Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2016

The Current Transcript for April 27, 2017

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

TOUR GUIDE: So the White House has 132 rooms, 36 of them are bathrooms.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Springtime in Washington. The flowers are in full bloom, the tourists are thick on the ground, and the tour guides stick to the facts you can verify.

TOUR GUIDE: Almost every weekend since Trump has been president he's gone to Mar-a-Lago in Florida.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: If this is a week with its own curious rhythm, one that ends with Donald Trump marking his first 100 days in the Oval Office and a news cycle dominated by sniping over Canadian trade, promises for tax cuts, and another salvo at North Korea. Outside the high iron gates of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue it is business as usual for those here to protest.

PROTESTER: No bodies, no war. Attacking Korea will open the door to global conflict and nuclear war. Attacking Korea will open the door.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: 12 people stand in a row demanding the US leave North Korea alone.

CROWD: Attacking Korea will open the door to global conflict and nuclear war.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Of course, not every protest is topical or even rational.

VOICE 1: It wasn’t rowing, it’s called sailing, it’s using the wind.

VOICE 2: And you ain’t gone sail it.

VOICE 1: That’s not rowing.

VOICE 2: You wouldn’t sail no wooden sailboat. No refrigerator, no electric.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: And then there's a retired man named Jim with a sign saying fund EPA, the beleaguered US Environmental Protection Agency.

JIM: And it's such a shame that we have people getting sick on the water and the air. That should now be allowed in one of the richest countries in the world. And President Trump, he’s proposing to take some funds away from the EPA to remove some of those protections.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: He may stand here alone but across the country that sentiment reaches right into the federal civil service. In a moment we'll hear from a man who has joined the ranks of government employees actively dissenting and raising concerns about the policies of the new Trump administration. We are in Washington to take the pulse of US politics inside the beltway as this new president marks 100 days in office. A new generation of Republicans is celebrating President Donald Trump. We will hear from a few of them in half an hour. A presidential historian is raising a different issue however. He is convinced this 45th president is making himself vulnerable to impeachment. Allan Lichtman makes the case a little later. And in an hour, we convene a panel of top Washington journalists to hear how covering this president changes everything. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti in Washington, this is a special edition of The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Why this U.S. civil servant runs a rogue Twitter account against Trump

Guest: Anonymous Civil Servant

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: And as Donald Trump nears 100 days in office, he is facing resistance from a number of quarters. One of the biggest pools of dissent is the civil service. Many federal employees are voicing their opposition to President Trump. Some overtly, most covertly in an unprecedented way. When Mr. Trump brought in a travel ban on seven predominantly Muslim nations, more than 1,000 State Department diplomats registered their opposition by signing a dissent letter. There have also been reports that civil servants are using encrypted messaging apps and personal email accounts to establish a network of dissent. And rogue Twitter accounts from federal employees at various agencies have cropped up. There are now at least 50 so-called alternative government Twitter accounts that say they're run by government staffers. They tweet out criticism, commentary, they even leak information. Our next guest is a US federal employee who contributes to one of these alternative government Twitter accounts. His work has to do with the environment and public health. We have agreed not to use his name or his location or any identifying characteristics to protect his identity, as he fears for his job. We've also disguised his voice. Hello.

CIVIL SERVANT: Hello. Good to be here.

AMT: Why are you contributing to this alternative government Twitter account?

CIVIL SERVANT: We're doing it, I'm doing it because the stakes are high. The issues that we care about and that we work on as part of our careers and that the American people care about are too important to just stand down and be silent. We're going to make sure that people have good information and that people have some level of faith that the staff within US agencies is going to work to make sure that the law is followed, that the regulations are followed. We have a president in the United States. We do not have a king, we do not have a dictator. And it's very important that the rule of law be respected and followed. That's the core part of why we do what we do.

AMT: What do you mean by the phrase alternative government?

CIVIL SERVANT: It's an alternative voice to the spin that you're going to get from some of the official government media outlets. And that was the intention was to provide people with factual information but let them know, you know, it's not the official agency line, but right now anyways, more in line with what's really true and real than kind of the spin that is coming out of Washington DC as directed by the Trump administration.

AMT: So there's all these Twitter accounts. How widespread is the dissent in your own organization?

CIVIL SERVANT: I think it's pretty strong. I mean, there's a lot of concern. The work I do involves the environment, public health, and there's, you know, it's very clear that the new President Mr. Trump has put a target on the environment. Some of his major attempts to roll back protections have been in the area of the environment, clean air, other areas. And people are concerned about that. I mean, these are career scientists, career staff, talented people who in many ways have made a choice to work in public service because they believe in public service. They could probably be making more money in the private sector but they're working inside these public agencies because we believe in public service.

AMT: Well, you are a career civil servant. You're not a partisan appointee. Isn't it your job just to do your job under any administration?

CIVIL SERVANT: The way a lot of us see it, we don't work for the president. We work for the American people. We work for the public interest and we don't have a system in the United States where the president can just kind of come in and immediately just make sweeping radical changes to how the civil service does its job. That doesn't mean they won't try, that doesn't mean that there's not efforts to try to intimidate, especially coming from higher level managers inside some of these agencies. But the way we see it, we're not beholden to trying to satisfy the president who can change every four years. We have a much broader long term mission to work in the interest of following the law, respecting the underlying US Constitution, which is the framework for a lot of what we do. And the bottom line to protect and uphold the public interest. We will follow the law but that doesn't mean we're going to fall every whim of a reckless president.

AMT: OK. We do know that government does run through a bureaucracy. So if you're part of the bureaucracy you can you can make those wheels turn easily or you can make those wheels kind of slow down. So making some things kind of slowdown?

CIVIL SERVANT: Yes you're right. If you have an entrenched knowledgeable workforce who is not real thrilled about being pushed around or bullied from Washington DC, absolutely, people can and probably should act as a check against that and there would be public support. I think as long as the US workforce feels a strong public support for standing up for common sense and laws that protect quality of life and implementing them and agents who's doing their job in a cautious way that puts the concerns of everyday people first. There's a strong public support for that. As long as people feel like there's public support they're going to continue to feel like they can do their jobs.

AMT: So let me ask you, what is morale like within your own agency?

CIVIL SERVANT: Inside it's not very good. It's, you know, it's a situation where especially a lot of the agencies that deal with public health and the environment in the US are already underfunded and understaffed so the workload is very high. The workload is important. And one thing that people are disappointed about is the call for massive cuts to these agencies and there's just not a lot to actually cut. That has morale pretty far down. And then you have a president who's, you know, just shown contempt for science, shown contempt for the broad public interest, who seems to try to make decisions kind of based on a whim or maybe a dream he had last night or something. It’s very reactionary, the approach that we seem to be seeing from Trump’s Whitehouse. And people feel committed, they feel like look we've been through this before, a lot of the staff who currently serve in the agencies also served under other somewhat stormy presidencies. So for example, George W. Bush presidency there was a lot of attempt to do similar things although it seemed like the Bush administration was more competent. They had people in place who actually had strong right wing ideologies but they were a little bit more confident in what they were doing than what we're seeing from Trump.

AMT: Are you affiliated with any party?

CIVIL SERVANT: No I'm not. I'm an independent.

AMT: We are protecting your identity. What do you think would happen if you were openly critical?

