The NPR Politics Podcast - Weekly Roundup: Thursday, March 30

Episode Date: March 31, 2017

The Senate Intelligence Committee's first hearing on Russia's meddling in the 2016 election. This episode: host/White House Correspondent Tamara Keith, congressional reporter Scott Detrow, congressional reporter Geoff Bennett and editor/correspondent Ron Elving. More coverage at nprpolitics.org. Email the show at [e-mail]. Find and support your local pubilc radio station at npr.org/stations.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

NPR's podcast about the economy, Planet Money, has a new project. It's called BOTUS, and it's an automated bot that will trade stocks in reaction to President Trump's tweets. Hear how it works and learn about the secretive world of hedge funds trading in reaction to the news. Follow the BOTUS bot on Planet Money starting Friday, March 31st on the NPR One app and npr.org slash podcasts. Hi, this is Mike Holland from North Dakota. This podcast was recorded at

3.28 p.m. on Thursday, March 30th. Things may change by the time you hear it. Keep up with all of NPR's political coverage at npr.org on the NPR One app and on your local public radio station. Okay, here's the show. It's the NPR Politics Podcast here with our weekly roundup of some of the week's political news. We're talking about the latest on the Russia investigations that are happening or not happening in the House and Senate, plus a look at whether the Senate is about to go nuclear over the Gorsuch nomination. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House for NPR. I'm Scott Detrow. I cover Congress. And I'm Ron Elving, editor correspondent.

All right. And Scott, you are up on the Hill in a tiny booth. In a very tiny booth. Because news is breaking out all over and you did not have time to get up here. But we are joined, and this is really exciting, for the first time on the podcast today by our brand new colleague on the Congress beat, Jeff Bennett. Introduce yourself. Hey, well, I'm returning to NPR after a few years covering the Hill for TV news. And I say returning because I used to be the editor for NPR's weekend edition, but I'm thrilled to be joining this intrepid political squad. Tell us a little bit about yourself. Princess Leia or Beyonce? I guess there's only one real answer to that. Beyonce, right?

Yeah, there's actually another answer to that. But we know which team you're on. I think I'm with Jeff on that. Only one answer. It's fine, Tim. I got your back on that. It's cool. It's cool. Let's start today where I feel like we've been starting a lot lately, which is Russia. Two separate committees in the House and the Senate were in the news this week. Both are supposed to be investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Scott, you've been following this story. And, you know, today, the action, at least when we woke up this morning, was all going to be on the Senate side and in theory was going to be kind of boring. But then it ended up being not so boring, huh? Yeah, this was an interesting hearing and it's still going on as we talk right now. But I think with the Senate investigation, the key message that everybody involved with it wanted to make clear was that basically like, here come the grownups. We're taking this seriously. We're working with the other side. Mark Warner is the top Democrat on the committee. Richard Burr is the top Republican on the committee. And they held a press conference yesterday setting all this up.

And it was like probably the most jam-packed press conference I've ever been to. It was crazy. And right off the bat, Richard Burr said, I want to set a ground rule here. No questions about the House investigation. We're talking about the Senate. But there was also an interesting moment where actually it was Mary Louise Kelly of NPR asked the question saying, you know, let's cut right to it. Asking Richard Burr, you're a Republican. You were an advisor to President Trump.

Can you do an independent investigation? And he gave a pretty blunt answer. I'll do something I've never done. I'll admit that I voted for him. We always hide who we vote for. That's part of the democratic process. But I've got a job in the United States Senate. And I take that job extremely serious.

It overrides any personal beliefs that I have or loyalties that I might have. Jeff. So I covered Senator Burr's reelection race, and it was entirely clear to me during that race that Burr's support for Trump was really just a marriage of convenience. Burr was an early supporter of Donald Trump's. He stuck with him even after the release of that Access Hollywood tape. And he made it clear on a great many issues that he disagreed with the president, but on the ones that counted, he would support him. So the fact that Burr and Warner agree on this issue is not all that surprising. We have some tape of Warner. Here he is. We're here to assure you, and more importantly, the American people who are watching and listening,

that we will get to the bottom of this. Richard and I have known each other a long time. And the chairman and I both have a serious concern about what the Russians have done and continue to do around the world. And I'll come back to this in a moment when we talk about tomorrow's hearing. But some of the techniques that Russia used in this election, as we find more and more, I think would send a chill down anyone who believes in a democratic process in this country or around the world. But just to talk about today's hearing,

we didn't expect much news out of this because this is kind of a big picture expert hearing. It's not like, you know, James Comey was testifying like he testified in front of the House the other week. But this was kind of big picture people talking about what Russia's goals are and kind of the tactics that it uses. Clint Watts was kind of the star of this hearing. He's a senior fellow with George Washington University's Center on Cybersecurity and Homeland Security. And he really got into detail about these Twitter bots that Russia uses to make topics trend and kind of get conversation going on Twitter. Previously identified accounts almost simultaneously

appearing from different geographic locations and communities amplified the fake news story in unison. He talked about how they basically did research to mirror what Trump voters in swing states are interested in and would put those interests in their profiles. If you inhale all the accounts of people in Wisconsin, you identify the most common terms in it. You just recreate accounts that look exactly like people from Wisconsin. So that way, whenever you're trying to socially engineer them and convince them that the information is true, it's much more simple because you see somebody and they look exactly like you, even down to the pictures. When you look at the pictures, it looks like an American from the Midwest or the South or Wisconsin or whatever the location is. And then he said something about the fact that, you know, why are they more effective now?

