The NPR Politics Podcast - Weekly Roundup: Thursday, August 16

Episode Date: August 16, 2018

President Trump revokes a former CIA director's security clearance and threatens to do the same to other national security professionals. The White House reveals it required some employees to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. And we take a long-view of Trump's relationship with black voters. This episode: White House correspondent Tamara Keith, national security editor Phil Ewing, White House reporter Ayesha Rascoe, and political editor Domenico Montanaro. Email the show at [e-mail]. Find and support your local public radio station at npr.org/stations.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hey everyone, this is Julius calling from Indianapolis, where I'm excitedly awaiting my wedding this weekend to a fellow NPR Politics podcast listener. Jake, if you're listening, and I know you are, you are my favorite person in the world, and I can't wait until Saturday when we both get to say I do. This podcast was recorded at 1.31pm on Thursday the 16th of August. Things may have changed by the time you hear this. All right. Enjoy the show. Very nice. Every time.

I know. So many life events. Love is in the air on the NPR Politics Podcast. That's what we're here for. Bringing people together. It's the NPR Politics Podcast here with our weekly roundup of the week's big political stories. We're going to talk about President Trump taking away the former CIA director's security clearance and take a big look at Trump's relationship with the black community.

I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Domenico Montanaro, political editor. I'm Aisha Roscoe. I also cover the White House. And I'm Phil Ewing, national security editor. And so we start today with Sarah Sanders, White House press secretary, walking into the briefing room and throwing us all a curveball. I'd like to begin by reading a statement from the president. As the head of the executive branch and commander in chief, I have a unique constitutional responsibility to protect the nation's classified information, including by controlling access to it. Today, in fulfilling that responsibility,

I've decided to revoke the security clearance of John Brennan, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency. And then he also said that there were nine other current and former officials, national security officials, who he was considering revoking their security clearances. I've also begun to review the more general question of the access to classified information by government officials. As part of this review, I'm evaluating action with respect to the following individuals. James Clapper, James Comey, Michael Hayden, Sally Yates, Susan Rice, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and Bruce Ohr.

Aisha, this just like hit. It did. And this was something that the White House had signaled. They had brought this up before that they were thinking about getting rid of some people's clearances. They claim that they were monetizing them somehow, monetizing their knowledge, and that that was wrong and that they were, you know, saying things that the White House says are not true. And so they shouldn't be out there with the security clearance doing that. But this time, President Trump, he went through with it. It wasn't just a threat, at least for John Brennan. Okay, so Phil, this may be an obvious question, but why do these former people all have security

clearances anyway? It's common practice for former national security officials to retain their security clearances, or at least their eligibility to access security clearances, and then get read into classified information at all levels. This is not just for people like the former CIA director. There are low-ranking Air Force or Navy service members who get out and then become contractors working for their former agencies because they've been cleared by their time in the military and they can retain that privileged access. So it's kind of risable from that perspective to hear Sarah Sanders criticize Brennan for monetizing, as she said, his security clearance. There are more than 4 million Americans who are either cleared or eligible because of these backgrounds and because of this work doing national security. Monetizing a security clearance is the stock and trade of the National Capital Region and San Diego and Southern California and

the Gulf Coast. Everywhere there is federal work, shipbuilding, aerospace, intelligence, regular space, anything you can imagine, there are people doing this monetization. So that is a common practice, but the politics here are clearly quite different. Well, and this is like a very high level person, and many of the people listed are high level. In theory, also, there's something in it for the government. It isn't just like monetizing for personal gain for these folks, but also for the federal government. They have expertise that no one else has. And in theory, they could be consulted by their successors. And this is somebody who could have made money just on the basis of being a former CIA director. I mean, he wouldn't need

as some of the maybe lower level people who make some more money in some of these other fields to be able to say, well, I have a clearance, right? If you're John Brennan, you don't need that. I mean, the fact of the matter is this was done because of politics. That's right. The thing about this list is that these people do have something in common. They've either been very critical of President Trump or they've somehow gotten into his sights when it comes to the Russia investigation. They've done something that displeased him. Yeah, the way I would describe it is these are people who either have been highly critical