CIVIL SERVANT: It's a good question. I mean, I don't feel like this should even be necessary but unfortunately it is. We're dealing with an administration that seems to be very vindictive, thin-skinned and has very little tolerance for dissent, which I would say is downright un-American. But what I'm doing and what most of my colleagues are doing is, we would certainly argue, would be protected free speech under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. But there's also strong feeling that Trump is a authoritarian dictator style president who will do whatever he can to try to squash out criticism. I have a concern that even just telling the truth and speaking from a perspective of an insider in these agencies is something that we even have to be done anonymously, but unfortunately it does. People's careers depend on it, their families depend on it, and that's just probably just the smart approach at this time.

AMT: What do you hope to accomplish with your dissent and that dissent of others within the civil service?

CIVIL SERVANT: Well I think we've already accomplished and continued to accomplish a great deal. I mean, for one thing it's reassuring to not only the American people but our friends in Canada and all over the world that they know that there are career scientists, career staff inside parts of the US government who are looking out for the public interest and who are not just robotically and sheepishly going to march to an oppressive tune that could be coming from an illegitimate president. That's not going to happen. This is the United States of America. There's a long history of people standing up and trying to do the right thing and that's what this is.

AMT: Well, we have to leave it there but thank you for speaking with me today.

CIVIL SERVANT: Alright. Thank you.

AMT: That is a federal employee who contributes to an anti-Trump alternative government Twitter account. We agreed not to use his name, his location or any identifying characteristics to protect his identity as he fears for his job. We also disguised his voice. There are many here in Washington who think this kind of dissent in the civil service is troubling. The conservative group Judicial Watch is particularly concerned about federal employees sharing information through encrypted messaging apps. It is suing the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, to get them to hand over any employee communications sent through those apps. Tom Fitton is the President of Judicial Watch.

SOUNDCLIP

These federal bureaucrats promised to do their jobs and to implement the policies of the president but they've decided to fight back in a way that undermines the rule of law and suggests the American people's will doesn't matter. It's so bad that they're using these encrypted applications to communicate secretly about government business while seemingly trying to keep those documents away from the American people who have a right to see them. You know, everyone has their own political views, which it's a free country in that regard. But when you're a civil servant you're supposed to follow the rules and implement the policies as directed by the president, especially when those policies are lawful. Here they just think they are rulers unto themselves in some respects and that's what's so troubling about what's happening.

AMT: Well, according to my next guest the clashes between the Trump White House and the civil service could be bad news for Mr. Trump. Chris Lu is the former Deputy Secretary of Labour under President Obama. Before that he was a Cabinet Secretary and Mr. Obama's liaison to the federal civil service agencies. He was also in charge of the Obama transition team in 2008. And Chris Lu joins me in our Washington studio. Hello.

CHRIS LU: Thank you for having me.

AMT: Well, what are you hearing? How widespread is the dissent in the civil service?

CHRIS LU: You know, it is hard to say but I will say this, I think the level of dissent is unusual based on what I've seen in previous administrations, certainly in agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Labor where I come from. Some of the ones that tend to be more politicized under Republican administrations you are seeing a high level dissent. But as you pointed out in your introduction, even at the State Department which is not seen as a necessarily political place, you have 1,000 State Department employees who are signing a dissent memo.

AMT: Is there any precedent for this kind of resistance within the bureaucracy?

CHRIS LU: I've been in government for about 25 years and I've not seen anything like this. And I've worked with both Republican and Democratic administrations. I think it's also important to point out the impact of social media on this as well. There certainly always growing pains when a new administration takes over and civil servants are trying to adjust to the new leadership. Social media gives you the ability to amplify those growing pains into a much louder dissent. But based on the conversations I've had this is unusual.

AMT: Why are these civil servants so galvanized in their opposition to Mr. Trump?

CHRIS LU: It is a variety of factors. This is a president who during the campaign said he would be draining the swamp, and by the swamp he not only met the lobbyists here in town he also meant the federal civil servants. One of his first acts was a hiring freeze on new hiring in the federal government, drastic budget cuts to federal agencies. He's appointed people to head these agencies who are opposed to the basic mission of the agencies. And then fundamentally his policies really are outside the mainstream of where most Republicans, Democrats are.

AMT: So we know that they are using Twitter, we know that they've got encrypted emails, what kinds of tools, what other tools do they have at their disposal to resist Mr. Trump?

CHRIS LU: Well, as you pointed out in your interview with the employee, the wheels of government even on the best of days don't turn very quickly and civil servants have the ability to turn that much slower. They have the ability to hold up the implementation of important policies. Also it's important to note, when you don't have the buy-in of civil servants you're not tapping into their expertise and experience. In many cases these are people who have been there for decades through Democratic and Republican administrations, they know what works in agencies and what doesn't. And if you really are serious about making government work most effectively you need to include them in the discussion. You need to hear their views on how government can be improved. But they're not going to offer those ideas, they’re simply going to shut down.

AMT: And so if he really wants to implement ideas and new policies, the nitty gritty of that, the actual little cogs in the wheels to turn those wheels are turned by the bureaucrats inside the system.

CHRIS LU: Absolutely. What's striking to me is that this is a president who has extolled his virtues as a manager, as a business leader. You would not run any business the way that he is running right now. There's this wonderful quote in business that culture eats strategy for breakfast. And what he has done here is created the worst kind of culture, which will ultimately undermine his ability to achieve his policy goals.

AMT: Well he is a businessman. He expects his employees to obey.

CHRIS LU: Let me tell you, that is certainly true. And certainly federal civil servants are charged with enforcing the law, charged with following the directives of their leadership. But the speed and thoroughness with which they do that ultimately depends on whether they are bought into the underlying ideas.

AMT: So how much damage can a resistant civil service do to President Trump's agenda?

CHRIS LU: You know, I think it's hard to say. You know, as we saw with the travel ban, the first travel ban, that was a proposal that was not run through the agencies that were going to implement it. And as it turned out, it was a very poorly written and difficult to implement proposal. So you will end up with bad policy. And then even on the policies that are written better, it's just going to be very hard to make the change happen and even harder to make the change stick.

AMT: It's interesting that you use that example, because Sally Yates was the acting Attorney General. She actually sent out a note to some of her top people saying essentially not to stand up for this in court. The suggestion being that it wouldn't stand up in court. But it was interpreted as her actually being belligerent. She was fired for that.

CHRIS LU: And that is certainly one of the more high profile examples. But every single day civil servants make decisions about which direction they want to take certain policies, how vigorously they want to enforce certain directives. And I think people forget that the overwhelming majority of federal employees in the United States live outside of Washington DC. So in order for your messages, for your actions to stick you really need the buy in of all two million federal employees.

AMT: You were talking earlier about the number of positions. You ran President Obama's transition team in ‘08. How has this transition been different?

CHRIS LU: This transition has been run remarkably slowly. Of the top 500 positions in government, the Trump administration only has about 20 people in place right now. They've nominated another 30 or 40. The federal government is a big ship and your ability to turn that ship, even on the best of days, requires having senior political leadership in those agencies. And at important agencies like State and Defense and Treasury there is not a single Senate confirmed political leader below the secretary level. And so they don't have the ability to get their arms around what's happening in the civil service, much less drive the change that they want.

AMT: And how much of that is about the fact that you have a lot of people at the top who are new to understanding what government actually does?

CHRIS LU: Absolutely. It also speaks to the decision making process within the White House. According to press accounts, almost all of these political appointments need to be run through the White House Chief of Staff, through Steve Bannon, through the president. And that is just not a way to staff a federal government. At some level the decision-making needs to be delegated to people below.

