The NPR Politics Podcast - Part Of Special Counsel Report Released; Hegseth Confirmation Hearing

Episode Date: January 14, 2025

The Department of Justice's long-awaited election interference report against Donald Trump, released early Tuesday, said the evidence against the president-elect would have led to his conviction at trial — if not for his election victory that led to charges being dropped. Then, confirmation hearings for Pete Hegseth, President-elect Trump's pick to run the Department of Defense, took place on Capitol Hill. Hegseth defended himself against accusations of sexual misconduct & alcohol abuse. This episode: senior White House correspondent Tamara Keith, national justice correspondent Carrie Johnson, senior political editor & correspondent Domenico Montanaro, congressional correspondent Deirdre Walsh, and defense correspondent Tom Bowman.The podcast is produced by Bria Suggs & Kelli Wessinger, and edited by Casey Morell. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Every weekday, Up First gives you the news you need to start your day. On the Sunday story from Up First, we slow down. We bring you the best reporting from NPR journalists around the world, all in one major story, 30 minutes or less. Join me every Sunday on the Up First podcast to sit down with the biggest stories from NPR. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Keri Johnson. I cover the Justice Department.

And I'm Domenica Montanaro, Senior Political Editor and Correspondent. And part of the special counsel report into Donald Trump's actions trying to overturn the 2020 election, which he lost, has been released. Carrie, you got this overnight, and I want to get you to describe what is in it. What did Special Counsel Jack Smith find? The Special Counsel Jack Smith found that President-elect Donald Trump engaged in or led a criminal conspiracy to cling to power after he lost

the 2020 election to Joe Biden and that he advanced that conspiracy allegedly by a pervasive pattern of deceit. This involved things like advancing slates of fake electors, leaning on then Vice President Mike Pence and all those other allegations that now seem familiar but are fairly chilling when you put them all in one piece as Jack Smith did. Smith said that the evidence existed to convict Trump but of course there was never a trial because Trump won the last election and the Justice Department has a long-standing policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. Trump returns to office on Monday and as you say, there's this longstanding DOJ policy that sitting presidents cannot

be indicted. So why does this report matter now? Danielle Pletka You know, it gave Jack Smith and his team a chance to answer some questions and explain why they did what they did. It also really is a message for history at a time when President-elect Trump and many Republicans in Congress have been trying to recast the events of January 6, 2021 as a day of peace, calling the people who stormed the Capitol patriots and hostages. And there also could be a measure of accountability yet even though the criminal case has gone away, there are

some ongoing civil lawsuits against Trump and others filed by police officers who were injured at the Capitol that day. And this puts evidence out there that could be used in those civil cases? Yeah, it helps advance the arguments and sheds new light on some of the evidence the federal authorities amassed. It sort of jumped out to me that Smith said in the report that the through line of all of Trump's criminal efforts as you said was deceit carry, knowingly false claims of election fraud. The fact that he feels like they would have won this case had it gone to trial. We know Trump's lawyers spent a long time trying to litigate all of this, trying to

push this off as much as possible, really trying to get it beyond the election, which they were successfully able to do to be able to win the election with the gamble that then the cases would be dropped. And that's essentially what's happened here. It does make you wonder a little bit if Merrick Garland, the attorney general had launched an investigation into Trump's conduct before and on January 6, sooner than he did, which was November of 2022, if I'm not mistaken, that this might have seen a trial and potentially a conviction. You know, I'm not so sure about that.

There are some things in this report that are new and interesting, or at least put pieces together in a new way. And they explain some of the challenges with this case. The investigation was active and underway at the time that Jack Smith was appointed the special counsel. DOJ prosecutors working elsewhere in the building had already done a lot of work, but they were frustrated because former President Trump and a lot of his aides were claiming all kinds of privileges, executive privilege, deliberative privilege.

