not. Do we know, Jeremy, if Steve Bannon wrote this statement? We do not.

Thank you, Jeremy. Thanks for having me. It's a pleasure as always, Michael. Here's what else you need to know today. Good evening, ladies and remaining gentlemen. I'm Seth Meyers, and I'll be your host tonight. Welcome to the 75th annual Golden Globes and Happy New Year, Hollywood. It's 2018, marijuana is finally allowed and sexual harassment finally isn't. It's gonna be a good year. At the Golden Globes on Sunday night, Hollywood openly confronted a culture of sexual harassment that was exposed with allegations of sexual assault by Harvey Weinstein

and has since implicated men across the entertainment industry. In the audience, actresses and actors wore black to honor victims of harassment, and Golden Globe winners of both sexes called for a new era in a field still dominated by men. most powerful tool we all have. And I'm especially proud and inspired by all the women who have felt strong enough and empowered enough to speak up and share their personal stories. Each of us in this room are celebrated because of the stories that we tell. And this year, we became the story. Near the end of the ceremony, as she accepted a Lifetime Achievement Award, Oprah Winfrey broadened the conversation beyond the entertainment industry and paid tribute to a young Black housewife, Recy Taylor, who in 1944 was raped by a group of white men who were never punished for their crime.

She lived, as we all have lived, too many years in a culture broken by brutally powerful men. For too long, women have not been heard or believed if they dared to speak their truth to the power of those men. But their time is up. Their time is up. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro.

See you tomorrow.