AMT: And so before I let you go, what do you think the next 100 days holds for President Trump?

CHRIS LU: He is certainly not the first president who has struggled in the first 100 days. The question is is whether he has the capacity to learn and grow and adjust. And if you look at his history as a businessman, he doesn't. This is the way he governs. And so I'm not particularly optimistic about what the next 100 days or frankly the next three years old.

AMT: Chris Lu, thanks for your thoughts.

CHRIS LU: Thank you.

AMT: Chris Lu, former Deputy Secretary of Labour under President Barack Obama. Before that he was a Cabinet Secretary and the Obama liaison to the federal civil service agencies. He was also in charge of the Obama transition team in 2008. He joined me in our Washington studio. Let us know what you think, you can tweet us we are @TheCurrentCBC. Find us on Facebook. Go to our website cbc.ca/thecurrent and click on the contact link. The news is next. And then nobody saw the Trump presidency coming except my next guest. Allan Lichtman has correctly predicted presidential election results for decades. You want to hear what he's predicting for Donald Trump next. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti in Washington, this is a special edition of The Current.

[Music: Extro]

Back To Top »

How these young Republicans rate Donald Trump's 1st 100 days

Guests: Chris Godbey, Adi Sathi

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: voices and crowd]

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Hello, I'm Anna Maria Tremonti in Washington, and this is a special edition of The Current. You look really proud of your teacher.

KIDS: Yes.

AMT: I'm surrounded by a group of middle school students just outside the White House. Most of them are wearing identical grey t-shirts emblazoned with the school logo and an American flag. They're on a field trip from Georgia and their teacher has just told me he voted for Trump. Are you guys Trump supporters too?

KIDS: Yeah.

AMT: Who wants to tell me why?

KID 1: He will make America great again.

KID 2: He’s better than Hillary.

KID 3: United States.

KID 4: I voted libertarian.

KID 5: He doesn’t support abortion.

KID 6: Yeah, he doesn’t support abortion.

KID 7: And nobody likes Clinton.

AMT: OK, anybody else? Anybody else got an opinion?

KID 8: I wanna say that he makes people for their money and he don’t give out money like Obama did. He makes people work for their money. That’s what I’m trying to say. We work our tail off trying to make money while he give free handouts to everybody else, Obama did. That’s why Trump is better than Obama.

KIDS: [screaming] Woo.

KID 9: He been listening to his parent’s a lot.

KIDS: [laughing]

AMT: [laughs] I don’t know if you caught that. His classmate says he’s been listening to his parents a lot. These preteens are a little young to be political operatives but give them a few years and they might be joining the ranks of my next two guests. Both of them are part of a stream of young Republicans energized by the new Trump administration.

[Woman singing]

AMT: If you're wondering where that came from, there's always someone performing or busking in front of the White House too. Hello Adi.

ADI SATHI: Sorry for the delay.

AMT: That’s OK. I'm Anna Maria.

ADI SATHI: Anna Maria?

AMT: Yes, nice to meet you.

ADI SATHI: Adi Sathi, nice to meet you.

AMT: You guys know each other?

CHRIS GODBEY: Good to see you.

CHRIS GODBEY: Hey, nice to meet you man.

VOICE 1: Yeah.

ADI SATHI: Yeah.

AMT: So you’re Michigan GOP.

ADI SATHI: Yeah, yeah. So.

AMT: Former.

ADI SATHI: Yeah. Former Vice Chair of the party in Michigan. My name is Adi Sathi, I’m 26-years-old from Novi, Michigan. During the election cycle I was Vice Chair of the Republican Party in Michigan. My name’s Chris Godbey and I am the National Political Director for the Young Republican National Federation.

AMT: So we are in front of the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue. Chris and Adi I want to speak to you because you represent a new generation of Republicans here at a time when Donald Trump is coming up to his 100 days, his first 100 days in the Oval Office. And so let's start with just what you’re thinking of this. Chris, how would you rate President Trump's first 100 days?

[Busking music]

CHRIS GODBEY: I would say that he's doing an amazing job and would probably give him a strong rating. And would say that the things that he's looking to accomplish are things that he's making great strides in getting there.

AMT: And Adi, what about you? How would you rate those first 100 days?

ADI SATHI: In modern times I don't think that we have seen a president on either side of the aisle run on a platform and actually 100 per cent stand on that platform in the 100 day time that they put forth. And I would give him an A, A plus on how much he is really pursuing his platform, something that we haven't seen in a long time. And it's a testament to the fact that he's not a politician. And that's what he campaigned on. So.

CHRIS GODBEY: Absolutely. Campaign promises are a campaign being met by this administration, which is something that you rarely see from politicians.

AMT: What do you think his biggest accomplishment has been so far?

CHRIS GODBEY: I think that probably the biggest accomplishment is the Supreme Court justice being placed on the court.

ADI SATHI: Absolutely. Absolutely.

CHRIS GODBEY: I think that that has made for a long term vision of conservative values and making sure that we have a strict opinion of the what the Constitution is.

ADI SATHI: Part of the reason I believe in some of the principles of the Republican Party is that we believe in rule of law judges. And now it’s Senate confirmed Judge Gorsuch, he exemplifies that in my mind, no doubt in my mind about that.

AMT: What has been the biggest letdown for you?

ADI SATHI: The way that the media continues to portray what the president is doing in a completely negative light is still inappropriate. I think that there's a lot to be heard from both sides. And I do spend a lot of time listening to media from, you know, Huffington Post, from CNN even though, you know, people say it's fake news, Donald Trump says, you know, you got to be careful, be careful about the, President Trump, excuse me. And that's been the biggest disappointment for me because it's still a struggle to find a real avenue for information.

CHRIS GODBEY: That's a great point about the media. But I think that the other thing that I've really struggled with is the fact that he's had such opposition to getting his cabinet filled.

ADI SATHI: To follow up on that, I really do believe that the Democrats in Congress are trying to do everything that they can to, you know, create a scenario where the confirmation process for these secretaries. And for the government to function we need to get these appointments through. And I do believe that they know that it's going to happen no matter what, they're just doing everything that they can, everything in their power to limit the process so that when they go home to their constituents say look it took President Donald Trump so long to get these things done when in reality it's just them playing politics.

AMT: They would argue that's exactly what the Republicans did during the entire Obama administration. They were obstructionist the entire way. What's the difference?

ADI SATHI: The number one difference in my mind, if you look at the difference between Harry Reid, but he used to go out there and say we're going to do everything in our power politically to not even let the Republicans talk. The Republicans are not doing that. Senator Mitch McConnell is not doing that. He's giving everybody an opportunity to have their voice heard. There's dialogue, there’s conversation.

AMT: Donald Trump came in saying he wanted to drain the swamp. He's appointed all sorts of billionaires to cabinet, aren’t they part of the swamp?

CHRIS GODBEY: Absolutely not.

AMT: So who's the swamp?

CHRIS GODBEY: The swamp is the industry that exists in Washington DC that feeds off of the decisions that government makes. The swamp is the issue that Americans see, outside of the DC bubble, see Washington being, which is a place where bills come to die, people come to get corrupt and things don't happen. The reality is DC actually gets a lot of things done. The swamp is not something that is even has water in it any longer. We're standing in the swamp so to speak, but that's fine. So I think that the motto of drain the swamp is a euphemism. It's just like Make America Great Again. They were both strong points to really drive home the message that his vision for the future of this country is one that puts America first and makes sure that we're not being dictated to by Washington interests.