And he said, well, nobody in the room is talking about it, but they're more effective because the president of the United States also traffics in disinformation. Part of the reason active measures have worked in this U.S. election is because the commander-in-chief has used Russian active measures at time against his opponents. On 11 October, President Trump stood on a stage and cited what appears to be a fake news story from Sputnik News that disappeared from the Internet. He denies the intel from the United States about Russia. He claimed that the election could be rigged.

That was the number one theme pushed by RT, Sputnik News, white outlets, all the way up until the election. He's made claims of voter fraud, that President Obama is not a citizen, that Congressman Cruz is not a citizen. So part of the reason active measures works, and it does today in terms of Trump Tower being wiretapped, is because they parrot the same lines. So Putin is correct. He can say that he is not influencing anything because he is just putting out his stance. But until we get a firm basis on fact and fiction in our own country, get some agreement about the facts, whether it be do I support the intelligence community or a story I read on my Twitter feed, we're going to have a big problem.

I can tell you right now today, gray outlets that are Soviet-pushing accounts tweet at President Trump during high volumes when they know he's online, and they push conspiracy theories. So if he is to click on one of those or cite one of those, it just proves Putin correct that we can use this as a lever against the Americans. So this started in 2000. So it appears that people are pretty savvy about reaching the president with some of the material they think they might be able to sell him and who knows, he might retweet it. It also appears that the Senate is going to be focusing on the problem that most people think is the problem.

That is, most people who tell pollsters they're following this issue. And that is what the Russians were up to last year and to what degree. They may have been doing it in coordination in some fashion with the Trump forces. That would seem to be what this all ought to be about. But if you go to the White House and listen to the Sean Spicer briefings, it's more about leaks to the media and it's more about the open that the president of the United States believes conspiracy theories and that he's being pushed along potentially by foreign actors. Well, he may or may not believe them. But at any rate, he does seem to be susceptible to them to the degree that he would retweet them or he would incorporate them into his own representations of

reality. It's very difficult to speculate as to what exactly Donald Trump does believe. Scott, what else stands out to you from this hearing? I think the overall tone. You know, last week's House hearing was remarkable, I mean, for a whole bunch of reasons. First of all, the fact that James Comey said there's an active investigation underway. But one of the remarkable things was that basically there were two parallel hearings happening at the same time. You had Democrats focusing on Russia, and then you had Republicans obsessed with leak questions, focusing on how this information is getting from agencies to news reporters and whether crimes are being committed. Much more the same page in the Senate.

I don't think there was anyone on the panel who was questioning the basic premise that Russia was actively taking these steps and was doing so to mess with our election and to promote Donald Trump. I think it was Warner, who is a Democrat, but he said, just to be clear, this is about defending our democracy, basically. I want to make clear, at least for me, this information is not about whether you have a D or an R next to your name. It is not about relitigating last fall's election. It is about clearly understanding and responding to this very real threat. It's also, I believe, about holding Russia accountable for this unprecedented attack on our democracy. Yeah, and one member of the panel, Marco Rubio, ran for president in 2016. And at one point, Watts said, you know, here's

a moment where these networks were targeting you, Senator Rubio, and Rubio kind of didn't respond. Russia's overt media outlets and covert trolls sought to sideline opponents on both sides of the political spectrum with adversarial views towards the Kremlin. They were in full swing during both the Republican and Democratic primary season. It may have helped sink the hopes of candidates more hostile to Russian interests long before the field narrowed. Senator Rubio, in my opinion, you anecdotally suffered from these efforts. But Rubio went through a lot of details of Russian misinformation campaigns, not only focused at eroding democracies, but also focused at eroding, you know, support and relationships with Muslim migrants in Western

Europe. It was interesting. This is a coordinated effort across multiple spectrums to sow instability and to pit Americans against one another politically, socioeconomically, demographically, and the like. Jeff, where does this go from here? How is this Senate Intelligence Committee investigation going to go? Well, the public hearing is really just the beginning of it. The real work of the committee happens out of public view, behind closed doors. Staffers will be hard at work, as will the members, frankly, interviewing up to about 20 different people. So, you know, what we're seeing at this point is really just very early days.