Mike Pence didn't want to testify. And it took a prosecutor's months and months and months of secret grand jury proceedings to convince judges that those privileges in large part did not apply. Then the Justice Department dropped in a footnote in this new report the idea that only a very tiny slice of what Jackson's team amassed and wanted to use against Trump in this January 6 case came from the House Select Committee investigating January 6. In other words, in public opinion, the House Committee is way out in front of the Justice Department. But what Smith seems to be saying here is DOJ was working very quietly and that it had different and more

difficult standards to meet to introduce and develop evidence for a criminal case in court before a jury. You know, in part it seems like he was defending his investigation. Is that a fair description? Oh, he absolutely was defending his investigation. You know, Tam, Jack Smith has had 24-hour round-the-clock security. Several members of his team have faced threats. There's been swatting attempts against Smith and other public officials. And he wanted to tell people that even though this case never got to trial against Trump,

that the rule of law matters, that his team did things the right way despite those personal costs and attacks and threats. And Jack Smith said he'd been doing this for about 30 years as a prosecutor. You cannot control the outcome, but you can do your job in the right way for the right reasons. And those personal costs may only just be beginning. I think that's exactly right. We already know that key Republicans in Congress have insisted the Justice Department keep all the materials that Jack Smith amassed. They may want to be setting up an investigation of all of these investigators. And in fact, some of Trump's key nominees for national security posts, including Pam Bondi as attorney general

and Cash Patel to lead the FBI, they both talked openly about wanting to investigate the investigators. At minimum, there's going to be congressional proceedings at some point or another, and potentially these people are going to have to pay money or enlist the services of pro bono lawyers to help them navigate all these investigations to come. And if Smith is asked to testify before Congress, he certainly gave a little bit of a roadmap of what he might say in that kind of investigation into what he feels is an upstanding investigation what they were able to do. I mean he essentially talked about Trump resorting to intimidation

and harassment during the investigation because of how he used social media against them and he said it was quote laughable that there was any politics involved and that standing up for what was right and within the law matters. You know Trump Trump's lawyers have said that Jack Smith was acting like an out of control private citizen. But in fact, there's some detail in this report that shows some of the things that Jack Smith and his team were considering and that they did not do. This was new. Smith told us that they had considered charging Trump with the crime of insurrection, which

if Trump had been found guilty, it would have disqualified him from holding future office. But the problem there is hardly anybody's been charged with insurrection. The legal definition of what an insurrection is is really unclear. And Smith, despite being pretty hard charging, didn't want to take some kind of new novel path. And secondly, Smith told us that they had considered charging Trump with the crime of incitement because of some of the remarks he made at the rally that day before the storming of the Capitol. But there's a really high bar to bringing those charges. And again, they just didn't have enough evidence to get there.

Domenico, President Trump returns to office Monday, even if this case will never be heard in a federal court. How do you think it will play in the court of public opinion? Well, I mean, you know, there's been a lot of mixed views on whether or not Trump has been politically targeted. Clearly Trump has insulated himself well with his base and saying that he's been targeted. But there's really obviously no evidence for that and Overall most people have continued to say that they think that January 6th was an insurrection not a protest by patriots

Unfortunately, here we are years later at this point and a lot of questions not just on now We know Trump will not face any kind of penalty for questions, not just on now we know Trump will not face any kind of penalty for what he did in the lead up or on that day, but also whether or not Trump is going to pardon some of these January 6 defendants, also something that hasn't been very popular in public opinion. But he has definitely promised to do it. Kerry, just quickly, there's a second part to this report. Why hasn't it been released? The second part of the report relates to the activity

at Mar-a-Lago, the alleged hoarding of classified documents by Trump, and then his refusal to turn them over to the FBI after the FBI showed up with a subpoena. And the reason that part is not being released, there are two reasons really. One is that DOJ dropped the case against Donald Trump, but two of Trump's longtime aides at Mar-a-Lago, Walt Notta and Carlos de Oliveira, those charges against those men continue. And to blast out a report while that prosecution may still be live is really an unfair thing to do, the Justice Department says. The second reason is that Judge Eileen Cannon, the Florida judge appointed to the bench by Trump, we talk about her all the time on this podcast, she has put a halt or

a stop to any release of that part of the report. And she's also demanded that lawyers for Trump's aides and the Justice Department show up in court in Florida on Friday to hash out what happens to part two of that report. Keri and Domenico, thank you so much for sharing your reporting and analysis. Happy to do it. You got it. We'll take a break and when we get back, we'll head to Capitol Hill, where Pete Hegseth, President-elect Trump's pick for Secretary of Defense, is grilled by the

Senate Armed Services Committee. For every headline, there's also another story about the people living those headlines. On weekdays, Up First brings you the day's biggest news. On Sundays, we bring you closer with a single story about the people, places, and moments reshaping our world. Your news made personal every Sunday on the Up First podcast from NPR. Every Sunday on the Up First podcast from NPR. And we're back with NPR Congressional correspondent Deirdre Walsh and NPR Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman. Hello to both of you. Good to be with you. You there. The Senate started confirmation hearings on President-elect Donald Trump's

cabinet picks today and one name attracted a lot of attention, Pete Hegseth, the former Fox News host who has been nominated to run the Defense Department. Tom, tell us just quickly a little bit more about him. Well, he's a Fox News host, former Fox News host, a former National Guard soldier with deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, some combat time there. He used to run a couple of veterans organizations, and he wants to be a disrupter. That's why President Trump nominated him. And clearly from the hearing today, he will be a disrupter.