AMT: Let's talk about America first. What do you think this softwood lumber duty is suddenly coming out of the blue? What's that about?

ADI SATHI: I think that this software lumber duty is something that is a negotiating tactic that is being used in a way to try and get Canada’s attention for other issues that might be coming up.

AMT: Do you think it's Canada's attention he wants or do you think it's an easy trade thing because he also promised to go after China and it hasn't happened. So are we just low hanging fruit for you guys?

ADI SATHI: Absolutely not. You are our brethren to the north. You’re like the quiet neighbour that lives in the apartment downstairs that’s having a party all the time. We don't want to make you upset, we want you to know that we know you're up there.

CHRIS GODBEY: We might even, you know, be interested in joining the party from time to time I think.

ADI SATHI: Right. Yeah.

AMT: So let's talk about some of the things that have gone on in the last 100 days. The House and Senate are investigating Russian involvement in the last election. The FBI is looking into possible collusion between the Russian government and members of the Trump election team. If it is shown there was collusion will that undermine the legitimacy of the president?

ADI SATHI: Well it’s just not going to happen. I mean, anybody that believes that is just trying to create smoke in front of the mirrors of the situation that's really happening, it's just hindering the process of getting things done. I mean, the election's over. It's time to lead, it’s time to go forward, it’s time to help create jobs, it’s time to do everything we can to protect our American people. And the more we continue to talk about that I think it’s just a waste of time.

AMT: But why is that? Because it's not a small thing. If Russian government involvement is going on behind the scenes in any election in a democratic country, why wouldn't that worry you? If they did that with the Democrats wouldn’t you want to know?

CHRIS GODBEY: Well let's talk about that because they were doing it with the Democrats. There is proof with the money that the Clinton Foundation was receiving from Russian interest while she was Secretary of State.

ADI SATHI: Every interest.

CHRIS GODBEY: Every interest, but Russian in particular. So, you know, claiming that there's an investigation going on and saying that that might somehow indicate malfeasance is jumping the gun and probably not paying attention to the larger issues, which were the Democrats had documented proof already on the table and had Hillary Clinton won, it would have been out there public that this was going on as opposed to well let's see if we can stir something up through no concrete evidence.

AMT: And so as you guys work in Washington, you're young, you’re guys in the White House. What does that mean to you personally?

CHRIS GODBEY: I think from the perspective that I have as an individual that's been involved with politics for many years now since I was in college and grad school and everything beyond that with campaigns and elections. Being able to fight for things that I believe in and having the opportunity to finally see something come to fruition, I mean, I barely graduated high school by the time Barack Obama became the president. I haven't seen a time in which we've had a Republican president until now. It gives me hope that there will be change.

AMT: What kind of change you want?

CHRIS GODBEY: I mean, I hope that we can really tackle this issue of health care and really go back to making sure that we can provide for the American people to the best of our abilities and not, you know, necessarily go back to the days of what we have to do now with Obamacare that we used to have.

AMT: What happened to repeal and replace?

CHRIS GODBEY: I think it's still on the table.

AMT: Well it got killed because of Republicans disagreeing.

CHRIS GODBEY: I think that disagreements will happen. I think that's always going to exist but it doesn't mean that you can't go back to the chalkboard and try again and work hard and try and do what's right for the American people.

ADI SATHI: It was never something that the White House was going to be able to produce. Legislation like that has to come from Congress.

AMT: Why didn’t they help him?

CHRIS GODBEY: Well they did help him.

AMT: Not enough.

CHRIS GODBEY: Not enough?

AMT: Well it didn't pass.

ADI SATHI: No.

CHRIS GODBEY: The first attempt didn’t pass. And that doesn't mean that there won't be a second or a third and that doesn't mean that the long term plan isn’t focused on trying to fulfill the campaign promise.

AMT: Fair enough. So you make the point that you can't do it with a snap of a finger.

CHRIS GODBEY: Absolutely.

AMT: So why did Mr. Trump say that he could.

CHRIS GODBEY: Because he made it a priority. There's a difference. And that’s exactly--

AMT: No, he said he would sign it into office, he said I'm bringing it, I'm bringing it in right away.

CHRIS GODBEY: Yeah, the priority. He brought the priority right into office. Which is why it was the first thing that they attempted to put on his desk.

AMT: Four years from now, I know there's congressional elections in the middle, but four years from now when there's another election, what do you think your best selling point for President Trump will be for another four years?

CHRIS GODBEY: I think that the economic situation in this country, the market is going to be booming. I think that that by itself is something that's going to really drive a lot of people to support him. I think that you're going to see a return to a sense of pride in the United States, something that has been tarnished so to speak, in the foreign affairs of the world. I think that people are going to see the United States as a global leader again under this president. And I think that that by itself is going to be something that United States citizens are going to be extremely excited about.

AMT: His approval ratings are historically low right now for the first 100 days. Why?

ADI SATHI: Again, I think I want to go back to the way that the media has portrayed him all the way through the election cycle and all the way even to this day, if not it's only gotten worse. And so when people are sitting at home and they're not necessarily getting the real news, they’re not understanding what's really going on in the world. If there's something good that happens you never really hear about it. That's the sad reality. And also if you really believe in ratings and approvals and polls then Donald Trump would not be the president of the United States.

AMT: Fair enough. Thank you both. Adi Sathi cut his political teeth with Michigan's Young Republicans. Chris Godbey is the Political Director for the Young Republican National Federation. You are listening to a special edition of The Current coming to you from Washington DC, I'm Anna Maria Tremonti.

Back To Top »

Election forecaster Allan Lichtman predicts Trump impeachment

Guest: Allan Lichtman

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: There are many prisms through which to view these first 100 days in office for President Donald Trump. Allan Lichtman sees it all through an historical lens. He's correctly predicted a string of presidential election results. But in looking at Donald Trump he also sees historic parallels that he says could see things end badly. Allan Lichtman’s new book is The Case for Impeachment. And for that conversation I trooped out to his home in the Maryland suburbs and sat on his porch.

[Sound: birds chirping]

AMT: In September of last year you predicted Donald Trump would win the election and he reached out to you. What happened?

ALLAN LICHTMAN: He did. He's sent me a very gracious note written on The Washington Post article where I predicted his win and he said congrats professor, good call. And I have to say I've been making these calls since 1984 and he's the first winning candidate ever to reach out to me.

AMT: But what did he miss?

ALLAN LICHTMAN: He missed my next big prediction, which was part of that Washington Post interview in September of 2016 that Donald Trump would not serve out his full term, but in fact was likely to be impeached.

AMT: OK, so let's talk about this. What were the founders thinking when they came up with the concept of impeachment for a president?

ALLAN LICHTMAN: Yes. Impeachment was not an afterthought to the Constitution. After all, the founders had just released themselves from the tyranny of King George and they didn't want tyranny to be re-established in the United States, so they set up a system for electing the president and they set up checks and balances on the president. But they knew that a rogue president could crash through those checks. And as the ultimate safeguard for our democracy they put in the mechanism of impeachment.

AMT: So how would it work?

