The Daily - Which to Believe: Trump’s Words, or His Acts?

Episode Date: July 26, 2018

Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, testified on Wednesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The question that came to the fore: Is the United States’ policy toward Russia what the president says, or what the government does? Guest: Julie Hirschfeld Davis, who covers the White House for The New York Times. 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, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo testifies before the Senate. At question, what is actual U.S. policy toward Russia? What the president says or what the U.S. government does. It's Thursday, July 26th. Julie, what was the origin of Wednesday's hearing? Well, so the Senate Foreign Relations Committee wanted to call the Secretary of State to talk

about the administration's recent foreign policy moves. Julie Davis covers the White House for The Times. So this wasn't, you know, your routine invitation to a Secretary of State. It's pretty unusual. And then after the invitation had been extended, of course, we had this summit last week that President Trump had with President Putin in Helsinki, Finland. They all had a lot of questions that they wanted to ask Mike Pompeo about what went on in that room.

And that got added to the agenda of this hearing, and it becomes really a chance for the senators to question the Secretary of State, who used to be a member of Congress, about what is really going on here. Foreign Relations Committee will come to order. So it begins with, you know, opening statements from the chairman of the committee and the ranking Democrat. Secretary Pompeo, we are glad to have you here today. We're grateful for your service to our country. I have faith in your leadership leadership and I appreciate what you're

doing to change the culture of the State Department in positive ways. But I want to get straight to the point. You come before a group of senators today who are filled with serious doubts about this White House and its conduct of American foreign policy. Essentially Bob Corker, the chairman of the committee, who is a Republican, but he is very outspoken and he is retiring, basically says that... I can't say it more forcefully. We really need a clear understanding

as to what is going on, what our president is agreeing to, and what our strategy is on a number of issues. After the summit, we saw an American president who was submissive to Putin, who was deferential to him. Last week, President Trump held a summit with Vladimir Putin, someone who has violated the most fundamental international norms through his efforts to annex Crimea, has interfered with elections, including our own, has supported the brutal Assad regime in Syria, has used chemical weapons to poison a Russian agent and his daughter in the United Kingdom, has occupied portions of Georgia, continues to violate the INF Treaty, has reportedly hacked

U.S. utilities. The list goes on and on, and you know the list. In the face of these hostilities, in the summit's aftermath, we saw an American president who appeared submissive and deferential. So they start out on this very confrontational foot where he's essentially challenging Mike Pompeo to like, you know, help explain like what are we actually seeing? As you know, senators have gone to the White House in groups to discuss these actions, and not a single person that I'm aware of has left those meetings with the sense that there's a coherent strategy driving these policies. The administration tells us, don't worry, be patient, there's a strategy here. But from where we sit, it appears that in a ready, fire-aimed fashion,

the White House is waking up every morning and making it up as they go. And then Bob Menendez, the senior Democrat on the committee, kind of picks up where Corker leaves off. I remain deeply concerned by the administration's incoherent and contradictory views. We need comprehensive strategies across the world because the result of the lack thereof is chaos and confusion or even worse. I recognize the president considers himself to be a masterful dealmaker and a very stable genius, but we need to call the president's statements out for what they are. At this point, I find them to be misleading and untruthful. So I look forward to your testimony to find out what the truth really is.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, you know, it's pretty clear from the outset that Mike Pompeo has a lot of explaining to do. Good afternoon, Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Menendez, and distinguished members. Thank you for the opportunity to be with you today. And how does Secretary Pompeo react to these opening statements? Well, I want to assure this committee that the United States does not and will not recognize the Kremlin's purported annexation of Crimea. We stand together with allies, partners, and the international community in our commitment to Ukraine and its territorial integrity. You know, he kind of right off the bat reads out this declaration that the United States does not recognize the seizure of Crimea,

which is, you know, was policy policy during the Obama administration has been the policy of the Trump administration. But of course, the president's own statements have cast doubt on it. I would also add that President Trump is well aware of the challenges that Russia poses to the United States and our partners and allies. And he kind of comes in with this as like exhibit A of all of the litany of tough action that this administration has taken against Russia with President Trump at its helm. 213 sanctions on Russian entities and individuals in the Trump administration. 60 Russian spies expelled from the United States of America and the closure of Russia's consulate in Seattle in response to Russia's chemical weapons use in the United Kingdom. The closure