of the president, have been fired by the president, or have been beaten up by the president on Twitter. Yes. Or all of the above. Or all of, yes. And with so many things, this comes back to the Russia investigation, because the president told the Wall Street Journal yesterday that he thinks that the whole what he called rigged witch hunt is a sham and that these people let it, including Brendan in part of that. And he said, so I think it's something that had to be done when talking about

revoking his security clearance. Right. And there's two important things to remember here. One of the people on this list is Bruce Orr, who's the head of the Organized Crime Task Force at the Justice Department. He's been pulled into the Russia imbroglio as well because he met with the former MI6 intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, who prepared the infamous Russia dossier. And Ohr's wife, Nellie, also worked at the time for the political research shot that commissioned that report, Fusion GPS. There's another point here to make as well. This is political, but John Brennan is a very unusual political critic of the president because he used to be the head of the CIA. He's in a position to be able to at least appear to talk about things based on inside information. He gives the impression he's cultivated this air of a guy who knows what's taking place behind the scenes. And when you hear him talk, his words

have additional weight because of that. Let me just read you one of the tweets that he posted this year during this time when he's become this very outspoken critic of Trump. John Brennan wrote this, When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. So very strong words, but also he gives the impression there are secret things that will come out. I know what they are.

And you better beware, Mr. President, because we're going to get you. And so Trump's desire, the White House's desire is to neutralize Brennan's effectiveness to give those criticisms as much as it can. Now, if they were trying to make Brennan go away, they probably had the opposite effect. Brennan today had an editorial run in The New York Times. And Phil, you're looking at it. That's right. And he, among other things, makes the point that the president's denials about there being no collusion or conspiracy between members of his campaign, Trump's campaign, and the Russian attack on the 2016 election is, as Brennan writes, and I'm quoting, hogwash. He says, in fact, there is information that suggests that the case,

but he also says something else that's very important. I'm going to read it to you word for word. He cites, quote, the reporting of an open and free press, close quote. In other words, he's not saying, I have access to all this secret stuff because I used to be the head of the CIA. And based on that, I know that there was collusion or conspiracy. What he's saying is based on what I read in the newspapers, it seems like there was bad activity that was taking place here, which is a point that you can make and reasonable people can disagree about what collusion and conspiracy means. But Brennan's significance as a critic for Trump has been at least changed in the outcome of this episode because Brennan is saying, well, here I am at the center of everything. I'm in the spotlight. I have an opportunity to say

what I know. And he's citing press reports, the kind of work that we do, as opposed to the secret sauce that he was able to access at the CIA. So defenders of the president would say that he hasn't silenced Brennan. Brennan's out there. He's doing op eds. He's on TV. So what I saw from even some lawmakers, I think we're saying, look, he hasn't been silenced. But for whatever reason, they felt President Trump was in his rights to take away his access to classified information. that he is creating an enemies list, that he's going after his political opponents, that he's seeking retribution against his political opponents or against people who are investigating him. And it leads to things like Senator Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, saying that it smacks of Nixonian tactics. By doing things like this, President Trump very much opens himself up to that. It also puts the president and the White House on a collision course with a constituency that it very much wants to have a good relationship with, which is the bigger national security

world. As I said, there are millions of Americans who work in national security in the private sector as contractors and vendors. And right now they're very happy with the president and he's very happy with them because the president just signed, among other things, the National Defense Authorization Act, which authorizes a new increase in funding for the Defense Department in the national security world. But if he gets into a practice with more examples like this of taking away security clearances from people who are out of national security government jobs and in the private sector based on his whims, based on the fact that he doesn't like them or he doesn't like something they said, that's going to complicate his relationship with that world very quickly. I would just want to pause to talk about something that seems sort of small, but it matters. And that's timing. So around July 23rd is when the White House first said, hey, this is something we're considering. Then yesterday, August 15th, is when they announced it. Happened to be in the midst of a pretty rotten news cycle for the president in the White House

with the president in something of a Twitter war with the former aide Omarosa Manigault Newman. And more than any other president of the United States ever, another thing that this president controls quite well is the news cycle. He is a master at that. And this was a week where he wasn't in full control of the news cycle, where his former apprentice... Probably nothing frustrates him more than not being in full control of the news cycle. Yeah.