ALLAN LICHTMAN: A majority of the House of Representatives can decide on any basis. It doesn't require an indictable crime but any serious abuse of power could trigger and vote on articles of impeachment by the US House of Representatives, which only requires a majority vote. Then the indicted president is tried by the United States Senate with the trial presided over by the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. And the president is removed only upon a two thirds vote of senators present. But if removed, a president is subject to criminal prosecution just like any other American, which is why when Richard Nixon resigned the presidency Gerald Ford pardoned him of all crimes.

AMT: What similarities do you see between Presidents Nixon and Trump?

ALLAN LICHTMAN: Both men see themselves as beset by enemies, at war with the press because they want to be in total control of the narrative. They seem to have deep resentments of an establishment that somehow has rejected them. Neither man is guided by strong core principles but tends to focus on themselves. And both of them lack respect for the law, for American traditions and for basically telling the truth.

AMT: We move ahead to this time, the Republicans control the House and the Senate. They would have to turn against him would they not?

ALLAN LICHTMAN: Yes, Republicans would have to turn against him. But if Democrats stand firm on impeaching him, only some two dozen Republicans in the US House would have to turn to the Democrats to get a House majority. That's just 10 per cent of the Republicans in Congress. And let's not forget, the first rule of politics for incumbents is survival. And if Republicans perceive that Trump is a liability to their re-election going into 2018 they may be willing to jettison him

AMT: Before the election he was accused of sexual assault by a number of women. Could that come back on his presidency?

ALLAN LICHTMAN: Absolutely. Trump's alleged mistreatment of women could well lead to his impeachment. Here's how. He could be caught in the Bill Clinton impeachment trap. One of his accusers, former Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos is suing Donald Trump, not for sexual harassment but for defamation, claiming that her claims of sexual harassment were true and that by saying they were lies or made up or phony he defamed her and subjected her to all kinds of problems. And her attorney is the celebrity feminist lawyer Gloria Allred, who says I want to get Trump in court, I want to put him under oath, and if he lies under oath and of course he has a history of lying and a present proclivity to lie, if he lies under oath we want the Republicans in Congress she said, to hold him to the same standards that they held Bill Clinton. Because after all, it was lying under oath that set in motion the events that led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

AMT: What is it about Donald Trump's personality that you think makes him so susceptible to impeachment?

ALLAN LICHTMAN: Number one, Donald Trump has no regard for the truth. The truth for him is purely subjective. He once called it in his business career innocent exaggeration. I can basically say what I want and I decide what's true or not. Secondly, Donald Trump does not have really core guiding principles or ideology. Thirdly, he doesn't really understand or respect the traditions of the United States. And Donald Trump has no shame. As long as it's good for Trump nothing else matters.

AMT: You say the president's environmental policies could also lead to his impeachment. How so?

ALLAN LICHTMAN: This is my edgiest ground for impeachment. Look what he is doing. He's not only halting progress in combating climate change, he's throttling it back in every way, undermining the Environmental Protection Agency, issuing executive orders to roll back regulation, issuing a budget to slash the budget for climate change. The EPA has even removed the word science from its mission statement, it's just extraordinary. This could be considered a crime against humanity. I know that sounds far out but just recently the International Criminal Court prioritized crimes against the environment. It's the most serious threat humanity faces. And we're not part of the International Criminal Court but anyone in another nation that's part of a court could lodge a complaint because climate change is planet wide. I understand this is unlikely but we need to consider it.

AMT: Let's talk about Russia. You say a Russian sword of Damocles hangs over Trump's head and it is suspended by a slowly unraveling thread. What do you mean by that?

ALLAN LICHTMAN: I mean Donald Trump faces an unprecedented situation with allegations of collusion with the Russians. Right now there are three investigations going on. If any one of those investigations discloses evidence that the Trump team was colluding with the Russians and Trump knew about it, that's a serious crime, that's misprision of treason, failure to report treasonous activities. And of course if Trump himself, heaven forbid, was found to have colluded in any way with the Russians, he could be the first American president to be charged with treason. I'm not saying all of this is true but there sure is a lot of smoke. And look how the Trump administration has responded to the Russian controversy. It has all the hallmarks of a Nixon cover up. Deny, conceal, delay, deceive. And then when you're caught claim oh all of these contacts with the Russians were innocuous anyway, just like the Nixon team claimed that Watergate was just a third-rate burglary.

AMT: What advice then would you give to Mr. Trump to avoid impeachment?

ALLAN LICHTMAN: The moving finger has writ on, you know, the possible Russian collusion. And there's nothing he can do to erase one word of that but there are things he can do with respect to other possible grounds for impeachment. Most critically, he's got to divest. He is already just in the early stages of his presidency perhaps violating the Constitution. He has got to curb the Mussolini act. He's got to stop his war with the press. First thing dictators ever do is go after the press. He's got to stop attacking and demeaning the courts, he's got to respect the separation of powers. He’s not Mussolini, he's not a dictator. And I say another one of my most edgy things, bring a psychiatrist into the White House as part of the White House physicians team. We care for a president's physical health but we forget a president's mental health. And like look at the history of the presidency, many presidents have been afflicted with mental health issues. And I hope in this day and age that should be treated no differently than physical health issues. I also say get a fact checker. Stop lying. Tell the truth to the American people.

AMT: Are you suggesting he has a mental illness?

ALLAN LICHTMAN: I am not suggesting he has a mental illness. I'm not a psychiatrist but a number of psychiatrists have suggested that. And if you watch recent polls, a majority a healthy majority of Americans are worried about Donald Trump's temperamental fitness to be president. And look, you know, we are facing an eyeball to eyeball confrontation with that madman Kim Jong-un in North Korea who's got nuclear weapons. We need a president who's calm.

AMT: This week we are in the 100 day mark of Mr. Trump's presidency. But what you're suggesting could happen is that his own Republican Party might switch if what you've seen in this first 100 days continues?

ALLAN LICHTMAN: Right now 23 Republican members of the US House are sitting in seats in districts won by Hillary Clinton and there are quite a few others in vulnerable seats. Again, survival is the law of politics and if Trump threatens their survival they have little reason not to see him go.

AMT: Lots to think about. Thank you for your thoughts.

ALLAN LICHTMAN: Great conversation. Awesome.

AMT: Allan Lichtman is a distinguished Professor of History at American University in Washington DC. His book is called The Case for Impeachment. Still to come, it is a hell of a time to be a member of the media working in this town. The president loves to hate reporters, he's quick to call their work fake, his press secretary has a habit of making news himself. We have a special inside the beltway media panel waiting in the wings with their stories on what it's like to cover Trump. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti in Washington, this is a special edition of The Current.

[Music: Extro]

Back To Top »

Washington journalists share challenges covering 100 days of Trump

Guests: Jason Russell, Philip Rucker

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Hello I'm Anna Maria Tremonti, this is a special edition of The Current from Washington DC.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: The press has become so dishonest that if we don't talk about it we are doing a tremendous disservice to the American people. But we're not going to let it happen because I'm here again to take my message straight to the people. And I want you all to know that we are fighting the fake news, it’s fake, phony, fake.

[Sound: crowd applauding]

DONALD TRUMP: A few days ago I called the fake news the enemy of the people and they are, they are the enemy of the people.

AMT: Donald Trump has made it clear he is no fan of the mainstream media. And for the media it is clear that covering a president like Trump is not business as usual. As part of our eye on the media, we've convened a panel of journalists to help unpack the first 100 days of Mr. Trump's presidency and to share some of their experiences about what it is like to cover Donald Trump. Jason Russell is the contributors editor for The Washington Examiner. Philip Rucker is the White House Bureau Chief for The Washington Post. They are all here with me in our Washington studio. Hello and welcome.