Let's move on to the other side of the Capitol building and the House Intelligence Committee, where the hits just keep coming. Who wants to even try to explain what happened today? The latest round of revelations about Chairman Nunes is that the New York Times is reporting two White House officials. And through various and sundry kinds of elimination and reporting, they've also offered up a couple of names. They're not household names. These are not big inner circle people. But they're National Security Council, White House Council. Exactly. And one of them, at least, was associated with Mike Flynn, the very short-lived national security advisor who had to resign after it was revealed he was lying about his contacts with the Russian ambassador. This one official and his colleague apparently were the ones who contacted Devin Nunes and said,

you know what, the president's tweet about surveillance of Trump world by somebody in the Obama administration might have actually had some basis. We've been looking around and we might have found some. You might want to come see it. And apparently that's why he made a beeline to the White House and got in a secure area and did actually view some documents, which he has now, of course, famously revealed in part to the world, but never showed to the people on his own committee. Jeff. The thing that strikes me is that, you know, the source and the motivation of that source is key to all of this. And now The thing that strikes me is that, you know, the source and the motivation of that source is key to all of this.

And now we know that the source reportedly is someone political, someone sympathetic to the president. And the timing comes just as the president was looking to get some cover for that unsubstantiated claim he made about the Obama wiretapping. So all of this is really, you know, resonant and particularly striking. And the other timing thing is that Nunes first came out and was like, hey, we've got this thing in the same week that he had had a hearing where FBI Director James Comey came out and said that the FBI was actively investigating the 2016 campaign and possible Russian interference and possible connections between the Trump campaign

and Russia. And then we're back to this. Now, the interesting thing about this is Nunes never said that this information evidence that he found proved that Trump's tweets were true. It doesn't prove that Trump's tweets were true. And no one is claiming that it proves that Trump's tweets were true other than President Trump, who said, well, I feel sort of vindicated. Partially vindicated. Yeah, partially vindicated. Although clearly even he knew that this was probably something that was oblique to his original accusation, which seems to have been sourced more in a talk show host's speculation and the repetition of that speculation in other right-wing news sources. So today's White House press briefing, Sean Spicer would not confirm or deny the New

York Times report, but then instead said, by the way, we here at the White House have just sent a letter over to the top Democrat and the top Republican on both of the House and Senate intelligence committees to invite them to come over and look at this information. Our goal is to be as forthright as possible. They asked the intelligence or the intelligence communities and others in a March letter for information. We have decided we have are willing to provide them with the information that we have, the materials that we have come across. And I think that is an important step. Again, it is not our obligation is to make sure the review is done. Which would seem to

acknowledge that the White House was, in fact, the source of that information. Which might be the first time that the Democrats on the committee get a chance to see it, because at last check, they still had not seen this information at all. And this story has like a comical level of twist at this point, which we've said before, when you're trying to fit it into a story that like is a set length is very hard to do. So the question I keep coming back to, is there anything that Nunes can do at this point to restore the credibility of this committee? Yes, he can recuse himself and allow someone else to become a leader. I'm pretty sure that's not the answer he wants to hear. No, it's not. But it's

probably the only thing he could do that would really accomplish a restoration of faith in that committee, which is why the Senate is proceeding and telling everyone, pay no attention to those folks behind the curtain on the other side of the Capitol. You should really look at us because we're going to do the only serious investigation. probably yet another round of people saying this man has got to recuse himself, not only in the Democratic Party and in the media, and in, if you will, the watchdog community, but also more and more Republicans. And we have seen several of them thus far. They're pretty much the usual suspects who are always willing to say something sort of bipartisan and criticize their own party. But there may be others, and I think there are a great number of others who are very uncomfortable with his performance. OK, on to the next potential big time, big league drama over on the Senate side next week. Democrats are lining up to filibuster a vote on Neil Gorsuch. That's President Trump's Supreme Court nominee. Monday, he gets a vote in the Judiciary Committee. And how do we expect that to go?

Totally. As expected, there will be no Republican defections and he will be approved by the committee and sent on to the floor with a favorable recommendation. Scott, then what happens? Then here is the situation. Democrats, by and large, almost in mass, oppose Neil Gorsuch's nomination. Republicans, by a party block, support Neil Gorsuch's nomination. Republicans, by a party block, support Neil Gorsuch's nomination. As the Senate rules are currently set before that final up or down vote, there's what's called a cloture vote. It's a vote to end debate and move forward to a vote. You need 60 votes to get through that hurdle. Otherwise, you're blocked at that point in time, what we basically call a filibuster, even though people, I bet Ron's one of those people, will say that technically there is a difference between a cloture vote and a filibuster. For all intents and purposes, it's a filibuster.

Ron, will you concede that point before we keep going or am I wrong? I surely will as long as nobody expects to see Jimmy Stewart out on the floor with a thermos of coffee. I mean, they don't do that anymore. Which is a better mental image than Ted Cruz with a Dros of coffee. I mean, they don't do that anymore. Which is a better mental image than Ted Cruz with a Dr. Seuss book. Correct. And that effort by Mr. Cruz was not truly a filibuster either. And other things that we have seen that tried to evoke the image of it over recent years have not been true filibusters. A real filibuster is a serious attempt to keep a particular piece of legislation or a nomination from coming to a vote

on the floor. And as wonky as it is, it's a key part of Senate tradition, if not dating back to the Constitution. It's been a part of the Senate for the long time because it basically means you need some sort of bipartisan support to move forward. And to bring it to the present day, what we're talking about is really an extension of what Harry Reid started back in 2013, back when he was still majority leader, because he eliminated the filibuster as a way to get votes on then President Obama's nominees. And before he left, back when most people assumed Hillary Clinton would be president, he was openly bragging in media interviews saying that, well, we're going to kill the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees next. Well, now here we are.

