Today, Explained - Mr. Trump's wild week

Episode Date: July 20, 2018

What a week. President Trump sided with President Putin, then he didn’t, then he did, then he didn’t again. Vox’s Alex Ward tries to keep up.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Afim the Dream Shapiro, the engineer of Today Explained. Hey man. This is very unusual for us because we don't try and sell each other toothbrushes, but I hear you're thinking of going to getquip.com slash explained. You may not have been trying to sell me a toothbrush, but you sold me a toothbrush. Alex Ward, national security reporter here at Vox. It's been a hell of a week. Yeah.

So let's start with Monday. Monday is when President Trump meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. Historic meeting. You have both of them go into a two and a half hour private session with just a translator each. Clearly, no one else knows what happens in that meeting, you have both of them go into a two and a half hour private session with just a translator each. Clearly, no one else knows what happens in that meeting, right? They have conversation. The shit hits the fan when they actually hold a press conference. A couple big things happen here. First of all, Trump almost forgets he's on the world stage. He starts talking about his election victory. That was a well-fought battle. We did a great job.

He starts hitting Hillary Clinton. I beat Hillary Clinton easily. He starts talking about no collusion, the Mueller investigation. There was no collusion at all. Everybody knows it. This is not about U.S.-Russia ties or how Russia has very clearly interfered in the U.S. election or has countered the Western world in Europe and the Middle clearly interfered in the U.S. election or has countered the Western world in Europe and the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. The big issue here is when you have President Trump clearly side with Putin on the issue of did Russia interfere in the election.

Would you now, with the whole world watching, tell President Putin, would you denounce what happened in 2016? And would you warn him to never do it again? Putin very clearly denied it. Denied it with Trump. Denied it in public. And Trump said, My people came to me, Dan Coats came to me and some others.

They said they think it's Russia. I have President Putin. He just said it's not Russia. I will say this. I don't see any reason why it would be. I'm basically going to believe him. How did that go for him? It did not go well.

The immediate backlash, not only from Democrats, predictably, but especially from Republicans. Paul Ryan. Russia is a menacing government that does not share our interests and it does not share our values. And I think that should be made very, very clear. Mitch McConnell. I think the Russians need to know that there are a lot of us who fully understand what happened in 2016. And it really better not happen again in 2018.

Even Fox News' Neil Cavuto. That's what made his performance disgusting. I'm sorry, it's just the only way I feel. It's not a right or left thing to me. This is wrong. A U.S. president on far and tall talking to our biggest enemy or adversary or competitor, I don't know how we define them these days, is essentially letting the guy get away with this. This was an odd moment because it was really the first time there was a universal condemnation against Trump for something he did on the world stage. And it led to such a backlash that this was clearly a turning point for this president. But that's just Monday. How does the president respond to all the blowback, even from his own party?

Well, he tweets on the plane ride back from Helsinki, effectively saying like, of course I believe my intelligence people, but no one's buying it. The real walk back, if you want to call it that, comes on Tuesday. When President Trump is sitting in the White House and is holding this piece of paper and it really looked like,

if you watch the video, if you listen to the audio, it sounds like he's reading a hostage note. I realize that there is a need for some clarification. It should have been obvious. I thought it would be obvious, but I would like to clarify just in case it wasn't. And Trump's walkback really hinges on one thing. In a key sentence in my remarks, I said the word would instead of wouldn't. The sentence should have been, I don't see any reason why I wouldn't or why it wouldn't be Russia. So just to repeat it, I said the word would instead of wouldn't. He had multiple chances to say, or even definitively, Russia, you did this, and I'm very upset about it, right?

Reporters kept giving him a second, third chances. And he didn't do it. So did this half-hearted clarification work? And I'm very upset about it, right? Reporters kept giving him a second, third chances. And he didn't do it. So did this half-hearted clarification work? Did it convince anyone? Uh, no. But then we run into even more problems on Wednesday. On Wednesday morning, before a cabinet meeting, a reporter asked Trump,

do you believe that Russia is still targeting the United States? And he responds, no. He was asked again, just to clarify, sir, you don't believe Russia is targeting the United States? He goes, no. Does he have to walk that one back too? Well, he doesn't, but his press secretary does. And his press secretary, Sarah Sanders, is asked about Trump's no comment. I talked to the president. He wasn't answering that question.

He was saying no, he's not taking questions. And I've stated what our position is. That was in the afternoon. So like the White House had hours to figure stuff out, to figure out maybe what was his response. Maybe Trump walks that back in a tweet.

There are many other things he could do. And for the record, would his director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, disagree with that statement? He would absolutely disagree. In fact, five days earlier on that Friday, he had given a speech at the Hudson Institute saying, Russia and Iran and China and others are clearly trying to attack our infrastructure, possibly our elections. The system was blinking red. And here we are two decades, nearly two decades later, and I'm here to say the warning lights are blinking red again.