JASON RUSSELL: Good morning.

PHILIP RUCKER: Thank you.

AMT: Philip Rucker, let's start with you. President Trump has been outspoken in his criticism of what he calls the mainstream media. Is the relationship as antagonistic as it seems?

PHILIP RUCKER: You know, it's quite antagonistic in public. You just heard him call us the enemy of the people. Although I'd like to think I'm a little nicer than that. [chuckles] But, you know, behind the scenes he wants the media. He knows he needs the media and he spends an inordinate amount of time trying to shape the way he's covered, shaped the narrative if you will. His advisers talk regularly to reporters on and off the record. They care a lot about what is said about him because they know that the president reads what's written about him. And he certainly watches what's said about him on the talk shows on cable television and he's a little bit obsessed with it frankly. And so that's a good thing I think for us reporters because we can understand what's going on.

AMT: He said in that clip, you know, go straight to the people. So is some of what he says about the media to actually feed into what he perceives as perceives or looks at the polls and sees it as a distrust of the media writ large? Jason What do you think?

JASON RUSSELL: Yeah I would say so. I mean, that's why he loves to use Twitter so much right? So he can just, you know, put out what he wants to say 140 characters at a time without anyone, you know, interrupting that direct connection to his followers. He loved that a lot. He used it a lot to great gain during his campaign. At the same time, while he says, you know, the media are the enemy of the people, I think he not just only needs the media but I think he loves the media because again he does love that attention. And even though there are so many new ways to reach the people directly, you know, through Twitter through social media, he still needs the media to spread most of his message out there.

AMT: I don't think I've ever heard a president who a Canadian prime minister say they love the media.

PHILIP RUCKER: [laughs]

JASON RUSSELL: I don't expect him to say it but I still think he feels it.

AMT: Yeah.

JASON RUSSELL: Even if he doesn't admit it.

AMT: The media has been criticized for living in a liberal bubble. How valid is that criticism Jason?

JASON RUSSELL: I think that's a fair criticism. I wouldn't ascribe it to every single reporter obviously or even most. But, you know, certainly that was, you know, part of the disconnect between reporters during the campaign. And not just reporters but pollsters as well. I mean, it's been fair in the past to just follow the polls and say that these are probably going to be right when it comes up close to Election Day. In the end, pollsters and most reporters were wrong. And so we do see this shift of outlets trying to do a better job of reporting on Middle America and, you know, the America that doesn't just live on social media or doesn't just live in politics every single day, which I think is very beneficial.

AMT: Philip Rucker, what do you think?

PHILIP RUCKER: You know, I think that's a fair point. I would point out that a lot of organizations including The Washington Post are doing pretty fair and honest efforts to, you know, understand the mindset of all of the many millions of people who voted for Donald Trump and to follow them through the course of his presidency to see what issues are resonating with him, and more importantly what issues that we talk a lot about here in Washington that are just frankly not resonating as much. The Russia investigation is a good example of that. And one of my colleagues on the White House beat at The Post, Jenna Johnson, actually spends about half of her time out in the country talking to voters and people in the Trump movement to really sort of understand the connection between the president and his followers.

AMT: And I guess, you bring up Russia. That's a good example. Some of the stuff that might be perceived to be in the weeds for the people actually matters. Does it not?

PHILIP RUCKER: It matters a lot. I think the problem with the Russia probe is at this point we don't have a smoking gun if you will, it's a bit complicated. We're talking a lot about sort of meetings and what might have happened or what might have been said or not said and all sorts of characters floating in and out. And it's a little difficult to follow. It's even more difficult when the president is using big labels like fake news to try to dismiss all of it. And so I think for a lot of voters out in the country who are not watching the news all day long, not, you know, monitoring all of the press briefings and on top of it as much as some of the people inside the beltway are, it can be difficult to sort of understand what's really going on on that issue.

AMT: Let's talk a little bit more about the fake news label. What has that done to the way Americans look at the way mainstream media covers the White House Jason?

JASON RUSSELL: Well, they're definitely gaining a lot more skepticism and I think that's warranted in a lot of cases, certainly not every single case. You can't just take a story that you don't like and assume that it's fake news. You know, if you learn that, you know, jobs are down and that's, you know, an official government statistic, you know, that's not fake news that's real life. At the same time though, we're seeing a lot of I think social media particularly is at fault for this, not that Twitter or Facebook can do something specific about this but you will see a lot of instances of people tweeting before getting context right? You see, you know, The New York Times tweeting about the Patriots and then later getting corrected. And you see, you know, certain writers or professors or whoever tweeting that, you know, Jeff Sessions said all illegal immigrants are filth, really he was just talking about illegal immigrant gangs. And so, you know, those tweets later get corrected but often they're not, the original initially wrong tweet is often not deleted. And so it gets thousands and thousands of retweets and then they follow up with a correction tweet but never delete the original and so there's all this misinformation out there that nobody sees the correction to.

AMT: What was the conversation like at The Washington Post Philip over this whole issue of fake news. Because journalists make mistakes and then they correct mistakes. Sometimes people are quoted out of context, but fake news is about creating a story that doesn't exist.

PHILIP RUCKER: That's right and that's what we actually saw during the campaign where there were, you know, literally individuals and organizations that were creating fake headlines and fake stories and pushing them strategically on social media through Facebook through Twitter to try to get fake ideas planted in people's heads. And that was a strategic deliberate effort. And that's different from what President Trump is talking about now when he says fake news. He uses the term fake news to apply to a report in mainstream media that he just doesn't agree with or that he thinks is slanted in some way against him. But it's a serious issue for us at The Post and I think for a lot of other news organizations because it's our reputation at stake and our credibility at stake. And that's what, you know, is the most important to us overall is our credibility and our trustworthiness and our honesty. And so I think every reporter including myself is just doubling down to make sure that, you know, everything that we're writing in stories, everything we're saying on the air, everything we're tweeting on social media is accurate, is complete information, is with the full context. And that's really important, especially now when the president is trying to blow the whistle as much as he is.

AMT: So both of you at your news organizations you're making more of a concerted effort to make sure you won’t go with something you see on Twitter or Facebook as quickly as you might have or it'll go through more people? Like this kind of stuff is going on now?

PHILIP RUCKER: Yeah. We always have. But I think now we're just more aware, we're hyper aware of the fake news threat, if you will. And, you know, we want to make sure that every time we're writing information about somebody that we understand the full context before we do it, that we've made a good faith effort to reach the person involved, that we've talked to the other players involved, that we’re sort of presenting accurate information as best as we can.

JASON RUSSELL: And we've always tried to do a good job at The Examiner of verifying things. You know, if it's a random report on Twitter that's not from someone substantial, we try to verify that with whoever we can, whether it's the administration or a campaign official or whoever. You know, particularly on our opinion side, you know, we're trying to make sure that we don't jump to an instant reaction. You know, we do want to react with opinions quickly. But, you know, we don't want to if there's a breaking instance about a shooting or something we don't want to write a piece right away that says, you know, don't jump to conclusions about shootings but have that piece itself be jumping to conclusions.

AMT: I want to stick with the idea of credibility of journalism because a Pew research poll of the American public out this month reported that almost three quarters of Americans said the quote, “unhealthy” that's the word they use, unhealthy relationship between Trump and the media was getting in the way of public access to important news. And I'm just wondering how damaging the relationship with Trump has been to the credibility of journalism?