And his former apprentice, Omarosa Manigault Newman, was dribbling out little pieces of audio tape that she secretly recorded. And she was controlling the cycle, not him. She's out there. We've talked about this before. But also her being out there has brought up this idea of nondisclosure agreements because the Trump campaign

brought an action against her this week saying she was disclosing things that violated her agreement. And the White House confirmed, and I guess President Trump confirmed too, that people in the White House have signed non-disclosure agreements. Yeah, Sarah Sanders at the briefing earlier this week tried to say that this is like totally normal. Despite contrary opinion, it's actually very normal. And every administration prior to the Trump administration has had NDAs particularly specific for anyone that had a security clearance. This White House. Do we have a buzzer? Because fact check false.

I mean, you know, there's always a kernel of something which is getting at and what, you know, Ari Fleischer, the former press secretary for George W. Bush, put it pretty well. He said on the NDA issue, it's simple. White House aides with access to classified information sign a form in which they commit not to disclose classified information to unauthorized people. Beyond that, he said, there were no NDAs while I was press secretary. President Obama, one of his lawyers, Norm Eisen, has come out and said he has never seen during the campaign or in the White House that anyone was asked to sign nondisclosure agreements. Beyond that, it would be pretty darn hard to enforce something like that because of special protections within the

government for wrongdoing. That if you see something wrong in the government, you're not supposed to be signing things that say you're not going to talk about it or not be allowed to talk about it. Trump has also stretched this national security pretext for action so far that this sweater is never going to take its normal shape back again. He cited national security in terms of sanctions. He cited national security in terms of sanctions. He cited national security in terms of these nondisclosure agreements. And in fact, there's no indication that Omarosa had any security clearance. She had no certificates for national security information.

So although that is true, as we were discussing what Sarah Sanders said, it doesn't appear to be pertinent in this case. You know, I'm reminded of a phrase that I heard a lot growing up, not necessarily from my father, but maybe other people within family members. Not throwing your dad under the bus. I don't know that my, he may have said it once or twice, but as somebody who tends to, let's say, run his mouth, as I might, I may have heard once or twice the phrase, keep running your mouth and I'll shut it for you.

Right? Okay. I may have heard once or twice the phrase, keep running your mouth and I'll shut it for you. Right. OK. It feels maybe a little Queens for the podcast audience. But, you know, we have a Queens guy in the White House and it just reminds me a little bit. Phil has actually I just have to narrate this. Phil has turned away from the microphone because he is laughing so hard. I'm trying not to lulls into my microphone. The fact of the matter is it's a lot of what's going on because of the frustration that this president has at keeping the leaks, you know, out, you know, from going outside the ship. I mean, I say in covering the past three administrations, there have not been this many background leaks and quotes from within his own administration and at times from the president himself as in this Trump administration.

So for all of the crackdowns, for all of the attempts, there's still a lot of information running, flowing in and out of the White House. And it starts right there at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We are going to leave this conversation right here, though who knows, we could be back at it again next week. Phil, we're going to say goodbye to you. Thank you. He's got to go cover the Manafort trial.

Yeah, he is on standby. I would say what's in the podcast next week, but I signed an NDA. Okay. For the future. All right, so Paul Manafort is a former campaign chairman Okay. For the future. All right. So Paul Manafort is a former campaign chairman to President Trump, among other things. And he's been on trial for about two weeks now. That's right. And now the case is with jurors. Even as we're recording this podcast, they're deliberating down in Alexandria. Our correspondents, Kerry Johnson, Ryan Lucas and Miles Parks are there. And if and when there's a verdict, I expect that our listeners will hear about it on this podcast.