of Russia's consulate in San Francisco. And what do you think that Secretary of State Pompeo is trying to do here, particularly with this declaration about Crimea? And just last week, the Department of Defense, this is after Helsinki, added an additional $200 million in security cooperation funds to Ukraine. None of this happened

for the eight years that preceded President Trump. It's not enough for you. There's a long list. I'm happy to go through them. I'm guessing sometime today I'll get that opportunity. I look forward to it. I think this is part of essentially a damage control effort that the president and the White House have been engaged in and now the rest of the administration is also engaged in to sort of clean up what happened last week in Helsinki, that they understand that they have to make it clear, because the president muddied the waters, where the administration actually stands with regard to Russia. Finally, I want you to know, President Trump has stated that he accepts our intelligence community's conclusion that Russia meddled in the 2016 election. He has a complete and proper understanding of what happened. I know. I briefed him on it for over a year.

And that's what ends up dominating the hearing. So I'd like to ask you some questions to get to understand what actually happened. Has the president told you what he and President Putin discussed in their two-hour closed-door meeting in Helsinki? So the questioning starts with Bob Menendez, and he just starts in with very specific questions about what transpired in this meeting. The presidents have a prerogative to choose who's in meetings or not. I'm confident you've had private one-on-one meetings in your life as well. You've chosen that setting as the most efficient way. I just ask you a simple just... You can't eat up my seven minutes, Mr. Secretary. Did you...

Did he tell you whether or not what happened in those two hours? Yes, Senator. The predicate of your question implied some notion that there was something improper about having a one-on-one meeting. I completely disagree with the premise of your question. I didn't ask you a predicate. I asked you a simple question. I hope we're going to get through it. Did he tell you what transpired

in the two-hour meeting? I've had a number of conversations with President Trump about what transpired in the meeting. And Pompeo takes instant umbrage at that. Did the president at this meeting call upon President Putin to withdraw from Crimea and eastern Ukraine? Senator, I began my statement today with the United States government's policy. I understand the declaration. I welcome it. I'm glad that it seems like we had to do a lot of effort to get there. But the question is, when he had a chance, did he confront Putin and say, we don't recognize your annexation of Crimea, we don't recognize your continuing hostilities in eastern Ukraine, and there's consequences for that? Senator, the president was very clear with Vladimir Putin about U.S.

positions. They're the U.S. positions that are the Trump administration's positions, and he spoke about them very firmly and clearly when he met with Vladimir Putin. And he told you that? Senator, I'm telling you what he had a conversation with Vladimir Putin about, and I'm telling you what U.S. policy is today. Senator, I understand the game that you're playing. No, no, you know, Mr. Secretary, with all due respect, I don't appreciate you characterizing my questions. My question is just to get to the truth. We don't know what the truth is. And Menendez is just basically sticking to the brass tacks. He's

saying, I'm asking you, did he tell you? And what did he tell you? And Pompeo basically sort of dismisses it as a political ploy. And he just isn't answering the questions. Right. And this felt like the common theme in this hearing. Senators are asking the Secretary of State to answer questions about what happened in the summit, which is the explicit point of this hearing. And the Secretary of State is finding many ways to not answer those questions. Right. And the most common way he keeps resorting to is he just will restate policy. Right. It feels like Pompeo is embracing this very simple message. Look only at the actions of this administration when it comes to Russia. Right. And the senators actually challenge him on that. And at one point,

Corker, the chairman, sort of interjects and says, Much of what you're hearing today has nothing whatsoever to do with you. And I would agree with you that the policies that we're putting in place in many cases are stronger than have ever been put in place. I agree with you. It's the president that causes people to have concerns.

What is this about? Why is he saying these things? Is there a strategy there? And how can we essentially just ignore this? I think you're a patriot. Tremendous faith in Mattis. But it's the president's actions that create tremendous distrust in our nation, among our allies. It's palpable. We meet and talk with them. Is there a strategy to this or is it what what is it that causes the president purposely purposely create distrust in these

institutions and what we're doing? I just disagree with most of what you just said there. You somehow disconnect the administration's activities from the president's actions. They're the one and the same. Every sanction that was put in place was signed off by the president of the United States. Every spy that was removed was corrected by the president of the United States. Go to the points I just made. Go to the points I just made. Talk to them.