But that press conference on Wednesday just wasn't about what Trump meant by no. It was also a continuation of the trade offer that Putin made during his talks with Trump on Monday. So a reporter asked Sarah Sanders, again, the White House press secretary, about Russia naming 11 Americans, including former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul and an investor Bill Browder, whether the White House would be okay with allowing Russians to interrogate them for alleged crimes that the Russians have placed on him. Her answer was, The president's going to meet with his team and we'll let you know when we have an announcement on that.

The answer should have been, no. We will not allow the Russians to interrogate American citizens. So after this super tough press conference for Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Donald Trump goes on CBS Even News for a pretty softball interview. What does he say there? It's been about 48 hours since his press conference with Putin, and now he's offering a different tune. I let him know we can't have this. We're not going to have it. And that's the way it's going to be. He's saying he stood up to Putin. And look, that's possible. We don't know what happened behind closed doors. But what we do know happened in public is the opposite of that, which takes us to Thursday.

On Thursday, we've got one big thing happening. And that is it looks like the pushback from Congress has finally reached a boiling point and they're actually going to take some sort of legislative action to safeguard McFaul and Browder and the other nine Americans named by the Russians from being interrogated. And on top of that, it's effectively just a political rebuke of the way Trump acted in Helsinki. And is this bipartisan? It is bipartisan. The Republicans were helping lead it. Of course, calls for Democrats were a little stronger, but it was a real thing. And it looked like for a while there, something binding was going to pass. Sarah Sanders then comes out with a statement before the vote was going to come out.

She then walks back her comments before saying trump disagrees with putin's offer he would not do it but he wouldn't mind having russia send those 12 russian military intelligence officers to the united states for interview nice right nice little touch there uh very big turnaround and then the vote that comes later from the senate only it's 98 to zero about as unanimous as it gets, that is, again, a political rebuke to Trump. But really what it does is like, hey, don't send McFaul and Browder.

Let this resolution be a warning to the administration that Congress will not allow this to happen. I call on President Trump to say once and for all, not through his spokespeople, that the lopsided, disgraceful trade he called an incredible offer is now off the table. And I should mention that there were these other things that didn't happen. Republicans rejected two other non-binding proposals that would have supported the intelligence agency's

conclusions that Russia interfered in the election. That would be probably the strongest rebuke to Trump. There was an op-ed from Will Hurd, a Republican from Texas who was a former CIA agent, where he effectually, not effectually, he does say Trump was clearly being manipulated by Putin in Helsinki. And as if that wasn't a batshit enough Thursday already, it gets even crazier. There's an announcement from Sarah Sanders saying, by the way, Trump asked his national security advisor,

John Bolton, to invite Putin to Washington in the fall for Trump-Putin 2. Uh, that news breaks live. As director of national intelligence, the man charged with knowing all the world's secrets is giving a talk in Aspen. And on stage, the moderator, NBC's Andrea Mitchell, tells him, We have some breaking news.

The White House has announced on Twitter that Vladimir Putin is coming to the White House in the fall. Say that again? Vladimir Putin coming to the White House. Yeah, yeah. Okay. That's going to be special. That is one of the most remarkable weeks in American foreign policy. So, Femme, are you buying this getquip.com slash explained electric quip toothbrush for yourself or a friend? What's going on? I am buying this getquip.com slash explained toothbrush for my wife. For Steph?

For Stephanie. Oh, what's the occasion? The occasion is her birthday. July? She's a July? She's an end of July birthday. A Leo? A Cancer? She is one of those signs for sure. One of the good ones. Yes. And do you get the sense that she needs a new toothbrush? cancer she is one of those signs for sure one of the good ones yes and do you get

the sense that she needs a new toothbrush she definitely needs one she has an electric toothbrush it's all raggedy and raw with crust all over it and she definitely needs a new one 100 and has she seen the quip she has not this is gonna be big she's gonna get the quip she's gonna open it and see the gleaming metal. She's going to feel it and just fall in love with it immediately. Unless you get her the plastic one, which is cheaper. I'm going to get her the good one. Okay, good.

I'm going to splurge. What did you get her last year? Sean, don't ask me that question. I get her horrible gifts every year. You're going to turn the franchise around this year, buddy. Good luck. Okay. Alex Ward.

Hi, Sean. How long has President Trump known about Russian interference in the 2016 election? Since before he was president. As far as hacking, I think it was Russia. But I think we also get hacked by other countries and other people. And this isn't like P-tape collusion. No. These are just facts.

When he was the president-elect, two weeks before he became the president, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials at the time told him, look, we have intelligence, the Russians interfered. We have messages of people close to Putin saying as much. That not only did Russia interfere, but they interfered and had a preference for Trump over Hillary Clinton. Why is he denying it now? There are theories. Theory one is Trump just does not get the difference between collusion and interference. Russia interfered in the election. This thing we know is true.