Yeah, because we will run right back into the studio. And we're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back. Support for this podcast and the following message come from the Southern Poverty Law Center. Since 1971, dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry in all of its forms and seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society. Learn more at splcenter.org. Support also comes from ACT, a flexible CRM trusted by millions worldwide. Manage customer contacts, track sales opportunities, and create professional marketing campaigns, all from your laptop or mobile device. Call 888-643-6400, mention promo code NPR for a free Amazon dot with your purchase of ACT, or visit act.com slash NPR to sign up for a free 14-day

trial. ACT, growth made easy. Hey, this is Stretch Armstrong. And this is Bobby DeGaussier, the hosts of What's Good. We're kicking off a new season with legendary singer-songwriter Erykah Badu. That's why they call me Fat Belly Bella, because they never know when I'm going to be impregnated. Subscribe now. And we're back. And we're going to pull the lens out a little bit and take a longer view of something that came up this week in the sort of ongoing spat between President Trump and his former aide Omarosa Manigault Newman. In one of the president's many tweets about her, he referred to her as that dog. She is a black woman and many felt that that word dog was racist. Aisha, you have been digging deep into the

president's tweets and and working on a story about this. Yes. So just kind of looking at the way President Trump talks about black people versus the way he talks about other groups. And in particular, over these it seems like over the last few weeks, this issue has really, really come to the surface in a way that it hasn't even for President Trump before, because you have the tweets against LeBron James questioning his intelligence, Don Lemon, CNN anchored. Then you had his long going kind of insult of Maxine Waters, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, another black woman. Who he this week elevated again, saying she's a leader of the Democratic Party. Who he calls low IQ. And that's his go to insult for her. So Trump, he insults a lot of people in a lot of different ways.

Yeah, that would be the White House pushback. That is. Yeah. Hey, he insults a lot of people in a lot of different ways. Yeah, that would be the White House pushback is, hey, he insults everybody. That's what Sarah Sanders said when she was asked about this. After this use of the word dog towards Manigault Newman, she was asked, why did he use a specific word about a black person? And, you know, what about concerns about that? And she was basically like, well, he says worse things about everybody. He says bad things about everybody. The issue with that is that it seems like he has a wide variety of put downs for other sorts of people. They're they're frauds. They, you know, maybe they're liars. They're little. They're this. But when it comes to black people, it seems like he seems to lean on questioning

their intelligence and at times just their basic humanity. And there's also just this issue of that you can't take what he says about Black people and not put it in the context of history. History that's like kind of recent history, which is the way President Trump went after President Obama about his birth certificate. But after the birth certificate, there was also like, where are his college transcripts? You know, is he, did he really deserve to be at Harvard? And think about his feud with the NFL and dismissed the player's sentiment that there is a problem. He said that they can't even articulate their problem. You know, I talked to an expert from Princeton about this. And what he was saying is, look,

when you call a black person a dog or you say that they're not smart, you're tapping into long running stereotypes and things that in this country have led to not only oppression, but death and all sorts of destruction in the black community. So you can't take the language out of the history. But Trump, in addition to having what he says being connected to history, he also kind of talks like he's stuck in a time warp. And that seems to kind of affect the way he talks about race. He's always talking about being tough on crime or someone's tough on crime or weak on crime. And it's like it's the 1980s. Aisha, you've also sort of looked at his rhetoric during the campaign and continuing sort of around that idea about crime and urban decay. And there is a real focus from President Trump and his allies

on like the crime rate in Chicago, for instance. Yeah, and they linked that as a black issue. Obviously, the violence in Chicago is affecting black people. But a lot of that still kind of harkens back to like the crack epidemic of the 80s and 90s. And it's a very different time. And it also leaves out a lot of black people who don't live in Chicago, who don't

live in urban areas, who live in the suburbs, who live in rural areas. It leaves out a very large part of black American life. And then it also when Trump talks about urban areas, even when he talks about urban areas, he does what he does on many topics. And he's not very subtle. He kind of throws all of that away. And it's just blunt. It's like this very blunt instrument of, OK, you're walking. Everybody, when they walk to get bread, they get shot.

It's Afghanistan. It's, you know, it's up there. Living in hell. Yeah. There's no nuance there. Look how much African-American communities have suffered under Democratic control. To those I say the following. What do you have to lose by trying something new like Trump?