Yeah. So they had previously said, we're going to kill the filibuster for all other court nominees. We're going to kill the filibuster for cabinet level positions, but we're going to keep it for the Supreme Court. And now it seems highly likely, right, Scott,

that they're going to go nuclear. Yeah, and that's been the shorthand way that everyone refers to this, the nuclear option, because it basically means, you know, whatever the majority can do, whatever it wants. And that that takes away a big part of the Senate's character and weakens the whichever parties in the minority. But Republicans are determined to get Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court. By and large, across the board, everyone in the Republican Party thinks this guy is a superstar. And more importantly than that, it's the fact that

the Republicans control all aspects of government, but they haven't gotten a big win yet. So they are desperate to get someone on the Supreme Court and call a victory. So McConnell wants to change the rules. And he's the majority leader. He's the majority leader. And more importantly, enough Republicans are on board with this that they'll vote to change the rules. Before when this has come up, there's been enough lawmakers who are uncomfortable with that and they kind of steer things off to change it. But here's the thing. This would fundamentally change the way the Senate operates and it would fundamentally change the types of people you get on the Supreme Court. Bob Corker is a Tennessee Republican. And so the way that we usually interview people in the Senate is that we stick microphones in the face of lawmakers as they

scurry to elevators or they scurry to the little subway underneath. Which they love, by the way. Yeah. And usually they're trying to avoid it. You get about 10 seconds, you've got to walk and talk and weave through, and they're trying, like, yeah, I'm trying to get to the elevator. So Bob Corker just kind of planted himself and went on these really deep, sad thoughts about the state of the Senate and about what this would mean for the Supreme Court. And I think he surprised a lot of people, but he said two things that were important,

and I'll kind of paraphrase the first one and then we can just listen to sad, sad Bob Corker after that. But he said basically ever since he's been in the Senate, there's been this downward spiral where things get more and more partisan and where both parties hold grudges and beefs from when the other party was in control and kind of say, well, we'll do this because you did that before. And the two key moments that each side is pointing to each other on this one are the fact that Democrats got rid of the filibuster for lower court nominations a few years ago, and also the fact that Republicans refused to hold a vote last year on Merrick Garland, who President Obama nominated and never got a hearing level on a vote. If it keeps getting worse ever since Bob Corker got there, maybe it's Bob.

No, I don't think we think that. So in my entire tenure here in Capitol Hill, Ron, of three months, it's really the worst it's been. No doubt. And we've got an eye on you. So here's what Corker said about what this would mean for the types of people who get nominated to the court. That means that every president who comes down the pike in the future knows that if their side's in the majority, they have no reason to appoint a Boy Scout like Gorsuch. I mean, if you look at it, I mean, you couldn't, on the Republican side, it would be hard to find a better candidate, okay?

So the next president coming in really doesn't have to worry about that. This president did because there was a quote, quote, 60-vote threshold. The next president coming in will not in any way be bound by that, right? They can report, they can nominate somebody, an extreme person, because they know after what's getting ready to take place over the next 10 days in all likelihood, they will no longer be bound by having to put someone forth that it would at least meet some type of minimal criteria. So, you know, we've done it to ourselves, both sides of the aisle. Oh, the reason that Gorsuch was nominated was not because he seemed to be someone who could get 60 votes. He was nominated because he fit the bill perfectly for what Donald Trump was looking for.

Not only is he great central casting, not only is he a Boy Scout, but a lot of people feel will be closer to Clarence Thomas than any other justice, closer to Thomas than Alito or John Roberts. So he is not what you'd call a centrist. He's not a moderate by any stretch of the imagination. So this characterization that somehow this was a big compromise kind of choice and that in the absence of the filibuster possibility, future presidents, including this one, can nominate somebody who's a rummy. That just seems to me as a total straw man. Scott? Well, Ron, you've covered the Supreme Court more than I think any of us have. What do you say to the Republican response to this that,

well, if he's so out there, then why was he unanimously approved by the Senate when he was nominated to the federal bench a decade ago? What's going on now has very little to do, actually, with Neil Gorsuch. It has more to do with, number one, Merrick Garland, for whom the Democrats are still carrying a torch. They consider him a martyr. He was absolutely legally and constitutionally appointed and denied not only a vote, but even so much as a hearing. And number two, the Democrats are being influenced here by the threat of primaries in their 2018 and 2020 election years. These Democratic senators are more concerned, as many Republicans are, with

opposition from their own party than they are concerned about November defeat when they next face the voters. And Ron, that perfectly explains why Democrats are choosing to have this fight now instead of waiting for a time when Donald Trump might be in a position to replace one of the more liberal leaning justices. So the thing that this makes me think about is that they already did the nuclear option on things like cabinet appointees. And we saw in many ways the result of that, which is Donald Trump for his cabinet picked people who didn't have the kind of resumes that past cabinet picks from both parties have had. Pick people who hadn't even done the ethics prescreening that normally would have been done. And Betsy DeVos would have been rejected by the Senate if the filibuster was still there. You're absolutely right. What we saw with these cabinet choices was what happens when a president doesn't even have to attempt to be some kind of moderate. And to be fair, Trump has picked some mainstream people to fill his cabinet, thinking of Kelly, Mattis, Haley, Elaine Chao.