Talk to them. I know what we're doing. Talk to the points I just made. Here's what the world needs to know. Well, how unusual is that idea, Julie, that lawmakers, according to Pompeo, should attach greater value to the U.S. policy than to the words of the U.S. president? It's very unusual.

I mean, in the past, presidents have been really careful to limit their statements to what is within the bounds of U.S. policy. They understand and have understood that even any little gradation, much less a tweet that's 180 degrees different from what the policy is, is going to be seized upon by the public, by Congress, by allies around the world as a big deal and a major step. And that is a concept that this president does not embrace at all. And even though Mike Pompeo is well acquainted with it from having been in Congress before Trump was president, as Secretary of State in the Trump administration, he is essentially having to discard that concept and say, that's not the way it is anymore. You figure out what the president means by looking at his policies any policy as articulated by a White House, which is focus on the administration and what it communicates, not the president's words. Right. And that is a concept that the senators on both sides are clearly deeply uncomfortable with. And we focus on words from the president because our allies

and our adversaries listen to those words and they calibrate their actions based upon those words. And there's this exchange with Chris Murphy, the Democratic senator from Connecticut, where he goes back to President Trump's tweet a week after the Helsinki summit about how the election interference was all a big hoax. So I guess my question is, why shouldn't we accept this most recent statement from the president as U.S. policy rather than the statement that you referenced on July 17th? And, you know, Pompeo says, well, listen, I've got this big, I have a long list of all the times when President Trump has confirmed that he understood that Russia meddled and he starts to, you know, spit out dates and times.

I think the president's been unambiguously clear and I can go read you his policies. And if I were going to refer to his policies as separate statements, I'm asking you about this statement. Senator, because you explain it to us to us. What do you mean? Senator, the policies are themselves statements as well. Indeed, they're the most important statements that the administration makes. Well, policies are statements and statements are policies. It goes both ways. No, that's not true. That's absolutely not true. People make, I make lots of statements. They're not U.S. policy. The president says- The policies are themselves statements. And in fact, they're the most of statements. They're not U.S. policy. The policies are themselves statements. And in

fact, they're the most important statements. And he even goes on to say, you know, Barack Obama talked really tough on Russia, but he did nothing. And his implication clearly is that Donald Trump doesn't have to talk tough on Russia if he's doing something. Is Pompeo right in a sense that in the end, the president's off-the-cuff words, something he says at a news conference, even a high-stakes news conference after a summit with Putin, that those words aren't as important as official policy? Or are the president's words automatically U.S. policy? And so they can't be separated from policy, as Pompeo seems to be trying to do. I think it's really difficult to separate the two, partly because U.S. policy operates on a lot of levels.

One of the things that it does is set a practical list of things that should be done. And that's the aspect of policy that Mike Pompeo is talking about. That's the aspect of policy that Mike Pompeo is talking about. But the other thing that it does is it sort of sets a predicate for the rest of the world and for our allies and for those who are trying to determine what the stance is of the United States. And that's all about message. And that has to come from the president. That can't just come from a set of principles that are written down on a policy plan or from the mouth of the Secretary of State. And particularly, it can't come just from that if the president is saying something completely different, which is what we have in this

situation. The president says things, right? The president makes comments in certain places. We have a National Security Council. We meet, we lay out strategies. We develop policies, right? The president then sets the course. How do I know the difference between a presidential statement that is not a policy and a statement that is? Senator, here's what you should look at. So in the midst of this back and forth with Senator Murphy about statements and policies and which is more important. I want you to think about the suggestion that what the president says is not the policy of the United States. When the president speaks...

There's a moment where he sort of realizes he may have gone a bit too far. Can I clean that up, Senator? You're right, I misspoke there. If you want to clean it up, because when he speaks, that is the policy of the United States. I'd love to, Senator. I'd love the chance to do that. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, I misspoke. It is the case. The president calls the ball. It's like he takes the argument to its logical conclusion and sort of realizes in real time that for him to suggest that somehow the policy that he is carrying out is more important

than something that Donald Trump might say is not a notion that this president is going to be very happy about. His statements are, in fact, policy. But it's the case that when all of us speak in informal settings in response to questions, we're not covering the full gamut of things that impact the world. That's what I intended to say. I saw the glee on your side walking away trying to make a political point from that. That's silliness.