What do you have to lose? You know, there used to be a term in politics, especially when watching campaigns called dog whistle. And then people started to change that to bullhorn with Trump because the message was obviously clear and there wasn't a dog whistle anymore. And you wonder if the dog whistle is just going to be put back in the pocket and now everyone's just going to be, you know, using the bullhorn. Because a lot of that stuff about crime in the 80s, let me say that a lot of people felt those were dog whistles. So when people would talk about welfare reform or they would talk about crime, they were really talking about black people, but they didn't. They it was kind of more respectable to say, I'm talking about crime. I'm being tough on crime. I'm being tough on welfare reform and not saying I'm talking about

black people. But Trump kind of threw all of that away and just said black people, what the hell do you have to lose? Aisha, how does the White House address all of this criticism? Yeah. And he you know, he talks all the time about low black unemployment. And that is something that Sarah Sanders brought up in that briefing when she was asked about the what he was saying about Omarosa and concerns about Trump and race. She said, well, look, he's created all these jobs for black people and unemployment is low. So basically, how could he be racist when he's helping black people economically? Or that is their argument. And Trump talks about it all the

time. And there are people that he is very complimentary of. These are black people who are basically he sees as allies like Kanye West. He tweets about him. He's very happy with him. And there's a black man running for the Senate in Michigan, John James, who Trump has been very kind of effusive in his praise on Twitter, saying he's spectacular. He's an African-American leader. He's going to be a star of the Republican Party. So he does try to or he seems to try to reach out to black people. I think that some of the issue is that people would say that he seems to focus on those who like him most and then even focusing on the economic issue. That doesn't get to the way that he talks about black people. Yes, unemployment is lower. It's

still not on par with where white American unemployment is still much higher than that. And there's a little bit of an elephant in the room here when it comes to the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, because, you know, we've talked about some of the demographic numbers within each party, but the Democratic Party is about six and ten white. The Republican Party, on the other hand, is nine and ten white. So, you know, when you think about who President Trump is talking to the most, for the most part, he's talking to the white base within the party. And when you look at the suburban voters in the party

who are disapproving of the president, they want to make sure and understand and feel they're not part of a racist party. And being able to say that,'s someone like Omarosa in your White House, or being able to say that you have a Ben Carson as housing secretary, that to an extent helps insulate the president. That's why you hear the president continue to say black unemployment is the lowest it's ever been, even when it isn't germane to whatever point he's making at that event. You know, he's praised people like Candace Owens from Turning Point USA. He made he went out of his way to say that she represents an ever expanding group of very smart thinkers and is wonderful to watch and hear her dialogue, hear the dialogue going on. So good for

our country. She's somebody who's a conservative. She's African-American. She appears often on Fox and often has the president's back. So to Aisha's point, she's somebody that the president can compliment and likes to because she's making the case for him. And so a lot of the messaging almost at times can seem like it's actually directed at white people and making them feel or making or trying to make the argument to them, we are not racist, I'm not racist, by talk and less about really winning over black people. Ayesha, this conversation comes out of a lot of reporting that you've been doing. So dear listeners, look for her story on NPR.org. And we're going to take

one more quick break. And when we come back, can't let it go. Support for NPR and the following message come from Newsy, the TV news channel with honest, in-depth context on the stories that matter. Newsy is for people who aren't satisfied with getting only the loudest part of the story. Newsy delivers more, more context, more solutions, and greater understanding of the people and events that shape our world. Learn more at newsy.com slash watch.

Our Up First team goes to work while you are sleeping. That way you wake up to the freshest take on the day's news. It's the 10-minute-h morning news podcast from NPR. Listen to Up First on the NPR One app or wherever you get your podcasts. And we're back and it's time to talk about the one thing each of us just can't let go of politics or otherwise. Okay. Sorry. Well, the thing I can't let go of is Andrew Cuomo this week sort of made a political flub and he's trying out this campaign message, but let's take a listen to how he tried it. We're not going to make America great again. It was never that great. What? Yeah. And he went on and he said, we've not reached greatness. We will reach greatness when every American is fully engaged.