It was very combative on his part. He often talked over Democratic senators and he defended himself against the fact that he has the least experience of any defense secretary in history. I went over the bios of secretaries of war going back to George Washington. He is the least qualified person in the history of this country to lead the military. Which may be part of the point. Let's hear a little bit of Hegseth here. Like many of my generation, I've been there. I've led troops in combat. I've been on patrol for days. I've pulled the trigger downrange,

heard bullets whizz by, flex cuffed insurgents, called in close air support, led medevacs, dodged IEDs, pulled out dead bodies, and knelt before a battlefield cross. This is not academic for me. This is my life. I led then, and I will lead now. Deirdre, you were there in the hearing room. What was it like? I mean, it got very tense. It was a very partisan hearing,

but just sort of setting the scene, this hearing was moved to a big hearing room in the Dirksen building, which isn't the normal hearing room for the Armed Services Committee because of the public interest in this being the first confirmation hearing of Trump's nominee and because of the controversy already about Hegs's nomination. I mean, Tom talked a lot about questions about his qualifications for the job. There was a massive line for the public coming in to sit in the gallery behind Hegseth. It was filled with a lot of Hegseth supporters. I imagine the transition team did a good job coordinating an effort to recruit, you know, maybe former colleagues of Hegseth

that he worked with in the past, former military service members who may have served with him. A lot of them were shouting his name. When he walked in the room, there were chants of USA, USA. But when the hearing got down to the questioning, it was very tense. And where there were very tough exchanges with senators like Tim Kaine of Virginia, who went right at Hegsath over allegations of sexual misconduct. The room was dead silent and people were listening intently. Hegsath was also surrounded by his family, by lots of transition officials that were sitting right behind him.

Lyleen Ornstein Yeah, as you say, Hegsath came under immediate scrutiny because of allegations of sexual misconduct, which he denied, allegations of alcohol abuse and of mismanagement of those veterans' organizations that Tom mentioned. So how did he respond to all of this? I mean, he responded to these allegations the same way he responded to them in interviews right after he was nominated. He had sort of some interviews where he called it a coordinated smear campaign. He argued that anonymous sources were making allegations against him, even though Democrats on the panel referred to on the record reports that they had from previous colleagues of

Hexsys at veterans organizations who talked about his management or they argued his mismanagement at some of these organizations. Again and again, Hegseth argued that he was a changed man, that he was an out of the box war fighter, and that the attacks against him were politically motivated because he wanted to sort of shake up the establishment at the Pentagon. Tom, why do these personal issues matter or do they? Well, it does matter in the military. If you're drinking on the job, they're going to call you up on charges for that. Also, adultery is illegal in the military. He had a child with the woman who became his third wife while he was married to his second wife. Usually,

they wouldn't call up adultery on a single charge. They would add it to other charges and so forth. But again, he denies the allegations of a sexual assault, but the military still is struggling with the issue of sexual assault and sexual harassment. He will be overseeing that. Well, Democrats were going after Hegseth as uniquely unqualified for the job, Republicans were backing him up. And they said that Hegseth's military service and his outsider background were an asset. Here's how committee chair Roger Wicker of Mississippi put it.

He is a decorated post-911 combat veteran. He will inject a new warrior ethos into the Pentagon, a spirit that can cascade from the top down. Mr. Hexeth will bring energy and fresh ideas to shake up the bureaucracy. He will focus relentlessly on the war fighter and the military's core missions, deterring wars and winning the ones we must fight. SONIA DARA, D expected to be a fair, nonpartisan, and responsible leader, as well as a trustworthy advocate for the men and women that he leads. Mr. Hecht said, I do not believe that you are qualified to meet the overwhelming demands of this job.