PHILIP RUCKER: It's quite threatening. I would say it's damaging less to the credibility of journalism and more to the public's ability to have information about the government. For example, the White House visitor logs. This is something that President Obama and his administration made open to the public. There was a regular release, a list of all of the people who visited the White House for meetings. And that's important to know sort of which industries are trying to influence the administration officials and so forth. Well Trump has closed the door on that and said we're not going to release that. In part, you know, the administration claims because it's a national security threat. But I think that speaks more to the hostility with the media and a feeling that the media could not be trusted to report on the visitors to the White House fairly and that you could, you know, take a line item on that list of somebody who's visited and and misconstrue something that would hurt Trump and so they've shut that down, which now means the public does not know who's visiting the White House.

AMT: And this matters huh? I mean, it's not about the privacy of who goes in there, it's what's going on in the name of the American public?

PHILIP RUCKER: Exactly. And it's an accountability measure for public officials. I mean, everybody who works at the White House is not working on a political campaign, they're not working for Donald Trump personally, they're working for the American people. Sean Spicer the White House Press Secretary is the spokesperson for the United States government paid for by the United States taxpayers. And so there should be proper accountability measures in place. And that was part of the release of the visitors logs, it's also frankly one of the reasons that presidents over many many years have released their personal tax returns so that you know what sort of financial interests and potential conflicts of interest might exist. That's something that Trump of course has refused to do.

AMT: Jason, you want to speak to that?

JASON RUSSELL: Oh yeah. I mean, in terms of Trump's relationship with the media being damaging to the media itself, certainly it's been an issue. But at the same time I think that's largely an issue especially among Trump supporters, but at the same time among, you know, very liberal people as well. I mean, increasingly so, you know, media is becoming a horizontal, right? You're getting so many new outlets it's not necessarily the case anymore that you have just, you know, two newspapers in each American city and that's where you get most of your local news plus maybe, you know, a national TV news show. You know, you have all these other outlets so you can get, you know, your personalized news that only shows the news that you like, which is increasingly a problem for how people consume their news.

AMT: What are the press briefings like now? I know that they've kind of shaken up what goes on in those briefings. Used to be the same person always got the first question, the most senior, I think, person.

PHILIP RUCKER: The Associated Press.

AMT: Yeah. And does that--

PHILIP RUCKER: And before that Helen Thomas.

AMT: That's right. Does that still happen?

PHILIP RUCKER: It does not. [chuckles] The press briefings frankly have become performance art. You have Sean Spicer coming out literally to perform for the cameras, to perform for his boss, President Trump, who oftentimes is watching from his office. And, you know, he'll oftentimes call first on conservative reporters, people who represent conservative outlets hoping that it might be a more favourable question. He likes to bounce around the room. One of the reasons he did away with the initial practice of many many years of starting with the Associated Press to try to, you know, open up access to more outlets that have not traditionally had a lot of access to the White House. We're there every day. Me or my colleagues are there everyday and we try to ask questions. But, you know, frankly I see it more as a performance hour for television. And I do most of my reporting individually with sources either in their offices behind the scenes or on the phone.

JASON RUSSELL: It is certainly new that, you know, the White House press briefing is on a daily routine is basically almost must see TV at least for political reporters and people who are involved in politics daily. That wasn't the case necessarily under Josh Earnest in the Obama administration. So that is new. But, you know, I do think it's beneficial to have a wide variety of outlets, you know, getting access and getting questions. You know, not necessarily just conservative ones, you know, it would be good to also ask liberal leaning outlets questions as well. But, you know, I think that speaks to, you know, that Middle America that was missed in reporting during this last election. You know, you do have these outlets that do have, you know, very segmented portion of the population among as their main audience. And so when they're asking these questions they're asking these questions that that segment of the population that's under reported on is interested in.

AMT: And it's interesting of course, it is true so much so that there are many ways to cover a government and you don't solely cover a government with the televised press briefings that happen every afternoon. But let's talk about this because, you know, I was reading Molly Ball has a piece on Kellyanne Conway in The Atlantic this month. And she talks about she actually uses the phrase Trump's looking glass version of reality and Kellyanne Conway’s signature verbal fog. Like, you’re journalists, you're covering a politician, you're covering the president of the United States. I know he's your president but are there times when you feel that you've gone down a rabbit hole? Or that you got whiplash from so much spin? Like this is different.

PHILIP RUCKER: Every day.

JASON RUSSELL: [laughs]

PHILIP RUCKER: And, you know, what it is different now. But that's not to say previous administrations haven't been spinning. I mean, there was plenty of spin, plenty of frustrating spin from the Obama White House. But it is different now. You have the president and his aides trying to contort themselves verbally to deny reality sometimes. And it can be painful to watch, it can be frustrating as a reporter to be in the middle of that. And I think we have a responsibility as journalists to, you know, call out what the facts are. And if this is spin then say so, if somebody is saying something incorrect then correct them in your story and that's what we try to do.

AMT: Jason.

JASON RUSSELL: And I certainly think, you know, when it comes to that kind of thing, the media used to go to [unintelligible] and on an outrage and everything and everything used to be in saying this has to be, you know, spread everywhere. But with smaller instances, you know, for example yesterday the government, sorry, Trump said that, you know, the Governor of Maine Paul Lepage had lost a lot of weight and it was hilarious. And, you know, that's something unusual for a president to say certainly. That was going down the rabbit hole moment but it was just a brief moment. And people reported on that briefly and said hey this is funny but then we all moved on to the bigger issues of tax reform and NAFTA and all kinds of things.

AMT: What about those times when it looks like something delusional is under way? I read the transcripts of the AP interview with Mr. Trump that, you know, marking 100 days. There were parts of it that did not make sense.

PHILIP RUCKER: Yeah. [chuckles] You're correct about that. I covered Donald Trump through the campaign and did my own interviews with him that didn't make sense at some points.

JASON RUSSELL: [laughs]

PHILIP RUCKER: And that transcript, and I just have to say that's how he talks. And when you see the word written out in a transcript it can sometimes seem worse than it appears, you know, face to face when you're interacting with him because he doesn't speak in full sentences, he doesn't speak in complete thoughts, he sort of his mind is moving a hundred miles a second. He's just veering from topic to topic to topic to topic and he gets very easily distracted. And, you know, that ends up looking like he's spitting out a bunch of words. But that's how our president is and that's his unique [laughs] way of speaking I guess.

JASON RUSSELL: The common phrase that we use is, you know, that you have to take President Trump seriously but not literally with every single word he says. And so I think that's a good thing to say when you look at a transcript like that especially. You know, unfortunately I don’t think the media has as much leeway there. They need to remember that they're being taken literally with everything they report so it's extra important for them to make sure every word is accurate.

PHILIP RUCKER: I will say though he is the president of the United States and when he makes a statement, that's a statement from the White House from the president of the US government. It should be taken seriously and literally. He may not want it to be taken literally but those are the words coming out of his mouth and he the president, he's not a private citizen, he's not a businessman, he's not a reality television host anymore. What he says matters.

AMT: And so that goes on the record and then people can decide for themselves. We look at what happened yesterday, there was a note coming out from Reuters that he was considering an executive order to withdraw the United States from NAFTA. And this comes after, you know, a back and forth on softwood lumber and dairy with Canada. And then last night he says I will renegotiate and after I've spoken to the president of Mexico, the prime minister of Canada and I'm going to renegotiate. That seemed like a, have you seen that happen in the past?