But the truth of the matter is that has already taken place. That is already happening with respect to Supreme Court choices. OK, one very quick question before we go to a break. And you guys can laugh at me. But is there any chance of some sort of nuclear disarmament treaty sometime in the next week before this happens? Yeah. So you need eight Democrats to vote for at least cloture to move forward, even if they don't end up voting for Neil Gorsuch. Now, this afternoon, two Democrats said they're voting for Gorsuch. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp from North Dakota. These are two Democrats in very red states and by and large were expected to be among the more likely Democrats to vote Gorsuch. There might be a couple more people who say that maybe they'll just vote yes for cloture,

even if they end up voting no. But it's really hard to get to eight at this point. And I think one moment where that was key was that the morning after Gorsuch was done with his hearings, Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey, who's also just like Hutt Camp and Manchin, a Democrat. They're up for reelection. Let's just be clear. They are running for reelection in states that Donald Trump won. Yeah. So Bob Casey came out the very next morning and said, I'm voting no and I'm voting no for cloture. Now, of course, Pennsylvania is a much different red state than West Virginia or North Dakota. But it was still interesting that, you know, among the more possibly vulnerable, possibly needing to be looking open and bipartisan Democrats in that situation, Casey was a near automatic no. I think that's all right and true. The one reason that

they will continue to try is that once they have knocked down the filibuster for Supreme Court justices, the last bastion of the filibuster is going to be legislation. And there's going to be tremendous pressure to get rid of the filibuster if the Democrats start filibuster is going to be legislation. And there's going to be tremendous pressure to get rid of the filibuster if the Democrats start filibustering successfully against everything in the Trump agenda beyond health care. So that's a reality. It's coming right down the pike. And the filibuster as an institution is hanging by a thread. That may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it's not something that senators want. But it's probably also the filibuster why the Senate is the upper house, like why they're the grownups. That's right. That and six-year terms. We've talked about the saucer here. What's the saucer? They're getting

rid of their saucerness, Ron. The saucer is where the tea cools. You know, the house is the hot tea and the saucer is where it sits until it gets cool. And then it's cool to pass it into legislation. Tam, I think you just revealed right now that when you drink tea, you don't pour it into your saucer to cool it off. That is true. I don't even know what we're talking about right now. It's a George Washington quote that's been around forever. And it's like the Senate self-admiring cliche. All right.

Let's take a break. And we will be right back. ingredients sourced from farms and fishermen and sent directly to your door. Choose from paleo, gluten-free, vegetarian, breakfast, and even family options. With pre-measured ingredients and easy-to-follow directions, you can prepare each meal in just 30 minutes. Get your first three meals free at sunbasket.com slash politics. We're back. So on the subject of Congress, the president tweeted this morning, quote, the Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team and fast. We must fight them and Dems in 2018!

You know, immediately following the failure of the health care bill last week, Trump said that he learned a lot about loyalty. And we all kind of thought we knew what he meant, but I guess now we really know what he meant. Yes. Hashtag irony. Hashtag sarcasm. It was interesting that in this tweet that the idea of fighting the Dems in 2018 was almost an afterthought. It's comma and the Democrats comma in 2018. Yeah. He had to use an ampersand to get all the characters in. Yeah. And so he was almost out of space. But but it was at the very end that he remembered he should probably mention fighting the Democrats. Scott. So like the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus, we kind of use those interchangeably. But like a lot of these guys arrived in Congress beginning in 2010 as people who primaried establishment Republicans, beat them and kind of rechanged the definition of what it means to be a Republican. So like now that they're being threatened with primary, does that mean we're like lurching more and more to the right or have things shifted

around? And are they now the establishment? I'll hazard an answer to that. I don't think they want to become the establishment and that's why they're behaving the way they are. And as long as they do behave the way they are, they won't be the establishment and they won't have to worry about those primaries. But like, does Trump think they're establishment or is he just like, I need someone to blame and fight with? Or maybe he puts up a populist or maybe he just is needing a Twitter feud right now. Or maybe he just tweets and moves on with his life. Because these dudes are not worried. And I say dudes because I think they are all men. They are not worried about getting primaried on the right. I mean, they are standing up for conservative

principles and that bill that they said they didn't support. They were not supporting it because it did not stand up for conservative principles. It didn't, in their view, fully repeal Obamacare. It continued to have a very large entitlement. I mean, they said it didn't go far enough. So you can't primary somebody on the right for being so far right. That's what they're sticking to. That's their guns and they're sticking to them. They're not going to knuckle under to Donald Trump who wants to win or Paul Ryan who wants to legislate. They're going to say we're protecting our position on the right and we're not going to get primaried because we're not going to knuckle under. When I saw that tweet, I kind of considered it like the bruised ego of a president in 140 characters or less because President Trump negotiated directly with the Freedom Caucus. And there's only about 36 members of them.