We will reach greatness when discrimination and stereotyping against women, 51% of our population, is gone. And every woman's full potential is realized and unleashed, and every woman is making her full contribution. When that happens, this nation is going to be taken even higher because we've not fully yet liberated the women of this country. And we will and we will and New York will lead the way and watch New York rise. And what that had echoes of to me was his father, Mario Cuomo, because Mario Cuomo, who was the three time governor in New York in 1984, he delivered a seminal speech at the Democratic National Convention that a lot of Democrats look to still for what it means to be a Democrat when they were in the wilderness right during the Reagan years. So here's some of what he said that I thought sounded a little bit like his son today. In many ways, we are a shining city on a hill.

But the hard truth is that not everyone is sharing in this city's splendor and glory. So this speech went on and, you know, he hit much more optimistic notes than that. But the point was and also kind of a parallel to Trump. He focused on a lot of people's grievances, saying this guy who's president doesn't recognize what we are struggling with. The society is kind of leaving us behind because Republicans are in charge. That sort of flips the tables from 2016. And it's a country we don't recognize. So pull up your bootstraps and you need to fight for these people, for working class people, for middle class people.

And I think that's what Andrew Cuomo was trying to say in a very clumsy way. It was clumsy. And I mean, but going back to kind of what we were talking about earlier, I guess what he was trying to say is that this country hasn't been great for everyone throughout history. And I think that may have been the point that he was trying to make. But of course, whenever you this always becomes an issue in politics, when you say something like America has never been great, then people get very upset. Or the same thing happened with Michelle Obama when she said, for the first time in my adult life, I'm proud. People, they attack that.

But it's interesting because President Trump ran on basically saying America's in the toilet. But I guess his point was there was a point where he felt like it was great, but now it's in the toilet. Yeah, so commence the walk back is basically what happens with Cuomo. Right. And I think the bigger picture is beyond Cuomo. I think Democrats are going to really struggle with the message in 2020 on how you run against President Trump. Like, what is the message? And right now we're seeing Democrats stumble on that. Yeah. And we should say that while Cuomo is running for reelection as governor, he is on the mile and a half long list of people who might be maybe running for president in 2020. And Trump said, bring it on.

Bring it on. All right. I'm going to go next. And what I can't let go of is I'm going to put it in the category of family drama. Because there are three, it must be a trend. Yes. So it's a rule. It's a rule of three. Three. Well, no, three, three examples. So example number one, there's this bonkers Washington Post profile of Kellyanne Conway and her husband, George Conway. You've heard about George Conway on this podcast before because he is basically subtweeting, anti-tweeting the president. Yes. And Kellyanne Conway, of course, is a top high-profile advisor to President Trump and helped run his campaign.

The key moment in this article is where she says basically like, George Conway's tweets are undermining the sanctity of the marriage and then insists that it be on background attributed to someone familiar with the relationship. A source familiar. Yes.

I would like to do that with my marriage sometimes. Wow. A source familiar says that someone didn't put the toilet seat down today. But I would say only nice things. On background. Yes. On background. On background. is a hypocrite for his policies that are against immigration or against refugees or in favor of

restricting refugees access to the United States because his family came to this country as immigrants and refugees. And finally, Bob Goodlatte, the Republican congressman who is retiring, he's from Virginia. Bob Goodlatte's son is actively campaigning to make sure that a Democrat replaces his dad in Congress. Yes. When I read those tweets, I just thought if my kids ever do that to me one day, like if they just like undercut me one day, I'm going to be so pissed. Oh, they will. OK, Aisha, what can't you let go of? What I can't let go of, and this is a very sad thing, but it's the loss of the legendary, the iconic Aretha Franklin. We can never let go of her legacy and the music that she made and the lives that she touched. And so incredibly saddened by her passing, but we want

to celebrate her life. And we are celebrating her life with the musictha singing us out. And I'm sure that you are all eagerly awaiting the verdict in the Manafort trial. We are too. And as soon as there is news, we will hop into the studio and let you know what happened. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Domenica Montanaro, political editor. And I'm Ayesha Roscoe. I also cover the White House. And thanks for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast. Thank you.