PHILIP RUCKER: It was a crazy 12 hours, I'll tell you that.

JASON RUSSELL: [laughs]

PHILIP RUCKER: I was at the White House all day yesterday in a bunch of meetings with different sources and you just had a clear sense of momentum as the day built that, you know, initiating the process of withdrawing from NAFTA was something that the president had decided to do and that they would be doing in short order. And then suddenly you had a lot of pushback on Capitol Hill from Republican senators, including John Cornyn of Texas who's the number two most powerful Republican in the Senate saying this would be a disaster, it would be bad for trade, bad for the US, bad for our neighbours in Canada and Mexico. And then by the end of the day we got news of this phone call that he made both to Prime Minister Trudeau and to President Peña Nieto in Mexico City, you know, where he agreed not to withdraw and terminate from NAFTA but instead renegotiate the agreement on his own terms, on better terms rather, for all three countries but especially in Trump's view for the United States. But one thing stuck out in the way the White House characterized that call, which was that the White House said that Trump had agreed not to terminate NAFTA for now, for the time being. Which means this is an ongoing negotiation, his position could well change if not today then, you know, within the next few weeks, that's the way he operates.

AMT: So the important part of that reporting, the part that actually tells us what's really going on behind the scenes is that phone call from the congressional leader to Trump's office that says you can't do this this way.

PHILIP RUCKER: I think the backlash from the Senate had a big thing to do with Trump changing his mind there. But it's also the way he does deals, the way he negotiates and did in business and now here in the White House, which is he puts out an extreme marker takes an extreme position and then backs away from it in an effort to sort of cut a deal with the negotiating partner, in this case two partners, Canada and Mexico. And I think he, you know, wanted the provocative headline that he would withdraw from NAFTA almost as a negotiating tactic.

AMT: Jason Russell, some news outlets have used the word lied when discussing things the president has said. If what he says is false, should the media be calling him a liar?

JASON RUSSELL: Yeah I think that's fair. And I think, you know, we've seen an increasing use of chyrons on cable news where the, you know, that says Trump says blah blah blah, in parentheses it says he can't do that or that's not true, whatever. Which I think is fair. You know, there is a responsibility there when it's objectively not true to say yes the president cannot do this or the president, you know, the courts will likely, you know, do x, y, z when, you know, if there's an executive order or whatever. But, you know, certainly when it comes to, you know, it is fair to provide context but there's also a division there between opinion and objective reporting of course. And, you know, if you just disagree with what the president's doing or disagree with his analysis, you know, you can provide other analysis that says otherwise. But, you know, the reporter themselves shouldn't be the ones saying no this isn't going to happen or no that's not true.

AMT: So Philip Rucker, what's been the hardest part of covering this president?

PHILIP RUCKER: I think the hardest part has been trying to figure out what the truth is. And what I mean by that is there are so many factions within the White House, so many of his aides have different ideological points of view and are competing against each other over ideas but doing so in the public square in the media, that it can be very difficult sometimes to figure out what the reality is what, what the truth actually is and on a specific issue. So that means that you have to talk to, you know, four or five different White House officials about a specific issue in order to really figure out where the centre, what the reality is and that hasn't always been the case. It used to be in most White Houses there would be sort of a designated talker who would be the point person for the media on an issue. You could go to that person, find out what the administration's position is on that issue and pretty much take it to the bank that that was the position. In this case, you go to Kellyanne Conway you get one version of events, you go to Steve Bannon you get another, you go to Jared Kushner you get yet a third. And that's because they're all trying to persuade the president one way or another. But it means as a reporter you just have to constantly be talking to different sources trying to get as much information as you can and trying to figure out yourself where the reality is.

AMT: Jason Russell, what are you going to be watching for in the next 100 days?

JASON RUSSELL: Certainly I'll be watching for his relationship with Congress I think is always really interesting to me. I think as a business executive, Trump is used to having employees who he can just say do this and go do this or you're fired. Perhaps that's the view he tried to take with Congress at first but that's not how Congress works. They're elected by their constituents, their first and foremost priority is getting re elected by their constituents. And so, you know, he's I think he's got a lot of pushback from Congress that he didn't expect to get. You know, we saw that a lot with the healthcare fight. You know, he I think he just expected that people would like the American Health Care Act because Trump said it was good and that they should pass it. That wasn't the case. And so then he tried to kind of, you know, go extreme and say well this is your one chance to repeal Obamacare so vote for this or you get nothing. And that didn't end up working. So it's a very interesting dynamic in Congress.

AMT: Philip Rucker, what will you be watching for in his next 100 days?

PHILIP RUCKER: A couple of things. Certainly the congressional relationship, that's front and centre. But the other thing is North Korea and what's going on around the world. There's obviously a rising threat in North Korea. The administration every day seems to be taking more of a war footing in the approach to the threat on the Korean Peninsula. And I'm very interested to see how President Trump handles that. He has never dealt with a situation like this in his life. He's new to government, he's new to foreign affairs when it comes to issues of war and peace of course. And, you know, I'll be interested to see how he handles the threat.

AMT: Is the administration speaking in one voice on that one? Like at the Pentagon briefings and things like that?

PHILIP RUCKER: Not exactly. [laughs]

JASON RUSSELL: [laughs]

PHILIP RUCKER: But that's partly because there are many players involved, the Pentagon is involved, the State Department is involved, the White House national security advisor is a key player, the intelligence community is involved. But I think more and more they're trying to get on the same page and speak with a unified voice. They had all 100 senators over at the White House yesterday for a briefing with four of the principal officials involved and, you know, gave a central message, although the senators later complained that it wasn't enough detail of course, but they're trying to get on the same page.

AMT: OK. Well we have to leave it there. Thank you both for coming in and talking about this. I know you work very long hours to cover the US administration so thanks for coming in.

PHILIP RUCKER: Thank you very much.

JASON RUSSELL: Thank you.

AMT: That is Jason Russell, he is the contributors editor at The Washington Examiner. Philip Rucker is the White House Bureau Chief for The Washington Post. They're here with me in our Washington studio. Let us know what you think of what they had to say, you can tweet us we are @TheCurrentCBC, find us on Facebook. Go to our website cbc.ca/thecurrent and click on the contact link. A reminder you can take The Current with you to go on the CBC Radio app, you can browse through past episodes of our show, start listening in a few seconds, search for stories you missed or want to hear again or listen live to your local CBC station right from your smartphone or tablet. We're almost out of time but while we were here in Washington we headed to the souvenir shop too and I found a pen with a Donald Trump bobble head on it talks.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP BOBBLEHEAD: I will be the greatest president that God ever created.

AMT: It just keeps on going.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP BOBBLEHEAD: Look, I’m really rich.

DONALD TRUMP BOBBLEHEAD: I will build a great great wall on our southern border and I will have Mexico pay for that wall.

AMT: I should say that the Obama magnets that you put on the fridge have been moved to the side and this is much more prominent now. Here we go again.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP BOBBLEHEAD: I don’t wear a toupee, it’s my hair, I swear.

AMT: I'm Anna Maria Tremonti, thank you for listening to this special edition of The Current from Washington.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP BOBBLEHEAD: I love China, I just sold an apartment for 15 million dollars to somebody from China.

[Music: Extro]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

April 27, 2017 full episode transcript

More Stories Like This