But they punch above their weight when they vote as a bloc and they can sink legislation as they did with this. But, you know, he fancied himself as a dealmaker during the campaign, brought them into the White House, thought he had a deal and realized he didn't. Let them into the bowling alley. Jeff, you talked to a lot of these guys this week. I mean, what's their general mood after kind of largely being responsible for this big blow up? Well, I think, you know, David Brett of Virginia, who, you know, in a spectacular fashion sent Eric Cantor heading for the exits back when he won in 2014, I think said it best.

He said, you know, I am beholden only to his constituents. And this is true for most members of the Freedom Caucus. They come from deeply red districts. A lot of them are gerrymandered, which suggests that their seats are safe because it's really difficult to unseat people who come from gerrymandered districts. And so he wasn't at all concerned about this blowback from the White House. And if you go to Twitter, I mean, almost immediately, members of the Freedom Caucus were tweeting back at the president. Justin Amash wrote, it didn't take long for the swamp to drain real Donald Trump. No shame, Mr. President.

Thomas Massey took this drain the swamp metaphor and tortured it even more, saying, it's a swamp, not a hot tub. We both came here to drain it. Swamp care polls at 17 percent. I don't need any mental images of all of these politicians sitting in a hot tub. Maybe they're fit under those suits. We don't know. No, if you're fit, you don't wear those suits. But again, we talked earlier about this marriage of convenience between some Republicans and Donald Trump. And here we see it with this circular firing squad between Donald Trump and the most conservative members of Congress.

Well, and so this morning, Paul Ryan, who's the House speaker, he was on CBS this morning with Nora O'Donnell, and she was asking him about President Trump's role in the effort to replace Obamacare and what he said really just fits in with this whole thing. This is a can-do president who's a business guy who wants to get things done. And I know that he wants to get things done with the Republican Congress. But if this Republican Congress allows the perfect to be the enemy of the good, I worry we'll push the president into working

with Democrats. He's been suggesting that as much. I mean, have you reached out to the Democrats yet to work on this bill, Pelosi? No, I'm trying to get this bill passed. Nancy and I see things very, very differently. I don't want government running health care. Well, then you guys are't want the same page. The president United States saying he's going to work with Democrats on this.

Yeah, I know he's been saying that. I don't want that to happen. You know why? I want a patient centered system. I don't want government running health care. Now, the White House hasn't really reached out to Nancy Pelosi either, as far as I can tell. What they seem to think they might be able to do is pick off some moderate Democrats who are in tough seats or face a tough reelection. It all just smacks of trying to pressure the House Freedom Caucus to come around because the ultimate insult to them would be if the president and Paul Ryan made a deal that was further away from what they expected to see in the repeal of Obamacare and closer to what Democrats would like. I can't imagine them actually doing that. But if the members of the

House Freedom Caucus can imagine them doing that, and they are a fairly suspicious lot, I would say that might be their most effective tactic to try to bring the HFC back on board. All right. Speaking of tough negotiations, next week, President Trump is getting a high profile visit from China. On Thursday and Friday, Chinese President Xi Jinping is visiting Trump's Florida resort Mar-a-Lago for two days of meetings. And I was thinking golf. Well, apparently not, because if the president were to shake him out golfing, it would probably be a huge diplomatic dustup. Because in communist China, golf is described as a sport for millionaires. And the Chinese Communist Party banned its 88 million members from playing golf until 2015.

So I don't think we're going to see the Chinese president. Well, you are just a font. Thank you, Google. 88 million members of the Chinese Communist Party. I had no idea it was such a small percentage of the population. The Washington Nationals play a couple miles away from Mar-a-Lago in spring training. So they could go there. But I think they're just missing spring training, unfortunately.

That's right. Opening day is Monday, April 3rd. Sad. Oh, sad. Not opening day. Not opening day. It's sad that they can't go see them in spring training. So, you know, these two presidents seriously represent the two biggest economies in the world.

And Trump has spent a lot of time trashing China on trade and so many other things. This was from the campaign. We have a $500 billion deficit, trade deficit with China. We're going to turn it around, and we have the cards. Don't forget, we're like the piggy bank that's being robbed. We have the cards.

We have a lot of power with China. When China doesn't want to fix the problem in North Korea, we say, sorry, folks, you've got to fix the problem. Because we can't continue to allow China to rape our country. And that's what they're doing. It's the greatest theft in the history of the world. Yeah. So I guess that's going to be a fun conversation. Perhaps the Chinese are not taking Donald Trump nearly as literally as many of us in the media did during the campaign. And that's probably to their credit.