They hacked the Clinton campaign. They hacked the Democratic National Committee. They leaked those emails. What we do not know is the collusion issue, which is, as Russia was interfering, was the Trump administration working with Russia to do so? But Trump conflates the two. And if he were to admit that Russia interfered in the election, then he would also be admitting that Russia interfered to help him. And that could lead to the second theory. If he admits that Russia interfered, then he would be admitting that he is probably not the most legitimate president ever. That there would be an asterisk next to his name every time the list of American presidents are down on paper. And that would be quite the crisis to his presidency. On top of that,

it would also delegitimize what he believes is one of the greatest victories in political history, his victory. He did it his way, right? He went against the Republican Party. He went against basically everybody, and he not only won the nomination, but the White House. If he were to admit that Russia helped him do that, it would take away his own personal victory. And then, of course, there's theory three, which is the worst case scenario, which is not only did they collude, but maybe Trump is taking some of his orders from Russia. And that may be the reason Trump insisted on a one-on-one meeting with Putin was so they could talk about things that they need to talk about without anyone in Trump's staff listening.

None of those, whether you agree with theory one, two, or three, none of those are good. We shouldn't even be having that discussion. What should be happening is Trump goes, yes, I accept the intelligence community's assessment. Russia interfered. They clearly had a preference for me. But believe me, I will not let Russia do this again. And I will be tough on Russia until they change their ways. That is what probably every other president up until this one would have said.

What does this week mean going forward for the legitimacy of the Trump administration, for the legitimacy of United States foreign policy? The legitimacy of the Trump administration is hard to assess, just because this is not the first foreign policy disaster. North Korea was a disaster. The NATO summit was a disaster. But when it comes to what this means for how America conducts its foreign policy, we have two major takeaways. One is Trump is his own man and no one will rein him in. He insisted on the one-on-one meeting. What Trump wants is what America will do on the world stage.

That's American foreign policy, whatever is in the president's head, which leads to a similar but I think separate second point, which is what we've now witnessed in this week is the official breakdown of American foreign policy. What we've noticed is a president go rogue, a staff who does not know the contents of the big summit they just had, what I thought was even more amazing, Coats, who we talked about earlier, not knowing about Putin coming in the fall, was that he did not know what Trump talked about with Putin. Again, this is a man charged with knowing all the world's secrets. He knows Kim Jong-un's favorite steak. He knows the vodka preferences of an election official in Siberia or time that election official wakes up on a weekday.

He knows what you just texted your boyfriend. But he does not know what the American president said to Putin in that meeting. That is crazy. How are people like Dan Coats, who issued his own statement just after the press conference the president had with President Putin on Monday, essentially saying the intelligence community strongly disagrees with everything the president just said how are people like that sticking by the president in a moment like this in a moment where the president is siding with russian interests how do career diplomats and intelligence

officers and government workers stand by donald trump right now people are of two minds of this on the one hand they say these people need to resign if they have any honor. They should not serve a president who clearly gave Russia everything and gave America very little from that meeting and who very clearly is denigrating American officials in the process.

The other people would argue that American foreign policy could be worse if they weren't there. That even though Trump is rogue and will occasionally do things that they don't prepare him for, if they were to resign, imagine just how much worse it could be. What would you say to someone who doesn't take comfort in that,

be they a voter or an intelligence officer who's terrified that the president might represent Russia's interests more than those of the United States. It's not really my place to say, but the week that we had was the worst of Trump's foreign policy. But you shouldn't be surprised that Trump's foreign policy went poorly. The people that were surprised that Trump acted the way he did with Putin, talking about his election results, bad-mouthing American intelligence officials, that is Trump. That was par for the course. He did not change his actions in Helsinki just because he was alongside the Russian president. Nothing about that was out of the ordinary.

I would have been more shocked if he didn't do that. Right? So this whole hand-wringing notion that like, oh my goodness, look at the way he acted. Yeah, it was horrifying. Yeah, he shouldn't have done that. But did you expect anything else? Did you expect him to act in any other way? And if you did, then you have not been paying attention to him over the last three years. So I don't buy the notion, or at least I don't think that the Russian president has anything special on Trump by the way he acted. What I do think though, is what we learned from this week is that Trump clearly does not promote American interests when he goes abroad,

has no problem ceding the ground to foreign adversaries if he needs to, and is really in it for himself. Alex Ward is one of the hosts of the Worldly Podcast at Vox. I'm Sean Ramos for him. This is Today Explained. wait afim it just occurred to me that steph's gonna know you're buying her a quip because it's on the ad for today's show. What's your point? I mean, won't she hear it? No, she doesn't listen. Oh, no.

Does she listen to the political gab fest? Because I hear those guys practically invented the political podcast. I don't know if you've heard it, but, you know, Emily Bazelon, friend of our show with the New York Times Magazine, David Plotz of Atlas Obscura, John Dickerson from CBS This Morning of The Atlantic. They're really funny, smart, politically informed. Yeah.

Fun fact, I've helped out on that show before. Oh, of course. And even then she didn't listen to it. Oh, no. But she should listen to both The Political Gab Fest and Today Explained. She really should. Okay. Well, maybe once she gets the quip toothbrush.

Ha ha. Let's hope so.