This president runs this government. His statements are a NEC-US policy. So now we understand that when the president speaks, it is the policy of the United States. Senator, you've seen these policies. 200-plus sanctions. You've seen them, Senator. I'm not asking you a question, Mr. Secretary. Senator, I understand.

I'm summarizing. I've now been here three hours, and you've got a political soliloquy. No, you know what? I've listened to your political soliloquy. No, you know what? I've listened to your political soliloquy as a secretary of state. He's pressed about it near the end of the hearing. Bob Menendez says to him. So please don't talk to me about politics. I want to talk about politics.

If President Obama did what President Trump did in Helsinki, I'd be peeling you off the Capitol ceiling, please. So here's the point. When the president speaks, it is So here's the point. When the president speaks, it is the policy of the United States. And Corker then reclaims the time. Would you like to give any response? He basically says to Pompeo, you know, do you want to respond to that? Sort of giving Pompeo the chance to have the last word. And Pompeo is so angry, I would say visibly angry, that he just says, not a word, not a word. And Pompeo is so angry, I would say visibly angry,

that he just says, not a word. He's so worked up that he's not even going to try to respond. Most helpful. I appreciate you coming before us today. And with that, the meeting's adjourned. So now this hearing is over. Does it seem like there's a better understanding of what actually happened,

which was the entire rationale for this hearing with Mike Pompeo? Not really. I mean, the striking thing to me is that in defending the president and trying to make the case that he didn't do anything inappropriate, what Pompeo essentially said was that nothing has really changed. It was essentially, you know, don't worry, we haven't changed our policy on Crimea. We haven't changed our policy with regard to Syria. But in bending over backwards to make sure that everyone understood that the president hadn't made inappropriate concessions,

he essentially came away saying that not much had been done at all. So despite all the controversy, despite all the extraordinary statements the president made, the lesson from this hearing from Pompeo is essentially that these summits didn't really accomplish much. I think that was the takeaway. And I think that was Pompeo's objective in going up to the Hill, was essentially to say, nothing's changed. You don't have anything to worry about. The president tweets and talks in ways that make you nervous, but it's not actually influencing the direction of the country. And I think that was deeply unsatisfying to these senators. Right. And to that point, it feels like this hearing cemented an understanding of U.S.

foreign policy in which the administration will do one thing, but what will come out of the mouth of the president will often be different. And that that dynamic, the government doing one thing, the president doing another, will govern this presidency. I think that's right. I think it's here to stay. And it's essentially an acknowledgment by members of the Trump administration that you can't control what this president says and does. All they can control is policy. And as long as he is signing on to the right policies, they're not even going to bother trying to police the rest of it. Well, thank you, Julie. Very much appreciate it.

Thanks, Michael. a second planned meeting between President Trump and President Putin amid intensifying criticism of Trump's conflicting statements on Russia's role in the U.S. elections. In a statement, National Security Advisor John Bolton wrote, quote, The president believes that the next bilateral meeting with President Putin should take place after the Russia witch hunt is over. So we've agreed that it will be after the first of the year. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. So we had a big day, very big.

We met right here at the White House to launch a new phase in the relationship between the United States and the European Union, a phase of close friendship, of strong trade relations in which both of us will win. During a news conference at the White House on Wednesday, President Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker announced that the U.S. had reached an agreement with the European Union to ease their trade war and avoid future tariffs.

When I was invited by the president to the White House, I had one intention. I had the intention to make a deal today. And we made a deal today. The deal calls for both sides to eventually end all tariffs on industrial goods, for the EU to import more U.S. soybeans and liquefied natural gas, and for the U.S. to reevaluate its tariffs on aluminum and steel, which triggered the trade war in the first place.

While we are working on this, we will not go against the spirit of this agreement unless either party terminates the negotiation. unless either party terminates the negotiation. And two of Congress's most conservative members, Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan, have introduced articles of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the special counsel investigation into Russia. There is no immediate plan to vote on the legislation,

but it represents the latest escalation in the feud between House Republicans and Rosenstein, whom they accuse of withholding documents and being insufficiently transparent

in his handling of the Russia investigation. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.