OK, so seriously, what do they have to talk about? Everything. There is an enormous trade relationship here. They are one of our absolute most important trading partners. In the future, a lot of people in the United States have hoped, and business people have hoped, that China would be an even bigger trading partner of ours. Sure, we have bought an awful lot from them in recent decades. That helped them. And now it's time probably over some gradual period for them to become more equal partners and for them to behave more responsibly in the world economic community, particularly with respect to currency valuation. But all of that has to be negotiated and achieved over some period of time. We have actually done them a big favor lately by spiking the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPP that President Trump hated so much and campaigned against last year. And that actually empowers China to step into the breach with all those Asian trading partners and do more business with them in lieu of their previously negotiated relationship with us. That's a big favor to them. And there's also the matter of North Korea. The Trump administration and some of the United States allies feel that China is not being tough enough on North Korea. And that is a

live wire kind of situation. I suspect that Xi will say, OK, fine, I'll get tough with North Korea. You can take the refugees who come pouring out of the country when I do so. I don't want them coming across my border and you don't want them coming to the United States either. And one more thing related to this visit. It is taking place at Mar-a-Lago. It's the Winter White House. It is the Winter White House. And Sean Spicer was asked today, why was is it going to be there? And he kind of refused to answer, but said it was a diplomatic thing. It's starting to seem likely that either President Trump or President Xi or both of them together want to avoid the media spotlight that comes with a

presidential visit to the White House. If he had come to the White House, there would be an expectation of a press conference. Now it seems like there probably won't be a press conference. All those nattering nabobs of negativism like you would be asking them a lot of questions and expecting answers. Does no one like Camp David anymore? I mean, what happened to Trump? No, it's too rustic for the Trumps. That is slumming it. It's too rustic for the Trumps. Even the Obamas didn't care for it much. I would go to Camp David all the time if I was president, but Trump hasn't gone once yet.

There was that quote, I forget what paper it was in, but somebody, I think it was when he did an interview with one of the British newspapers, but he said something like, yeah, you'd like Camp David for about 20 minutes. And on the topic of Mar-a-Lago, this week, the Government Accountability Office said it's going to take a look at the costs and the security issues that go along with the president's frequent visits to the so-called Winter White House, where apparently he has spent five weekends and all or part of 17 days since becoming president. And we know that thanks to CBS News correspondent Mark Knoller. Who is the best? Hats off to Mark, the official, might as well say official, archivist of all such things. And on that note, we're going to take another break and we will be right back with Can't Let It Go. Support for this podcast and the following message come from Square,

existing to help small businesses succeed. Because when businesses succeed, Square succeeds. So they let customers accept every major credit card anywhere for one flat rate and no hidden fees. They deposit your money in one to two business days or even instantly. And Square offers up to $250 a month

in free chargeback protection. Sign up now for free processing on your first $500 in sales at square.com slash politics. Some terms apply. We're back. But before we get to can't let it go, let's talk about someone who sounds like she is trying to let it go. I am thrilled to be out of the woods. That would be Hillary Rodham Clinton, who had been spotted hiking a lot in the months after her loss. And in the company of so many

inspiring women. And there is no place I'd rather be than here with you other than the White House. Wait, wait, Hillary lost? She was at a conference hosted by the Professional Businesswomen of California on Tuesday in San Francisco. You know, I'm prepared to go so far as to say that she has pretty well nailed down the professional women vote in San Francisco. Can I just say she has about one more time to make that joke about coming out of the woods? I think we've heard that from her. We've heard it at least twice.

And now it's time for Can't Let It Go. This is how we end the roundup every week. We all share one thing we can't stop thinking about this week, politics or otherwise. Ron. Well, it's obvious. I think we'll all want to have the same one, but I'll go first and take it. President Trump has declined the offer of the Washington Nationals to throw out the first pitch on opening day in the nation's capital. I suppose that is the privilege of every president. And I'm sure he's very busy and he can't get out there on a Monday afternoon.

Still, what's the sense in being president if you can't throw out the opening pitch on opening day in the nation's capital? I mean, even Calvin Coolidge got himself out there to do this. Well, maybe he's just holding out for the Yankees. That could be true. And maybe he doesn't really want to get out on the mound. And I mean, he did throw out an opening pitch many years ago at a major league game and looked pretty good doing it. He may not want the contrast videotape. He may think it's beneath his dignity. You can always stand in the stands the way presidents used to do. I mean, Franklin Roosevelt obviously did not get out on the mound and throw a pitch.

But they sit up there in the stands and they toss it out to the catcher. And the catcher says, thank you, Mr. President. Everyone cheers. And we have a ballgame. I'm pro baseball. I'm pro politics. So this is obviously something I enjoy. I feel like the greatest ever first pitch was clearly George W. Bush at the 2001 World Series. I feel

like that was this huge dramatic moment, which the campaign then realized because they like packaged it into an ad in 2004. And there's that story where Bush was warming up under the stands at old original real Yankee Stadium. I don't acknowledge the current facility they play in is Yankee Stadium. And he was warming up and Derek Jeter says, are you going to throw the mound? And Bush says, I don't know. You know, I've got more in this bulletproof vest. Who knows? And Jeter was like, if you don't throw it from the mound, they're going to boo you. And George Bush thought about that and then went out and like especially for grading on the curve of a politician through like a perfect pitch to like a rocking World Series crowd. And that that is a very good presidential first pitch that