I mean, that really set the tone for the rest of the hearing. I mean, Reed is pretty sort of understated, isn't prone to sort of, you know, looking for his viral moment in a lot of these hearings. But he sort of laid out right at the top of the hearing the list of concerns the Democrats on the panel had about Hegseth's qualifications, reports about mismanagement at two veterans groups, reports as we've talked about of a sexual assault case, issues that Hegseth himself made issues in terms of comments that he's made on podcasts talking about the need to essentially disregard some of the, you know, long-standing rules of engagement

the Geneva Conventions set out. Well it's important to note that he's been supportive of those charged with war crimes and he basically said you can't tie the the hands of war fighters. It's done by lawyers, people in air-conditioned rooms back in Washington. That can be troubling to a lot of people, a lot of people in the military. That was a big issue that Democrats raised. Some of them seemed frustrated that they weren't getting answers from Hegseth. I think that the issue that dominated the questions from Democratic members of the Armed Services Committee were Hegseth's previous comments about women in combat.

And over and over again, they raised these issues and were trying to make the point that Hegseth had changed his position. Back in November, he said on the Sean Ryan podcast that women should not be in ground combat. He was asked about it today. He said, no, women can serve in ground combat units, infantry, artillery, armor, as long

as they pass the same standards as men. But he went on to say that I believe the standards have been lowered and we'll do a review of that. So we'll have to keep an eye on that review. And the Army tells me we have not lowered standards at all. Right now there are several thousand women in those ground combat jobs. I think a key reason why Hegseth shifted his comments on this is because of one female Republican senator on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Joni Ernst, who made it clear she

had a problem with his previous comments. Today, she was less aggressive about her concerns and instead appeared to sort of want to put on the record what Hegseth agreed to with her in their private meeting. And I think she wanted to get him to say on the record that he would appoint somebody to be the point person to follow up on sexual assault in the military issues at the Pentagon. But I think that a lot of the audience for Hegsess shift on this issue were senators that weren't necessarily in the room. There are other Republican senators like Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who have expressed concerns about Hegseth's positions on women's role in the military and his previous comments

on the US's role around the world in terms of conflicts in places like Ukraine. SONIA DARA-FURNELL-MARGOLA-TKARMELA Tom, I want to ask you about one of the main arguments that Hegseth is making about what the Department of Defense needs. He is arguing that the military needs a shakeup, that it is failing to keep up with technology, it has recruitment problems, that morale is down, and he blames diversity, equity, and inclusion and some of these other things. Is there any truth to any truth to these criticisms? And what is his prescription? What is he saying he would do as defense secretary? Well, first of all with recruitment, what recruiters will tell you, and I've been covering the military for 27 years,

the best thing that can happen to recruitment is a recession. The economy is doing quite well. So therefore a lot of young people say I'm gonna go work. I can get a great job, 50,000 a year. Why do I want to join the military? That is a problem. Also, the pool of recruits is getting smaller and smaller because young people are out of shape, or they can't pass the basic exam to get into the military, or they have drug or other crime problems.

That is a serious problem. With technology, there's no question, every adult that knows that technology is moving faster and faster. The problem with the Pentagon, they have so many rules and regulations that how do you build something today that's going to take three years to build by the time you're ready to field it, it's already obsolete, especially with drone technology, AI, other types of technology, cyber equipment. It's moving so fast, it's hard for them to keep up. That's a challenge for any defense secretary. It's going to be a challenge for him. SONIA DARA, D It doesn't look like there's any chance of that happening here. He didn't even take meetings with the Democratic senators on this committee.

I see very little chance of a bipartisan vote on Pete Hegseth. I mean, never say never. There are people who still could meet with Hegseth. Pennsylvania Senator John Funderman has said he's open to supporting any of Trump's nominees. This is going to be probably an exception to the rule that defense secretaries get pretty overwhelming bipartisan votes. But Senator Wicker, the chairman of the committee coming out of the hearing, was pretty elated. He seemed like, you know, he thought this hearing went incredibly well, that Hegseth

performed well, and that, you know, he should get confirmed and he's gonna push to do that quickly. In terms of the political fallout he may not have any among Senate Republicans because he kept to his message and didn't potentially drop any new issues that came out of the hearing. I mean, there was only one round of questions, so there were some things that just never got followed up on or answered, and I imagine Chairman Wicker's probably gonna try to move pretty quickly to have a vote in the committee, and it will likely be party line.

All right, well, we're gonna leave it there for today. I'm Tamara Keith, I cover the White House. I'm Deirdre Walsh, I cover Congress. I'm Tom Bowman, I cover the Pentagon. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.