will probably never be topped. Of course, he did own a baseball team before he became president. Yeah, he had some practice at that. Yeah, that is true. But it was a moment. Yes. All right, Jeff, what can't you let go of? So I can't let go of a story involving Aaron Schock. He, of course, is the disgraced former congressman, once a rising star in the Republican Party, also a men's health pinup boy. Apparently, his legal team, oh, and the reason why he has a legal team is because he resigned in 2015. And it was indicted last year after the Washington Post reported that he received really lavish office decorations for free. So his legal team says that

federal investigators broke the law in using a staffer in his Peoria, Illinois office as an informant illegally to make these secret recordings and then also steal documents and receipts from his office to use all of that to bring a federal corruption case against him. So an employee of his was wearing a wire. That is what the allegation is. The story is all sorts of amazing for a great many reasons. And that is what I cannot let go of this week. Like what about it can't you let go of? When I first started covering Congress, I saw his office and thought it was off the wall bananas. I didn't know the backstory. I just thought I didn't even know it was his office. I was just like, what? Because it looks like all the all the comparisons to Downton Abbey, it really did look like it came

off. It looked like they had brought in Hollywood set designers to design this congressional office. And people should know that most congressional offices are either, you know, stark white with chair rails, you know, deep, nice wooded paneling. Maybe they're navy blue on the walls. His was like this deep maroon festooned space with sconces on the walls. It was nuts. All right, Scott, what can't you let go of? So there were a couple contenders. I was just talking about George W. Bush, and there was a funny story about his thoughts on the inauguration. But we're a family-friendly podcast, and there is an unfamily-friendly word in it. So just Google that, and you'll find it.

So what I also can't let go is a Twitter account robot that sprung to life this week. At burned your tweet. So somebody programmed a robot that when Donald Trump tweets, the robot prints out his tweet like I'm a dot matrix printer. So it prints it out. Then it cuts the piece of paper off, moves it over to an ashtray, lights it on fire and burns it and records this process and then tweets the video of Donald Trump's tweet being burned. And it just responds to Donald Trump. I burned your tweet in this video of it. And very quickly, this account's followers went through the roof because it's really funny.

Yeah, they are up to 21,000 followers. When you told me about it, I think it had like 200 followers. I have no idea how you found out about this. The politics aside, the fact that so much of Twitter revolves around what Trump said at any given moment, the fact that this robot exists makes me very happy. And Tam, what can't you let go of this week? In the name of taking two, I'm going to take two. The first one is April Ryan. She is a reporter for the American Urban Radio Network. She

sits directly behind me in the White House press briefing room. And earlier this week, Sean Spicer called on her and they got into this exchange that was more heated than it needed to be. On this subject, she's come away with the same conclusion, Republican, Democrat. So I'm sorry that that disgusts you. You're shaking your head. I appreciate it. But but OK, but understand this, that at some point the facts are what they are. And every person who is she wasn't actually initially shaking her head, but it just kept going and going and going.

Okay, but you know what? You're asking me a question, and I'm going to answer it, which is the president, I'm sorry, please stop shaking your head again. So after all of that, April tweeted out one word, L-A-W-D. Lord. Yeah. So all of this set off a hashtag that was created by an activist named Brittany Packnett.

Hashtag black women at work. And it was quite a hashtag. Sam Sanders, our old podcast friend, had a lot of Twitter thoughts on this, which I thought were interesting. If you want to look up, I'm just telling people to look at Twitter feeds left and right today. But he had a lot of interesting thoughts. So then yesterday, Spicer started off the briefing this way. April. Thank you, Sean. How are you today?

I'm fine. And how are you? Fantastic. And actually, the whole briefing was decidedly more chill than the one the day before had been. OK, but because I'm trying to take special privilege, I would like to just toss to one other piece of audio. It came earlier this week. It was actually video. President Trump in a pool spray at the White House. He was talking to one of the fraternal order of police people who was sitting next to him. And here it is. You'll introduce yourself in front of all this live television. It's always live for me. You know, unfortunately, other guys say, make this speech,

nobody cares. With me, everything's live. One mistake and it's no good. But we just can't make mistakes, right? So we don't make mistakes. Go ahead, Ken. Chuck Canterbury, the national president of the three-way police force out here. Epic. Chuck would like a correction on his name. Couldn't Chuck have just said for the moment that his name was Ken? No, no. I actually, I roll with it when people get my name wrong. Like, I usually feel like it's more awkward than not to acknowledge it and just kind of plow forward in life.

All right, Jim, let's finish this podcast. That's a wrap for today. Jeff, congrats on your first episode. Thank you, thank you. And we didn't even notice last week, but we have now done more than 200 episodes of this podcast. Exciting. We will be back with more podcasts next week. And if all goes well, there should be a new episode of Listener Mail in your feed this

Sunday morning. A reminder, you can email us your questions and comments at nprpolitics at npr.org. Okay. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Chuck. I cover Congress. I'm Jeff Bennett.

I, too, cover Congress. And I'm Ron Elving, editor-correspondent. Thanks for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.